In recent court proceedings in Michigan, state investigator Howard Shock called ex-President Donald Trump an un-indicted co-conspirator in the context of a criminal case in the state over the preparation after the 2020 presidential election of claimed electoral votes for Trump from Michigan. The sham electoral votes emerged alongside similar efforts in half a dozen additional states — all of which were won by Joe Biden.
Shock did not provide details in the proceedings about allegations of Trump’s personal involvement, although the former president himself remains under indictment in two other criminal cases at federal and state levels that allege a range of conspiracies targeting the 2020 presidential election results. Shock, meanwhile, also characterized Trump allies Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani as un-indicted co-conspirators amid the case. Both of them were charged in the Georgia case as well.
The currently unfolding court proceedings amid the Michigan case are oriented around the judge eventually deciding whether those behind the criminal prosecution made a sufficient showing of probable cause. The case did charge individuals who actually participated in the Michigan elector scheme as sham electors themselves, though one such individual already struck an agreement.
Similarly situated individuals have also faced criminal charges in Georgia and Nevada, and in Arizona, an investigation is apparently continuing. Though it wasn’t a specific indication that they would face charges, pro-Trump GOP Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs — both of Arizona — were even subpoenaed amid their state’s probe. The Arizona investigation only got off the ground to such an extent after Democratic contender Kris Mayes won the role of state attorney general in the 2022 elections.
Trump was personally linked to potential election subversion in Michigan with previous reports alleging he participated in a phone conversation with individuals involved in certifying the 2020 election results in which he and then-Republican Party leader Ronna McDaniel dangled a possibility of providing legal representation if those on the other end went along with their ambitions. Some suggested the prospective arrangement constituted an attempt at bribery.
