The decision was made early on by democrats and key republicans alike to "get rid of Trump"...and they did.
After the fraud, Pence was given three opportunities to stand against the theft: the letters from state legislatures requesting a hold on certification (and Constitutionally they override everything else), Ted Cruz's formal request for a two week delay to audit specific counties within specific states and the request from republican senators and representative to allow the objection of certification to go forward on Jan 6.
Pence had the authority to return the certification of electors to the state legislatures -- in fact, I'm unclear on the authority he had under the Constitution to deny these requests.
Pence did not want to fight for the truth, the man or his voters. Period. He openly realigned himself with the swamp --- and he did so estimating this to be his best path to the Oval Office in 2024.
If it's easier, look at this another way: Imagine what could have happened if Pence had through word and action supported the efforts from the President, the legislatures and the voters for a full audit of the contested vote counts --- from the beginning.
Imagine, just imagine, what would have happened if Mike Pence had done the honorable thing for his voters and his nation and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the President through all of this.
He, chose not to. Pence held the keys to righting this election and he willingly, deliberating tossed them to the socialists.
Mike Pence has surrendered any claim to consideration or benefit of the doubt. He has earned the political shunning coming his way.
.
I’m not aware of anyone who’s saying the election wasn’t stolen. Just that not all of us believe that there were servers in Germany that still haven’t seen the light of day.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
First I could care less that Mike Pence, was VP as WE have no say in it. I just recall that the Trump family especially Melania was influential in that choice. I also believe that President Trump had a lot of respect for him and a close relationship with him. Otherwise why would he have him having lunch with him ALMOST EVERYDAY?
What does get me is people calling him a traitor etc; I have done a lot of digging and I CANNOT see IF you believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law, that VP Pence had any another choice then to do what he did.
Right_in_Virginia says;"After the fraud, Pence was given three opportunities to stand against the theft: the letters from state legislatures requesting a hold on certification (and Constitutionally they override everything else)"
From what I read ALL those votes WERE certified when ALL the electors met in December. A few of them can't just all of a sudden say Hold on. Where in the Constitution does it say they can override everything else?
"Ted Cruz's formal request for a two week delay to audit specific counties within specific states and the request from republican senators and representative to allow the objection of certification to go forward on Jan 6."<
Where in the Constitution does it say they can do that?
Pence had the authority to return the certification of electors to the state legislatures -- in fact, I'm unclear on the authority he had under the Constitution to deny these requests.
Where does ALL this come from? Once those votes had been certified by the electors and the date if the certification had been set by the Constitution and Rules the only thing that could be done was on Jan 6th.
Snippet: The rules of Congress' Jan. 6 session governing the counting of Electoral College votes will remain identical to those used for decades, under a resolution adopted Sunday by the House and Senate.
On Jan. 3rd Pelosi called the joint chambers to go over The rules for the electoral vote. They were passed on voice votes in both chambers, in keeping with recent history in which they've been uncontroversial afterthoughts in the process of finalizing the results of presidential elections.
As dozens of Republicans in the House and Senate threaten to challenge President-elect Joe Biden's victory — citing baseless claims of widespread fraud and irregularities — the rules have taken on new prominence, but NONE of those Republicans sought to block the adoption of the rules, even though some had supported an effort to block them in court.
Congress adopts rules governing Jan. 6 Electoral College count"
QUESTION:
Do Electoral College votes have to be certified by January 6? What happens next?
ANSWER:
The date is fixed for January 6 but has been changed before. In order for the date to be changed, lawmakers must pass new legislation.
SOURCES:
U.S. Code Title 3, Section 16
U.S. Code Title 3, Section 17
Congressional Research Service Report
The United States Consitution<>BR> Michael Thorning, Associate Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center
PROCESS:
The January 6th date has been set in the Constitution, but the date for the count has been changed several times before. The Congressional Research Service cited the 2013 count when January 6 fell on a Sunday, so the new date was pushed to January 4.
According to U.S. Code Title 3, Section 17, each objection can take up to two hours, meaning even before the events of today unfolded, it was possible for the objections to last well into the morning hours.
Under U.S. Code Title 3, Section 16, the joint session from Congress to certify votes “is to continue until the count is completed and the result announced.”
The code goes on to say that recesses are also limited “if the process of counting the votes and announcing the results becomes time-consuming.”
There is no mention of how to proceed in the event of an emergency like what unfolded Wednesday. Lawmakers were able to reconvene and continue the certification process Wednesday night.
Micheal Thorning, associate director for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the Electoral Count Act requires Congress to “begin counting the electoral votes on January 6, but it need not end that day.”
“The statute recognizes that this process could be lengthy and imagines the process could take in excess of five days in some cases,” he continued. “The statute does not provide a deadline to complete the counting but requires that the joint session not be dissolved until then and until the results are announced. Even if the counting went beyond January 20th, when a president and vice president’s term would end, the presidential line of succession would be activated. In such a case, the Speaker of the House would likely be the first officer to become acting president until the Electoral College process is completed and a president declared.”
Section 16 also governs the seating of Senators, Representatives, and officials (the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, the Members designated as tellers, and other administrative officers of the House and Senate.)
Back on January 3, the House and Senate each passed rules that were identical to other electoral counts in the past, expecting business to go as usual.
Here is another read on the Constitutional and Laws governing the Electoral voting.
Objecting to the Counting of One or More Electoral Votes
Provisions in 3 U.S.C. §15 include a procedure for making and acting on objections to the counting of one or more of the electoral votes from a state or the District of Columbia. When the certificate or equivalent paper from each state (or the District of Columbia) is read, “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. The objection “shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof.... ” During the joint session of January 6, 2001, the presiding officer intervened on several occasions to halt attempts to make speeches under the guise of offering an objection.
From Here
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
THOSE FEW LETTERS THAT WERE PRESENTED ON JAN. 6TH DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE SENATOR THAT HAD SIGNED ONTO THEM. THEREFORE THEY HAD TO BE DISCOUNTED.