If enough Senators challenge the election results, Trump wins.

T. Belman.  “enough Senators” means a majority of the Senate.  I don’t see where this is possible given how much McConnell and others have thrown Trump under the bus. Can it be that Trump is gambling on this.  I doubt it.

A more likely path is to get the State Legislatures to decertify the Biden Electors before proceedings on the Jan 6th session can be concluded.  I put it that way because there must be a maximun of debate of 2 hours for each objection..  The process would be carried over to at least Jan 7th.

Only 36 votes must be decertified for Trump to win. Thus PA and GA alone would be enough.

Finally, I think it is possible for Pence to refuse to count electors from contested states in which case Trump also wins.

By Andrea Widburg, AMER THINKER

Sen. Josh Hawley (R. MO) officially stated that he will object to the Electoral College vote count to be held in the Senate on January 6. May this courageous man be the first of many Senators to take a stand against the overwhelming evidence of election fraud. If neither candidate wins enough Electoral College votes on January 6, Trump should win – and it’s all in the Constitution without the need for any strained statutory interpretations.

Let me start with an overview of what happens on January 6. It’s crucial to appreciate how this can end if Hawley is joined by several Senators who refuse to certify Electoral College votes achieved through manifest fraud. I’ve culled this information from Petr Svab’s excellent article at The Epoch Times (hat tip to Dan Bongino):

The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution is the primary authority for events on January 6. The Electoral Count Act (3 U.S.C. § 15) plays a role but, thankfully, that Act is probably unconstitutional in one very specific and important way.

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the President of the Senate (i.e., Mike Pence) opens the certificates sent from the states “and the votes shall then be counted.” That’s all that the Constitution says about the Vice President’s role.

Meanwhile, 3 U.S.C. § 15, enacted in 1887, after prescribing details for conducting the count, says that members of Congress can object. If one House member and one Senator objects, that triggers a separate vote about the objection by both the House and the Senate. If both House and Senate agree there’s a problem, the challenged Electoral Votes are gone.

In this election year, having voices in the House and Senate to challenge the results is important. As we’ve seen, courts have punted on the question of fraud, effectively denying due process of law, not just to Trump, but to every Trump voter. When no Court will allow evidence on a matter of preeminent importance, it’s up to the People’s representatives to get the evidence before the public.

However, we know that no amount of evidence of fraud will get the House to agree that Electoral College votes for Biden are invalid. So, what happens when only the Senate votes to reject the Electoral College votes on the basis of fraud?

Well, this is the point at which the Electoral Count Act is confusing and almost certainly unconstitutional. It says that, if the two bodies vote differently regarding competing Electoral College votes, the votes that the state’s governor has certified win. This will hand victory to Biden. By so holding, though, the Electoral Count Act runs directly afoul of the Twelfth Amendment.

As I wrote in September, when no one was paying attention to this kind of thing, the Constitution is remarkably clear on the subject. If there are not enough Electoral College votes to hand victory to any one candidate – as will be the case if the Senate refuses to accept Electoral College votes predicated on manifest and overwhelming fraud — the Constitution spells out who picks the winner: Fifty members (one for each state) from the newly seated House of Representatives decide.

Here’s the Twelfth Amendment’s language:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. (U.S. Const., Amendment 12, Clause 3.)

What’s of signal importance here is that the House as a body does not vote. Instead, one House member from each state votes. Handing the matter to the House in this way makes eminent sense because this is the body closest to the most recently expressed will of the American people. If the Electoral College failed, at least the majority of voters in each state will speak through the majority of House members from their state.

Under the 20th Amendment, the vote takes place, not with the currently seated House, but with the incoming House. The incoming House has 27 states with a majority of Republican representatives, 20 states with a majority of Democrat representatives, and 3 states that are tied. That spells a clear victory for Donald Trump.

In brief: If Senators follow Hawley’s lead and take a stand against the fraudulently generated Electoral College votes. At that point, under the Twelfth Amendment, there is no elected president, and the matter returns, not to the full House, but to a single representative from each state. And so, Trump wins.