Michigan 'fake electors' will not face a criminal trial, judge rules
Source: NBC News
Sep. 9, 2025, 10:36 AM EDT
Fifteen so-called fake electors in Michigan will not face a criminal trial over their alleged involvement in efforts to overturn former President Joe Biden's 2020 election win in the state, Judge Kristen D. Simmons announced Tuesday. "These cases will not be bound over to the circuit court," Simmons, a state district court judge, said. "Each case will be dismissed."
Simmons said the Michigan Republicans involved in the effort were trying to seek redress after Trump’s loss and attempted to perform their civic duties.
"The prosecution would like the court to believe that these named defendants were savvy or sophisticated enough to understand fully the electoral process, which the court does disagree because the document that was presented doesn't even align with the level of sophistication that they want me to believe," she said before announcing her decision.
NBC News has reached out to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office, which brought the charges, for comment. The decision caps off a years-long court saga over the alleged efforts to deliver the state for President Donald Trump.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/michigan-fake-electors-will-not-face-criminal-trial-judge-rules-rcna230066
This was going on in state court. I think the other states with active "fake electors" cases (AZ, GA, NV, WI) are still proceeding (albeit, slowly). There were 7 total, including 2 (PA, NM) that couldn't/chose not to prosecute due to how the certificates were submitted with a "caveat" clause.
REFERENCES
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143101877
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143181620
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143193630
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143194380
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143233152
= new reply since forum marked as read
The judge reportedly said that prosecutors failed to demonstrate any intent (of fraud) by the fake electors. Didn’t they willingly sign a document that they knew was fraudulent?
I suppose the argument is that they didn’t know it was fraudulent, because people were (on the basis of flimsy evidence that was in fact bullshit) maintaining that TSF had won the vote in our state. It’s really disappointing that the judge bought this line of rubbish.
A miscarriage of justice. Was the judge threatened or coerced?
[IMG]
[/IMG]