'Critiques are misconceived': Legal experts hail Michigan fake Trump electors case

Tuesday's Michigan false electors filing wasn't just another legal development involving Trump. It was an historical moment for our nation, according to two legal experts.

Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, wrote for the New York Times that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's decision to charge the fake electors represent a "turning point" in the fight for our democracy.

"The charges, coming on the heels of news that the special counsel Jack Smith has informed Donald Trump that he’s a target of the Department of Justice’s investigation into the Capitol riot, mean we are witnessing a new and necessary phase in this quest for accountability, one in which the federal and state wheels of justice work to hold people accountable not only for the violence on Jan. 6, but also for what got us there: the alleged scheme to interfere with the transfer of power," wrote Eisen and Goodman.

Regarding criticism, the pair explained all kinds of people can feel the difference.

"The charges in Michigan will surely meet criticism on all sides. Some will say the case is not broad or bold enough, that Mr. Trump and the other alleged national ringleaders should have been charged as well," the experts wrote. "Others will say Ms. Nessel cast too wide a net, pulling in low-level party functionaries who did not know better. We think those critiques are misconceived. Ms. Nessel got it just right, prosecuting crimes firmly within her jurisdiction, while opening the way for federal authorities to net even bigger fish."

Read the article right here.