I would be willing to stipulate to your point about Trump's electors. With that being said I would say they became "invalid" instead when the tallies were tabulated in the State legislature and officially certified then submitted to congress.One way Trump could create a disagreement would be if it was a Secretary of State who certified the electors and not the legislature and trump could get the legislature to raise an objection, possibly in light of any evidence of shenanigans he or others might produce. The legislature may have delegated such authority to the SoS (but could reclaim it) or perhaps the SoS had been doing so in the past without the express delegated authority from the legislature (the situation in PA, I believe although there it would be secretary of the commonwealth)
And is everyone clear on the fact that each candidate picks his own slate of electors before the election? The idea of 'false electors' is a bit misleading, as if Trump came up with them after the election. The two slates of electors exist early on and then the winning candidate submits his list to the controlling authority to be certified. Trump would have had an existing slate of electors and was just trying to create the right circumstances whereby there could be a dispute about which slate was legitimate - sort of like getting opposing verdicts on the same issue from different appellate courts is a short cut to review by SCOTUS
IMO where Trump went wrong is when they tried to submit their "invalid" slate to Congress. So maybe I would say invalid instead of false if that's agreeable to you.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to get personal about this discussion, I know sometimes certain members try to make it personal.
I'm just trying to hash out differing opinions.
Last edited: