The Georgino simply doesn’t have it right.
The VP counts the votes... and does it however he wants to... as that is a very direct and exclusive grant of authority to the Executive Branch as defined in Article Two... which exists to empower the Executive.
And, as that asserts a directive to the VP, as “shall”... that plenary power created is made unique... HOWEVER, it does not exist in a vacuum independent of other, parallel, obligations... such as that requiring the VP, as part of the Executive, ensures the laws are faithfully executed...
That, of course, means ALL OF THEM... not just the ones you might find convenient.
Efforts made at ennlisting Pence in furtherance of a fraud being practiced... by a handful of states, and their felonious governors... seems to me very much like an offer that Mike Pence can refuse.
I disagree with both of you.
Both of you imply that the law is clear — although each of you sees it as clear in a different direction. I think that we are, to a great extent, in uncharted waters, with no binding precedent. The comparatively brief language of the Constitution cannot and does not give precise guidance for every specific situation that might arise. For one thing, it was written when there were no absentee ballots and for that matter not even any secret ballots. Men (only men) voted by standing up in a public assembly and orally announcing their choice.
Under the current circumstances, there is at least a fair question about what role Mike Pence can play in the challenge. He is entitled to take a position on that question, given that neither view of the matter could be dismissed as frivolous or clearly wrong.