Is it a defense to the charges if they produce evidence that would support a fraudulent election that, if counted properly, would have elected Trump?
Or is it a metaphysical certitude that the election was dead nuts on the mark?
My brother wants to know.
“if they produce evidence that would support a fraudulent election”
If they had done this, or even gotten a new case open, or even said “pending legal proceedings” then they would not have been able to be charged. But the legal cases were already lost. So it really was a fraudulent claim that they were the duly appointed electors.
The Pennsylvania GOP electors have avoided legal trouble, simply by saying e votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors.”