Beyond the Pardons: Constitutional Crisis Behind the State ‘Fake Elector’ Cases |Part I — The Law
The public has been told that President Trump’s seventy-seven pardons were an audacious act of defiance — a reckless display of executive power meant to shield his allies from justice. Yet the truth, obscured beneath layers of partisan outrage and media choreography, is that these pardons brought closure on the federal level against the very phenomenon now unfolding in state courts: the weaponization of justice. This week, I am filing an amicus curiae brief in one of these state cases, presenting evidence never before introduced in any court of law, hoping to prove that the selective criminalization of one political faction’s conduct violates the fundamental principles of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
Trump’s clemency was not a political stunt but a constitutional act — an attempt to shield individuals from prosecutorial excess and coordinated lawfare masquerading as accountability. Ironically, it was pResident Biden — or perhaps more accurately, the autopen acting in his stead — who invoked the same constitutional mechanism through a series of quiet, preemptive pardons, including that of Harry Dunn. The intent mirrored Trump’s in form, if not in narrative: to insulate favored figures from the reach of political retaliation. In both instances, the act itself revealed an uncomfortable truth — that the American justice system has drifted from the impartial application of law toward an instrument of ideology, where outcomes are predetermined by allegiance rather than evidence.
The Guardian’s recent hit piece on Ed Martin () is no coincidence in this landscape; it is part of the same machinery that distorts, targets, and silences anyone exposing the inconsistencies in these prosecutions. The real constitutional crisis isn’t that Trump issued pardons, or that Biden quietly did the same — it’s that the very need for such preemptive measures reveals a justice system now used as a political weapon. The “fake elector” cases crawling through state courts are not evidence of accountability but of imbalance, built on a fractured legal foundation that collapses under scrutiny of the Constitution, federalism, and history itself.
If the evidence and arguments I present in my amicus which you will read about in Part II, the attorneys general pursuing these prosecutions may find the repercussions turning back on them, as discovery would inevitably uncover what they least want revealed—internal communications, political directives, and suppressed evidence that expose their intent, their coordination, and the selective justice underpinning every charge.
A presidential pardon is one of the most powerful and constitutionally granted tools available to a U.S. president. It stems directly from Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the power to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” That final clause — “offenses against the United States” — is crucial. It means that a presidential pardon applies only to federal crimes, not to state or local ones.
When a president issues a pardon, it forgives the legal consequences of a federal conviction or potential federal offense. It does not erase the conduct itself, nor does it declare the recipient innocent; rather, it removes federal legal penalties such as prison sentences, fines, or loss of civil rights. A pardon may be granted after conviction, or pre-emptively, even before charges are filed — as was famously done by President Gerald Ford for Richard Nixon in 1974.
FEDERAL VS STATE
The United States has a dual system of sovereignty — both the federal government and each individual state have their own criminal codes, courts, and prosecutors.
Federal crimes are violations of U.S. laws passed by Congress. These often involve conduct that crosses state lines or affects national interests — such as mail fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, immigration offenses, drug trafficking, espionage, or crimes against federal officials.
Whereas State crimes, are violations of a particular state’s laws, prosecuted by that state’s attorneys general or district attorneys. These include most traditional crimes such as assault, murder, burglary, theft, or local corruption.
Because these are distinct systems, a presidential pardon cannot reach into the state system. Each state’s governor (or in some cases, a clemency board) holds the equivalent power to issue pardons for state offenses.
Is A Felony Automatically a Federal Crime?
The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors exists in both state and federal law, but the core principle is the same. Simply, a felony is a more serious offense, typically punishable by more than one year in prison and a misdemeanor is a lesser offense, usually punishable by fines or up to one year in jail.
The difference isn’t just about severity; it affects rights, sentencing, and long-term consequences. Felonies often result in loss of voting rights, firearm ownership restrictions, and employment barriers.
But crucially, a federal felony and a state felony are two separate categories. For instance:
- Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal felony.
- Robbing a local convenience store is a state felony. They may look similar in conduct, but they are prosecuted under entirely different authorities.
Sometimes a single act violates both federal and state laws — for example, a large-scale drug operation or civil rights violation. In such cases, both sovereigns may prosecute independently. A person could be convicted in federal court and in state court for the same conduct under different laws. A presidential pardon could only remove the federal consequences; the state conviction would still stand unless the state’s governor (or relevant board) issued clemency as well.
This separation of powers ensures that no single executive — not even the president — can wipe away accountability at every level of government.
Now that we understand the differences here are the cases that are pending in court pertaining to the people that received the pardons recently.
As of November 11, 2025, several state-level criminal cases connected to the 2020 “alternate” or “fake electors” scheme remain active, despite the sweeping federal pardons issued by President Trump on November 9 and 10 for seventy-seven individuals involved. The pardons—covering figures such as Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and numerous fake electors—apply solely to federal offenses, none of which were currently pending against the recipients. Their effect is largely symbolic, serving as a political statement rather than a legal shield, as they have no bearing on state prosecutions. All federal proceedings, including Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion probe, were dropped following Trump’s 2024 election victory, in accordance with the Department of Justice’s long-standing policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
At the state level, four major prosecutions continue to move forward—though each with its own complications and political undertones. In Arizona, eighteen defendants indicted in April 2024 remain entangled in proceedings that were sent back to a grand jury in May 2025 due to procedural defects, including the failure to fully disclose relevant portions of the Electoral Count Act. The state appeals court declined to intervene that September, and Attorney General Kris Mayes now faces a deadline to refile the case. A tentative trial is set for January 2026, though further delays are likely. While eleven of the defendants received federal pardons, the Arizona Attorney General’s office has confirmed that the pardons have “no impact” on the state proceedings. One defendant, Loraine Pellegrino, has already completed her probation early as of October 2025.
In Georgia, the wide-ranging racketeering case against fifteen defendants—following a series of plea deals and immunity agreements—has been slowed by procedural and political upheaval. After District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified in 2024, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal the following year, leaving the case in limbo. A new prosecutor has until November 14, 2025, to proceed, or the case could be dismissed (though it may be refiled later). Three fake electors remain formally charged, with others having secured immunity. Federal pardons issued by Trump have been described within Georgia’s legal circles as “symbolic” and carry no weight in the ongoing proceedings.
Michigan’s case, once among the most aggressive, was dismissed in September 2025 after prosecutors failed to establish evidence of intent among the fifteen fake electors charged. Attorney General Dana Nessel is weighing an appeal, but as of now, the case is closed. The pardons extend to those individuals as well but are inconsequential, given the absence of federal offenses.
In Nevada, the case against six defendants continues after a rocky procedural history. The original indictment was dismissed in June 2024 on venue grounds but was refiled in Carson City that December. The trial, initially expected in early 2025, has been delayed, and legal observers note that the federal pardons are “expected to have no effect” on the state-level process.
Meanwhile, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have brought no criminal charges, largely because the conditional language included on the alternate certificates—acknowledging that the electors’ votes would only be valid if recognized by lawful authority—has effectively blocked prosecution. Both states are considered closed matters.
In Wisconsin, however, the case remains active against three central figures: Chesebro, attorney Jim Troupis, and political operative Mike Roman. They face felony forgery charges filed in June 2024, with ten additional defendants added that December, bringing the total to eleven. Motions to dismiss were denied in August 2025, and while ten of the fake electors previously settled related civil suits in 2023, the criminal proceedings against the remaining defendants continue. As in other states, the pardons are irrelevant to the ongoing prosecution.
Basically, prosecutions remain active in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, collectively encompassing roughly forty defendants. The federal pardons, while politically potent, have no practical legal impact at the state level. Their true effect lies in shaping public perception and applying pressure on state prosecutors who now face a difficult choice: pursue accountability in the face of political backlash, or quietly let the cases fade under the weight of federal symbolism. No new federal investigations are expected under the current Department of Justice.
While many legal experts lean on interpretations of Article II and similar constitutional arguments to strengthen their defenses, I take a different view. Their strategy, though well-intentioned, is fundamentally weak. I’ll publish the Wisconsin filing that should have been used in 2024: a 27-page motion to dismiss built on pre-election communications proving the alternate electors acted in explicit reliance on 1807 Jefferson–Burr precedent and advice-of-counsel memos that no prosecutor has ever seen. The same framework kills the Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada cases. The pardons were never needed—because the charges were always legally defective.
I possess a legally sound framework that can be applied to each of these cases, which I will be dissecting and analyzing on a state-by-state basis with evidence we collected prior to the 2020 elections that has never been presented in a court of law to our knowledge. It is important to remember that these proceedings are being conducted at the state level, meaning that the recent federal pardons hold no legal authority or protective value within them.
Before I release the first detailed state analysis—which will outline the proper legal approach to countering the targeted charges that in the process may expose the prosecutorial intent of certain attorneys general—explicit knowledge of the existence of this document and these discussions we have, I want to pause briefly to address a crucial issue: the matter of Presidential Pardons, and the malicious rhetoric surrounding them regarding President Trump and the two burning questions in respects to that of former pResident Biden.
While state prosecutors press forward undeterred by federal pardons, the louder controversy has surrounded the pardons themselves—particularly the deafening media silence on one issued by Joe Biden that flips the entire narrative.
The curious case of Harry Dunn’s Pardon
The Guardian article titled ) — pointing out evidence of bias, especially in relation to the omission of Biden’s pardons - specifically that of Harry Dunn.
The article frames Donald Trump’s pardon spree as an “unprecedented and dangerous use of the pardon power” and repeatedly emphasizes the corrupt, partisan, and self-serving nature of the actions. While many of its criticisms are valid and based on documented facts, the article’s treatment of voices like Harry Dunn — a former U.S. Capitol Police officer who witnessed the aftermath of the January 6th attack and repeatedly voiced concerns about these pardons — is notably entirely absent. Dunn’s perspective, which underscores how the pardons were experienced by someone “on the line,” appears to be overlooked despite its relevance.
Harry Dunn voiced his concerns over the mass pardons issued by Donald Trump for participants in the January 6 attack in late January 2025. For example, during a visit to Wisconsin on January 28, 2025, Dunn criticized the pardons—calling them a “slap in the face” and stating that if people were surprised by them, they “were not paying attention.” At another event on January 30, 2025, Dunn spoke with fellow officers at the Kennedy Political Union and American University School of Communication, where he again expressed his dismay that the pardon action reinforced what he views as an ongoing threat to accountability and rule of law.
Though the question I pose is WHY WAS HARRY DUNN PARDONED?
Harry Dunn is a former U.S. Capitol Police officer who became nationally known for his role during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
He was one of the officers who defended the Capitol when rioters breached it, and afterward he testified before the House January 6 Committee, describing the chaos and racist abuse he endured that day. Dunn recounted that rioters shouted racial slurs at him while he tried to protect lawmakers and that the event left him emotionally traumatized.
He later wrote a memoir, Standing My Ground: A Capitol Police Officer’s Fight for Accountability and Good Trouble, published in 2023, in which he detailed his experiences and the toll the attack took on him and other officers.
In 2024, Dunn retired from the Capitol Police after more than 15 years of service and ran for Congress in Maryland’s 3rd District as a Democrat. His campaign centers on defending democracy and holding those responsible for January 6 accountable.
Harry Dunn was a victim of the Capitol riot, became a prominent witness and advocate, and is now pursuing a political career based on his “experience” and message of “accountability”.
Harry Dunn was allegedly not a conspirator of an usurpation or an offender but allegedly a defender — a Capitol Police officer who stood between lawmakers and a violent mob on January 6, later testifying about what he witnessed. When President Biden issued a pre-emptive pardon for Dunn, it wasn’t allegedly done to absolve wrongdoing but to protect him and others from the threat of politically motivated prosecution under a future administration. It was a preventive act, not a corrective one — a political safeguard, not an admission of guilt.
This stands in contrast to the pardons issued by President Trump, which came after indictments or convictions. His intent, however, wasn’t so different in spirit. Trump’s pardons in January 2021 were derided as self-serving or morally corrupt, but many were, in fact, pre-emptive in nature — meant to prevent federal prosecution of individuals he believed would be unfairly targeted once he left office. The difference is that Trump didn’t fully anticipate the scale of political retaliation that would unfold, or the degree to which law enforcement and justice systems could be leveraged for partisan purposes.
Biden’s pre-emptive pardons reveal an evolution of that same logic: the recognition that prosecution can be weaponized, and that the shield of executive clemency can be used preemptively to neutralize it. In both cases, the pardon power became a political instrument to defend perceived victims of an opposing regime — whether those victims were officers defending the Capitol or citizens defending their nation.
So the question of who the “victim” is remains a matter of perspective. Biden sees the potential victims as those who defended the system from attack; Trump saw the potential victims as those punished by that same system for dissent. The irony is that both used the same constitutional power for the same reason — to protect their people from the government they no longer trusted. THAT speaks volumes on it’s own.
Once my amicus curiae brief presenting this evidence is filed in one of the state cases this week involving the so-called “fake electors,” I will release Part II of this report — a comprehensive forensic analysis grounded in pre–November 3, 2020 documentation that was publicly accessible at the time but deliberately suppressed at the direction of federal authorities. Internal communications show that the Department of Homeland Security was aware of the material and coordinated with social-media platforms to limit its dissemination under the label of “Sunrise Zoom Calls.” This analysis will detail that suppression effort and the evidentiary record it sought to bury and why.
In turn , the State cannot lawfully sustain charges of conspiracy or forgery against these defendants when contemporaneous documentary evidence now proves that identical contingency planning—rooted in the same interpretation of the pre-2022 Electoral Count Act—was conducted, endorsed, and memorialized within internal materials of organizations strongly and publicly aligned with the Democratic Party.
If prosecutors in Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, or Nevada were aware—or reasonably should have been aware—that similar contingency planning occurred across political lines under the same statutory framework, then the decision to criminalize only one faction’s conduct raises serious constitutional concerns under both due process and equal protection principles.
And if they did not know (I am certain they did), the omission or suppression of this evidence fundamentally taints the legitimacy of every charging decision made under their authority. This bipartisan reliance on the same federal statute obliterates any claim of criminal intent. The defendants’ actions were not fraudulent—they were consistent with a widely held, good-faith interpretation of an ambiguous law that Congress itself was forced to rewrite in 2022 to clarify.
ENJOY THE SHOW>
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on ! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my . I am 100% people-funded.
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: , , and - and Pre-order for is on presale now.
Want to publish your own Article?
Upgrade to Premium+