• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan judge tosses out criminal charges against 2020 Trump false electors

So, according to this judge, the proper way assert one's 1st amendment rights and to seek redress of grievance regarding an election outcome is to prepare and submit fake elector documents. Good to know.
Can you quote the portion of the ruling that says that?
 
So awesome that we can now have fake electors, Democrats better be paying attention.
 
Can you quote the portion of the ruling that says that?
According to the OP link,

Simmons in Ingham County's 54A District Court said she believed the Republicans were exercising their constitutional rights by seeking a redress of grievances about the election, . . .
 
So, according to this judge, the proper way assert one's 1st amendment rights and to seek redress of grievance regarding an election outcome is to prepare and submit fake elector documents. Good to know.

Democrats, get busy!
t-he-point-when-over-your-head-right-over-your-head.gif
 
According to the OP link,
Right, so nothing about her claiming it to be the "proper way assert one's 1st amendment rights" as you said earlier. Whether or not you agree with the speech has nothing to do with whether it's legal. That's kind of the whole point.
 
Bottomline, the fake electors got off because the prosecutor couldn’t prove that they weren’t too stupid to know they had committed fraud.
This is fine but generally revealed at trial. The judge cannot determine intent without a trial. What I'm having difficulty accepting is that they had a constitutional right to falsify elector certificates.

WTF?

At least one of the morons still wrongly believes that Trump won.
 
Biased right wing judge makes biased decision, another day that ends in Y.
 


Maybe the judge was afraid of what might happen if they didn't side with them.

EW5UWpnWkAAdBzp.jpg:large


:rolleyes:
 
Scary that stealing elections like this would be considered legal. We have lost our way.
Proving fraud requires consciousness of guilt, something that these rubes were not allowed to believe. They were told their signatures would be used if the Congress overturned the fraudulent election in their state, not, in fact, to overturn the certified election in their state. They went after the wrong people for this fraud. I, personally, blame Merrick Garland and the USSC for their epic foot-dragging.
 
Biased right wing judge makes biased decision, another day that ends in Y.
Yeah, sure... tell us you didn't read it without tell us.

A real "MAGA" type! /s

"Judge Kristen Simmons, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer,"


1757434274920.webp
 
Well, more Democrat lawfare exposed, who is surprised? Nobody. They did get away with stealing the election. On the bright side, Trump would be gone now if they didn't steal it, but he'd not. Thank God for Trump.
 
Well, more Democrat lawfare exposed, who is surprised? Nobody. They did get away with stealing the election. On the bright side, Trump would be gone now if they didn't steal it, but he'd not. Thank God for Trump.
I agree. But I'd still like to see Trump give the Dems a dose of their own medicine. See how they like lawfare when it is directed at them.
 
Back
Top Bottom