District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons has dismissed the criminal charges against 15 Republicans charged with falsely attempting to certify President Donald Trump as the winner of the 2020 election. It is a major loss for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) (shown left), who garnered public support in trying to prosecute the Michigan electors.
Simmons was appointed by Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2019, and concluded: “I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress.” She found no evidence of intent to commit fraud, and held that the Republicans “seriously believed” there were issues with the 2020 presidential election.
In early November 2020, polls indicated that a significant percentage of the population questioned the election’s outcome and the integrity of the voting process.
Michigan Attorney General Nessel employed a scorched-earth approach to those questioning the election. Viewed as arguably the most partisan Attorney General in the state’s history, Nessel is often compared to New York Attorney General Letitia James.
In this case, she charged each defendant with eight charges of forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. The most serious charges carried a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
At a news briefing after the judge’s decision, Nessel strongly suggested that Simmons was merely cowering in fear of retaliation in reaching her decision. She referred to judges’ “fear of retaliation and the ongoing intimidation of threats.”
When pressed on the extraordinary claim of intimidation by the press, Nessel seemed to double down, stating that “it’s likely that in some circumstances, there are judges out there that think about the threats they’ve received.”
It is enormously insulting to this judge and, ironically, engages in the same type of attacks for which Democrats have criticized Trump.
Nessel has a history of public diatribes and political attacks on opponents, as well as major losses in some headline-grabbing cases.
This prosecution has taken two years. Nessel said that she is debating her next move.
This decision highlights how complex and nuanced legal proceedings can be, especially when they intersect with political events and public debate. Courts must apply legal standards objectively, and dismissing charges when evidence or legal grounds are lacking is part of ensuring fair treatment under the law.
Regardless of personal viewpoints on the politics involved, this reminds us that balanced and thoughtful engagement—in politics, health, or daily life — often leads to better outcomes than impulsive reactions. Taking care of our overall well-being through mindful self-care, routines, and wellness habits supports clearer thinking and resilience. For practical tips on daily wellness and balanced self-care, check out https://tezvi.in/
Every Day and I mean Every Day a Democrat will stick their neck out and spew nonsense. As an example it wasn’t more than a couple of days ago that I heard: “He’s not a Socialist, but is a Democratic Socialist” WHAT(?): are the flock of Democrats so naïve to believe that such a governmental structure actually works, yea I know take the incentive of a better life and yield it to the mass, and you’ll be forever happy. In addition they have forfeited Common Sense to their Haloed Ideology as Lenin preached: (I paraphrase) “settings about building a proletarian socialist state”. Defining Common Sense: seeing errors/dangers before they become burdening or injurious to your well being and taking actions to prevent their continuation”.
Making a name dor herself on the taxpayers dime..
“Nessel said that she is debating her next move.” That is, her next retaliatory move. The 15 wrongly persecuted should also be debating their next moves, which should include lawsuits against the State of Michigan to recover damages and, to the extent the law in Michigan or precedent will permit it, suits against Nessel herself.
This prosecution violated Federal civil and criminal statutes against the abuse of power under color of law.
“This prosecution violated Federal civil and criminal statutes against the abuse of power under color of law.”
No, it did not. This prosecution was done in accordance with the law. The court did not find the actions of the 15 to be legal. The court only found the prosecution did not have evidence to prove intent. There may be an appeal.
“The court did not find the actions of the 15 to be legal.”
Upon dismissing the charges, here is what judge Simmons ruled: “I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress.”
Wish as you might, your words do not create reality.
How was were the civil rights of those 15 alleged fake electors were violated?
Where they falsely arrested? Discriminated against? Used excessive force? What exactly did these defendants experience that would justify using 18 USC 242?
Who would they sue? They can’t sue the prosecutors.
Turley says: “In early November 2020, polls indicated that a significant percentage of the population questioned the election’s outcome and the integrity of the voting process.”
1. How many voters constitute the “significant percentage” according to Turley? Is it even half? Why is there no statistic or link to a statistic so readers can determine just how “significant” the number of election questioners are?
2. The more importan, and overarching question is: WHY would any “significant percentage” of the population “question the election’s outcome and the integrity of the voting process”?
Everyone knows it’s because of Trump’s Big Lie, but instead of discussing the outrageousness of a presidential candidate lying about nonexistent fraud, even to the point of inciting an insurrection, Turley attacks AG Nessel for going after people who believed the Big Lie and tried to falsify election results. Despite the passage of time and hundreds of audits and investigations, as well as 60+court losses and Giuliani’s disbarment for lying to courts, there remains NO evidence of widespread voter fraud. Trump LOST in 2020 because more people voted for Biden–and his sore loser performance after that proves just what a weak narcissistic person he is. Falsely attempting to certify Trump as the winner, when clearly he wasn’t, is illegal–being gullible enough to believe a chronic, habitual liar and narcissist like Trump is NO defense.
1. There were multiple instances of Trump winning in a certain location at midnight on election day, only for a massive dump of ballots suddenly to appear in the middle of the night skewing in a percentage that would have made Saddam Hussein blush. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?
2. In the Democrat stronghold of Atlanta, election officials announced that all counting was done for the night, told the election monitors to go home, and shut off the lights. Half an hour later they came back with no election monitors present. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?
3. Election monitors in the Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia were only allowed to view the tabulation through tiny CC TV cameras, which you couldn’t actually make anything out. When people instead attempted to look in through the large windows to monitor the tabulation, the windows were boarded up. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?
4. An analysis of voting patterns found that the patterns were largely the same as the previous election, which is generally a pattern followed over decades, except in four key places where democrats controlled the election process which showed a significant swing not seen elsewhere. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?
5. Were you aware that the Supreme Courts of both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ruled that Democrats administering their respective elections violated their state constitutions? However, because the court process took so long, they decided not to overturn the election. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?
And that isn’t even going into things like ballot harvesting of unsecured mail-in votes…
BRAVO!
“1. There were multiple instances of Trump winning in a certain location at midnight on election day, only for a massive dump of ballots suddenly to appear in the middle of the night skewing in a percentage that would have made Saddam Hussein blush. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?‘
It would be suspicious for those ignorant of the vote counting proccess. There were a lot of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots still not counted by the time polls closed. People expect immediate results when absentee ballots and Mail-in ballots have to be counted, sometimes by hand. Every state and district has it’s own counting quirks. None of that means fraud occurred. It means too many who have no idea how the process works start making assumptions and speculations when results don’t meet expectations. Especially when they were sure one candidate was definitely going to win without any evidence of that fact until all votes are counted.
“3. Election monitors in the Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia were only allowed to view the tabulation through tiny CC TV cameras, which you couldn’t actually make anything out. When people instead attempted to look in through the large windows to monitor the tabulation, the windows were boarded up. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?”
Philadelphia polling places were geting mobbed by paranoid Trump supporters and threatening poll workers on rumors that votes were being added illegally. Many of those poll workers later sued and won defamation cases when they were falsely accused of adding votes or not counting Trump votes. Something along those lines.
“4. An analysis of voting patterns found that the patterns were largely the same as the previous election, which is generally a pattern followed over decades, except in four key places where democrats controlled the election process which showed a significant swing not seen elsewhere. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?”
What patterns? Remembe we had the COVID pandemic going on and voting was different.
“5. Were you aware that the Supreme Courts of both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ruled that Democrats administering their respective elections violated their state constitutions? However, because the court process took so long, they decided not to overturn the election. Might someone reasonably find that suspicious?”
Pennsylvania Supreme court ruled the legislature’s changes to ( act 77) election laws were constitutional.
In Wisconsin’s case in a 4-3 decision, the court dismissed the majority of the claims on procedural grounds, citing the legal doctrine of laches. The court found that Trump and his allies had waited too long to challenge the election procedures in question.
For the one claim it considered on its merits—regarding indefinitely confined absentee voters—the court ruled against Trump. It concluded that the challenge was invalid because it targeted all such voters, rather than questioning specific individuals.
The conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn authored the majority opinion, joining the court’s three liberal justices to form the majority.
I no longer recall the percent in Nov. 2020, But before J6 the precent according to several polls was 56% of the population – including 10% of democrats.
Subsequent polls asking if the 2020 election results are trustworthy have had even higher numbers distrusting the results.
There is not a majority of people that beleive that a specific form of Fraud altered the 2020 election.
But a clear majority beleive that some form of bad conduct altered the election outcome.
They could beleive that is was the lies about Covid,
Gaming the release of the vaccine
tossing asside election laws.
or stuffing ballot boxes.
There are still people who beleive that DVS rigged the election – while that has been established as incorrect, that does not mean that DVS behaved flawlessly and with integrity. Public remarks by DVS executives are a reasonable foundation to beleive they intended to rig the election. And there are massive problems with their software that are excellent reasons to distrust their results. But just like this case – there is no evidence of intentional fraud by DVS
Incompetence and stupidity and error – absolutely.
“1. How many voters constitute the “significant percentage” according to Turley?”
I provided some numbers above – but I would note that during the american revolution the country was about evenly divided in 3rds. 1/3 loyal to England, 1/3 who did not take sides, and 1/3 seeking political dissolution with england.
There is ample evidence from socialology that if governmetn has VIGOROUS disent from about 11% of people – i.e. they are willing to go to jail oposing govenrment – that government will collapse. A majority is not needed.
You can not hold a legitimate election if even close to half the people beleive the election was conducted outside the law and/or fraudulently.
“how “significant” the number of election questioners are?”
Why do the rest of us care what those who bought the collusion delusion, the russian disinformation hoax, the biden competence hoax, a long raft of covid lies and on and on think ?
What matters is that those who think the 2020 election is highly suspect are those who were NOT duped by every other left wing hoax.
And why would we beleive the same people who lied abut the collusion delusion, russian disinformation, Biden’s competence – and now aparently almost 1million jobs allegedly created in the tail of the biden administration ?
Why should we beleive that people who would lie and use the power of govenrment to silence those who tried to expose that lie would not also commit election fraud ?
One of the biggest problems that you have with the 2020 election – is that you – the left have burned your credibility to ash.
“2. The more importan, and overarching question is: WHY would any “significant percentage” of the population “question the election’s outcome and the integrity of the voting process”?”
Because you did not follow the law or the constitution in conducting the election.
38 states – including Michigan have constitutional provisins REQUIRING in person voting.
This is an anti-fraud measure – a very important one.
Without changing the constitution or the law – those of you on the left ignored it.
Once you go lawless, you are no longer to be trusted.
If as you say people have chosen to irrationally beleive Trump – SO WHAT ?
That is how the democracy that you constantly rant about works.
Trump did not put a gun to peoples head.
He did not bribe people to beleive him.
He made arguments that you do not beleive and others do.
YOUR track record regarding what you have and in many instances still beleive is pretty damningly bad.
The People YOU claim have been duped by Trump – have beleived things that near universally have proven true.
If this is a question of credibility – YOU LOSE.
With respect to Trump’s credibility – we are dealing with the same issue.
Trump made promises in order to win in 2016. To a larger extent than any prior presidential candidate he did what he promised. He reiterated the same promises in 2020 and 2024 and added additional ones, and now in 2025 seems determined to deliver as rapidly as possible on most of those campaign promises.
There will be no 3rd Term for Trump. But there is little doubt he would win easily if he could run.
But the GOP will face a problem in 2028 – there is not as of yet a candidate that people Trust in the way they Trust Trump.
You can rant about alleged Trump lies and Naciscism all you want. The FACT is people do not beleive you.
And you can not longer censor or otherwise abuse govenrment power to try to force people to beleive you or disbeleive Trump.
Trump is neither coercing or inducing people to beleive him.
He is successfully persuading people.
He is doing so by delivering on promises.
Those of you on the left would be ecstatic if Trump was actually lying – just as Obama lied when he said we would be out of Iraq and Afhanistan in 90 days. Not because it took more than 90 days – but because Obama clearly did not mean what he said and did not even try to accomplish it.
The left is happy with politicians that lie and in doing so preserve a slowly leftward decline.
They are happy whether those politicians are democrats or republicans.
You are unhappy with Trump – not because he lies, but specifically because he has told the truth.
Because he is doing what he says he will.
What overwhelming majorities of people want.
John Say,
Well said and spot on!
“Trump did not put a gun to peoples head.
He did not bribe people to beleive him.
He made arguments that you do not beleive and others do.”
He did the next best thing. Lie. Sadly a lot of people believed him and now it’s like a conspiracy theory that won’t go away. Like the Epstein files scandal.
“Trump is neither coercing or inducing people to beleive him.
He is successfully persuading people.
He is doing so by delivering on promises.”
He uses extortion and coercion thru threats of funding cuts.
“Those of you on the left would be ecstatic if Trump was actually lying”
He is actually lying, He’s been lying since he came down that escalator.
It wasn’t that long ago that inverts were persecuted. Now it is the inverts who are the greatest persecutors.
The obvious – but missed – comparison by Professor Turley, given his experience as defense counsel: not a single Democrat that previously attempted to prevent the certification of Bush or Trump’s election was even investigated, never mind charged.
Similarly: not a single Democrat who offered monetary bribes and other inducements to Electoral College voters to be faithless electors and vote for Clinton instead for Trump who won their state was ever investigated – never mind charged.
But Professor Turley’s fellow Democrat lawyers in public office know that, even if they can’t actually finish the job and jail Republicans, just investigating them and even charging them is a success: The Process Is The Punishment.
Legal fees, dragged through the news, time spent dealing with it, damage to reputation, etc – Democrat success!
Not what happened in 2004 or 2016.
2004: Democrats objected to a rightfully-chosen slate of electors. They did not offer an alternative slate of electors.
https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
2016: After the election, Politico reported in Nov. 2016, some Democrat electors were trying to rally support for other electors to not vote for Trump – this was what was termed “rogue electors” at the time. Likewise, some electors considered not voting for Clinton in states Clinton won. Again, this is not a slate of fake electors.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731
Perhaps you should put less reliance upon folks like Ron Johnson’s “alternative facts”
“Not what happened in 2004 or 2016. ”
Not relevant – it DID happen in 1876 and it DID happen in 1960.
There is zero doubt it is both legal and constitutional.
It did not happen in 2016 – but it is well documented that Clinton seriously considered the “tribe plan” which the eastman plan is just a copy. In fact most elements of Eastman’s plan are the same as Tribes because Eastman did not beleive even democrats were hypocritical enough to prosecute anyone for following THEIR PLAN.
What did happen in 2016 was WORSE – Clinton and cronies sought to publicly get electors to change their vote.
That would include in Michigan. You have argued here that changing your vote is illegal – that would make a conspiracy to get electors to change their votes also illegal, yet no one was prosecuted.
“Democrats objected to a slate of electors.”
They have done that in every presidential election that republicans have won in my lifetime.
The reason for offering alternate electors is to avoid disenfranchising millions of people in a state.
It takes 270 EC votes to win. Rejecting a states slate of electors without replacing them radically increases the risk the election is thrown to congress – which has not happened since Jefferson Burr.
Congress cna choose whatever slate of electors it wishes – answerable only to the voters in the next election.
But they can not chose a slate that does not exist.
” After the election, Politico reported in Nov. 2016, some Democrat electors were trying to rally support for other electors to not vote for Trump – this was what was termed “rogue electors” at the time. Likewise, some electors considered not voting for Clinton in states Clinton won. Again, this is not a slate of fake electors.”
Correct “faithless electors” are a real thing – Fake ones are not.
“Perhaps you should put less reliance upon folks like Ron Johnson’s “alternative facts””
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
On atleast 4 occasions in 2 elections congress has chosen an alternate slate of electors over the state certified slate.
The federal courts have rule over 100 years ago that is a legitimate means to challenge an election.
That is not “alternate facts” it is ACTUAL facts.
It is separately true that while Democrats have not actually offered an alternate slate of electors since 1960, that they have openly contemplated doing so in 2000 and 2004 and 2016. The fact they considered it – is consistent with its historically established legality. Why they chose not to go forward – and in 2016 persue an approiach that actually IS illegal, is their business.
@Anonymous
Yes, reputation so damaged we elected him again, with a dem administration in-between. You people are pathetic, and your echo chambers require the metric system (i.e. millimeters) to even measure to sound significant they are so infinitesimally tiny. George Soros may have big bucks, he sure doesn’t have a big audience of supporters, it’s all a smokescreen. If you all would like to continue destroying Europe, you go – it isn’t going to fly here.
Once again I urge the ‘good’ anonymous posters to find a VPN, a separate user agent, and a screen name, because you are being ignored right along with this engagement farming garbage, and that’s a shame because your posts are worthwhile. It isn’t *that* hard to protect your privacy, and we lose out with your ‘good’ anonymity.
The Epstein birthday book with a card from Trump is an obvious fake.
Don Jr and Eric have already testified under oath that Trump never gave them birthday cards.
I am confused about the process. This appears to have been a pre-trial dismissal yet it is based on the absence of evidence of intent as a factual matter. Can anyone clarify the legal basis for dismissal here, and the process involved?
I do not know the details here.
But a judge is obligated to dismiss a case if the prosecutor is not offering evidence of a required element of a crime rising to atleast more likely than not.
I would guess that Judge Simmons is ruling that Nessel did not provide evidence of Mens Rea in here indictment and charge.
Prosecutors are REQUIRED to provide the courts with evidence of all elements of a crime in order to have a trial.
A prosecutor can not bring a case based merely on accusation.
But a prosecutor MUST provide evidence of EVERY element of the crimes charged meeting a bar much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt just to start a trial.
The absence of evidence of an element of the crime or less commonly weak evidence of an element of a crime can get a case dismissed at multiple points from pre-trial through appeals of the verdict.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Yet another absolutely side-splitting dose of comedic genius from good ole Johnny Say.
When you need a good laugh, you can always count on Johnny to come up with brilliant piece of true political satire.
Keep it up Johnny.
We are loving it !!!!!
You are clearly not smart enough to tell the difference between legal analysis, as John Say provided, and comedy.
Does it hurt to be so dumb? Or do you enjoy being lame and putting it on display for all to see?
but John Say doesn’t provide legal analysis. He reads through other comments or consults his wife, then offers an armchair legal summary based on this collection of info. He is not a lawyer or in the legal field at all.
John – looks like you’ve picked up a lamebrained stalker.
If only he was actually finny.
Do you suppose being a same sex “marriage” bull lesbian has anything to do with her perverse abuses? It defines and explains it…
For years I’ve wondered how Ms. Nessel’s sexual orientation would manifest itself in her office’s choice of what, who, and how to prosecute.
Meanwhile violent predators are allowed to roam, brutalize and murder the flock, when will the Sheep Dogs be released?
“Nessel said that she is debating her next move.”
How about OnlyFans? She couldn’t do worse than she’s already done.