“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.”
“So it really was a fraudulent claim...”
The claim may not have had aqequate legal merit at a particular time or place where that would have been necessary.
But by no means does that necessarily render it “fraudulent”.
You concede waaaaay too much.