By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a significant development, a Michigan judge dismissed criminal charges against a group of individuals accused of attempting to falsely certify Donald Trump as the winner of the 2020 election, citing a lack of intent to commit fraud. The 15 Republicans, including prominent members of the state’s GOP, faced forgery and conspiracy charges related to signing a document falsely claiming they were the state’s duly elected electors. The judge determined that the defendants believed they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress. Following the ruling, Attorney General Dana Nessel expressed disappointment and said that she is considering an appeal.
Read the original article here
Michigan judge tosses case against 15 accused fake electors for President Donald Trump in 2020 is a shocking turn of events, isn’t it? It’s hard to wrap your head around how a judge could dismiss charges against individuals who, essentially, tried to overturn the will of the voters. The whole situation just feels… wrong.
It appears the judge, Kristen D. Simmons, saw no intent to commit fraud in their actions. Seriously? The very act of gathering and signing documents to falsely represent themselves as valid electors for Trump, when they knew they weren’t, seems like pretty clear evidence of intent to me. The fact they apparently made a “spectacle” of it, as the judge pointed out, is supposed to somehow absolve them? That’s like saying someone can’t be guilty of a crime because they shouted about it while committing it.
The judge’s reasoning that they “seriously believed” there were problems with the election is another head-scratcher. Even if they genuinely believed the election was flawed, that doesn’t give them the right to subvert the democratic process. You can’t just decide to ignore the law because you *think* something is wrong. The potential precedent here is terrifying; the idea that “belief” alone can excuse illegal actions opens up a Pandora’s Box. If I *believe* I can commit a crime, then I can do it?
The reactions to this ruling have been, well, expected. The folks on the right immediately start calling themselves victims of a conspiracy, while many others are left shaking their heads in disbelief. It’s infuriating to see what appears to be a blatant disregard for the truth and the rule of law. It’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder if Lady Justice has had her scales adjusted lately.
It’s hard not to feel like this ruling is a direct result of the current political climate. The idea that someone might be angling for a Supreme Court seat, or that they are influenced by outside factors like who butters their bread, is troubling. This is the kind of thing that eats away at the very foundations of our democracy. It sets an awful precedent. This decision leaves the impression that those in power get a free pass, while everyone else is held to a different standard.
And it’s easy to see why people are so disheartened. There is actual evidence of election interference, of people trying to manipulate the system. Yet, it seems like nothing happens. This ruling feels like a slap in the face to every voter, to everyone who believes in the sanctity of the democratic process. How is this person still a judge?
The mention of the 1960 Hawaii election, as seen by the Google AI extract, is interesting, but I think that the comparison is not analogous to the Michigan case. The situation in Hawaii involved a genuine recount and an ongoing legal dispute, not a deliberate attempt to submit false electoral votes after the results had been certified. There was a true state of uncertainty with an ongoing recount at the time of the “dueling electors”.
The “fake electors” in Michigan were not facing the same kind of uncertainty; the election results were clear, and the outcome was not in doubt. Their actions were a blatant attempt to overturn a legitimate election result.
The open display of the “fake elector” actions is being used to distract from the fraud by some in the legal system. To be that loud and confident about it is like the way modern fraudsters operate. It’s a bold, brazen strategy that seems to be working, at least for now. It’s a disturbing sign of the times, a sign that perhaps we are seeing the slow death of truth and accountability.
It also brings up the uncomfortable issue of financial motivations. The amount of money flowing around in politics and the depths people will sink to for money and power. It’s almost as if the system is rigged, and that some people are above the law.
And this isn’t just about Michigan. If this ruling stands, it could potentially embolden other actors in other states. This case could become a blueprint for future attempts to undermine elections, because those actions were done so publicly.
If the judge’s decision is not overturned on appeal, it would be a monumental setback for justice. It would send a chilling message that the rule of law doesn’t apply equally to everyone and that even the most brazen attempts to subvert democracy can be excused. The prosecutor should appeal this case.