So it demands him to knowingly commit a crime by knowingly certifying a fraud?
That is what is being claimed.
He personally knew and had access to the knowledge that a fraud had been committed.
And what does it mean when you are aware of a crime and facilitate it?
It wasn’t extra constitutional to kick it back.
Especially since only the state legislatures can alter state election laws, and they didn’t.
Courts and sec state did against the law.
When you are aware of a crime, don’t facilitate it.
"So it demands him to knowingly commit a crime by knowingly certifying a fraud? That is what is being claimed. He personally knew and had access to the knowledge that a fraud had been committed. And what does it mean when you are aware of a crime and facilitate it?"
Ok, honest questions. Whatever you have been told the role of the VP is at the Meeting of Electors, I have just told you the truth -- his functions are Constitutionally mandated as I described. And he discharged his Constitutional obligations exactly as the Constitution prescribes.
"It wasn’t extra constitutional to kick it back."
To "kick it back" to the states? But that is exactly what he did, the VP acknowledged the 1+1 objections and away both houses went to deliberate. It is strictly up to the Senate and the House which Constitutionally BOTH MUST validate the 1+1 objection by a majority. There is no Constitutional rule for the VP to say, "I don't agree with the fact that the House failed to disqualify this state's slate of Electors."
"Especially since only the state legislatures can alter state election laws, and they didn’t."
Which is not even remotely the purpose or the presentation of January 6.
"Courts and sec state did against the law. When you are aware of a crime, don’t facilitate it."
And yet when there were faithless electors on Jan. 6, 2017, we pursued them in the Courts to the point where this very website celebrated SCOTUS 9-0 decision in Chiafalo v. Washington that punished faithless electors in 2016.