Michigan judge dismisses case against 15 alleged 'fake electors' in 2020 election

 

"I believe that they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress, and that's based on the statements of all of the people's witnesses," said the judge. "For those reasons, these cases will not be bound over to the circuit court. Each case will be dismissed."

 

Turns out that Al Gore wasn't doing anything wrong,,,  (He had alternate electors, too- in case the hanging chads went his way).  Neither was Trump trying to steal an election.

 

From ABC:  The case was announced in 2023 by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who charged 16 Republicans -- one of whom later cooperated with the prosecution and had his charges dropped -- with forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery.

 

The charges stemmed from a meeting on Dec. 14, 2020, where the group allegedly met "covertly" and signed certificates falsely claiming they were the state's duly elected electors in an effort to reelect Trump president.

 

During the hearing, Judge Simmons said the prosecution failed to establish that the electors intended to defraud anyone.

 

I hope they sue for malicious prosecution.

 

Michigan judge dismisses case against 15 alleged 'fake electors' in 2020 election - ABC News

 

https://abcnews.go.com/

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Michigan judge dismisses case against 15 alleged 'fake electors' in 2020 election

 

"I believe that they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress, and that's based on the statements of all of the people's witnesses," said the judge. "For those reasons, these cases will not be bound over to the circuit court. Each case will be dismissed."

 

Turns out that Al Gore wasn't doing anything wrong,,,  (He had alternate electors, too- in case the hanging chads went his way).  Neither was Trump trying to steal an election.

 

From ABC:  The case was announced in 2023 by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who charged 16 Republicans -- one of whom later cooperated with the prosecution and had his charges dropped -- with forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery.

 

The charges stemmed from a meeting on Dec. 14, 2020, where the group allegedly met "covertly" and signed certificates falsely claiming they were the state's duly elected electors in an effort to reelect Trump president.

 

During the hearing, Judge Simmons said the prosecution failed to establish that the electors intended to defraud anyone.

 

I hope they sue for malicious prosecution.

 

Michigan judge dismisses case against 15 alleged 'fake electors' in 2020 election - ABC News

 

https://abcnews.go.com/

 

 

 

 

The legal system worked to dismiss a weak case, the dems went out of their way to criminalize legitimate electoral strategies .  And now comes the party that felt the chaos of the dem assault on democracy. We've seen the  the GOP establishing a  committee on the Weaponization of Government agencies,and their expert witnesses come to testify on the various methods of Dem lawfare used to go after their political foes.

".........the dems went out of their way to criminalize legitimate electoral strategies......"

 

I don't follow....how can 'fake electors' be a legitimate electoral strategy?

 

Anyone?

From the judge....

 

The defendants sincerely believed there were election irregularities.........so anyone who felt the election was stolen would be justified in taking any action they felt necessary to right the wrong?

 

They were not sophisticated enough to understand the full implications of the documents they signed....so stupid people can sign any contract and back out of it on the grounds they are incredibly dumb?

 

 

Their actions were framed as an attempt to seek redress, which is protected under the Constitution.....like storming the capital or assassinating a president?

 

WOW!!!!

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

From the judge....

 

The defendants sincerely believed there were election irregularities.........so anyone who felt the election was stolen would be justified in taking any action they felt necessary to right the wrong?

 

They were not sophisticated enough to understand the full implications of the documents they signed....so stupid people can sign any contract and back out of it on the grounds they are incredibly dumb?

 

 

Their actions were framed as an attempt to seek redress, which is protected under the Constitution.....like storming the capital or assassinating a president?

 

WOW!!!!

 

You missed the part where "alternate electors" have been used many times over the past 100+ years.  It wasn't until "get Trump" that they were ever prosecuted.

 

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You missed the part where "alternate electors" have been used many times over the past 100+ years.  It wasn't until "get Trump" that they were ever prosecuted.

 

 

the Michigan defendants submitted documents falsely claiming....I think you missed this part????

 

While alternate slates of electors have appeared in U.S. history, they were only considered valid when backed by state authority or during periods of genuine electoral uncertainty.

 

In contrast, the Michigan defendants submitted documents falsely claiming to be the state's "duly elected and qualified" electors for Donald Trump—despite the state having certified Joe Biden as the winner. 

49 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

the Michigan defendants submitted documents falsely claiming....I think you missed this part????

 

While alternate slates of electors have appeared in U.S. history, they were only considered valid when backed by state authority or during periods of genuine electoral uncertainty.

 

In contrast, the Michigan defendants submitted documents falsely claiming to be the state's "duly elected and qualified" electors for Donald Trump—despite the state having certified Joe Biden as the winner. 

 

The judge seems to disagree. 

 

Just to play nice, I linked an ABC News article.  Where half the staff probably threatened to quit if they included any details that exonerated Trump or conservatives.   Of course, if I had linked to a Fox or DCNF article, that would have become the arguing point.

 

If you watched Turley, Jarrett, or Dershowitz, you'd get an explanation of why alternate electors were perfectly legal and a very common practice when there's any question about the results.  And Texas, 17 other states and over 150 congressmen agreed there were enough questions to pause the process.  It's all in the Texas vs Pennsylvania lawsuit of December, 2020 (and the amicus briefs).  Which was denied, not on the merits, but on standing.

 

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

You missed the part where "alternate electors" have been used many times over the past 100+ years.  It wasn't until "get Trump" that they were ever prosecuted.

 

Of course, it's not true! The fake elector plot is different from the previous alternate lists, openly prepared in case recounts would switch the election results. 🤣

 

Not after the required recounts and audits were made. 

Not a secret activity, the previous alternate electors list were made according to an open procedure.

Not a coordinated scheme accross several States.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/recordings-trump-team-fake-elector-ballots

 

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors

 

https://usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/10/how-trump-and-his-allies-fake-electors-bid-compares-to-a-1960-case/70703750007/

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The judge seems to disagree. 

 

Just to play nice, I linked an ABC News article.  Where half the staff probably threatened to quit if they included any details that exonerated Trump or conservatives.   Of course, if I had linked to a Fox or DCNF article, that would have become the arguing point.

 

If you watched Turley, Jarrett, or Dershowitz, you'd get an explanation of why alternate electors were perfectly legal and a very common practice when there's any question about the results.  And Texas, 17 other states and over 150 congressmen agreed there were enough questions to pause the process.  It's all in the Texas vs Pennsylvania lawsuit of December, 2020 (and the amicus briefs).  Which was denied, not on the merits, but on standing.

 

 

 

So you didn't read my post?