so objectively speaking, how is certifying illegal votes treasonous?

I've heard many Anons say this tonight.

Has anyone pulled up law codes to verify?

How, in any way, is it illegal to verify electors under these circumstances?

The issue really lays with the courts that refused to hear the evidence, not with Congress or pence, right?

Congress isn't guilty of any crime except being willfully ignorant to my understanding.

What they may be guilty of behind the scenes is a different story, but simply going through with the process isn't illegal, is it?

Looking for sauce here. Don't roast me too bad, I'm staying objective and trying to get to the real truth, not just self-made confirmation bias.

Honesty and truth will prevail, so let's sauce that shit and spread it like wildfire on social media, if it exists.

>>12371062

So it would have to be proven that they knew what was happening.

That makes sense. but:

So far, because the courts haven't even entertained the evidence (in most cases), nobody knows anything (officially).

What's the proof they knew?

>>12371066

>>12371069

>>12371081

>>12371110

>>12371159

I get that.

But in a court of law, how do you prosecute it if you can't prove they knew it was fraudulent?

There's gotta be some kind of proof they knew or it's not, in official capacity, 'knowingly'.

I'm not new and I'm not shilling.

I'm looking for a dose of reality to share with literally everyone on Earth.

I personally haven't seen a document saying, for instance, Adam Schiff knew about the plot and is certifying anyways.

All I can gather so far is that the opportunity to see evidence has been rejected by all the courts.

We all know they will fight this in court, and their best argument would be "I didn't know anything was going on"

>>12371138

The whole point is you can't bring someone to court without reasonable cause, but once the trial begins, evidence can be presented.

I'm asking how it's provable theyknewanything.

The evidence, at this point, has not been admitted into record.

There has not been an official court case yet where evidence has been admitted into record.

So, in official capacity, nobodyknowsanything.

Unless we can get the evidence we all know is piping hot into the record, it's not legally evidence.

And after today the vote will be certified, so now an additional challenge arises:

How can it be proven they knew about it before they certified?

>>12371331

The tribunals angle obviously changes everything.

fuck.

I suppose the answer to my original inquiry is 'we are not supposed to know what they definitely knew or definitely did not know and when'

until tribunals.

back to hopium.

>>12371537

2 more weeks

If he says 'Awomen' again, I'm gonna throw a chair

>>12371647

>>12371656

phew

>>12371731

Literally.

There's 2 more weeks.

>>12371806

That doesn't say he concedes