Listen to the article
In a significant development in Wisconsin’s ongoing legal battles stemming from the 2020 presidential election, a Dane County judge has firmly rejected attempts by former Trump attorney Jim Troupis to remove him from a high-profile election fraud case.
Judge John Hyland issued a decisive ruling yesterday, dismissing Troupis’ claims of judicial misconduct and denying multiple motions that sought to derail the proceedings. Troupis had alleged that retired Judge Frank Remington inappropriately influenced an August decision that allowed the case to move forward.
The case centers on felony fraud charges filed by Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul against Troupis, Kenneth Chesebro, and Mike Roman for their alleged roles in Wisconsin’s alternate elector scheme following the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors contend the defendants attempted to fraudulently cast Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes for Donald Trump despite Joe Biden’s victory in the state.
In motions filed Monday, Troupis sought to disqualify the entire Dane County bench, claiming they harbored personal animosity toward him. He also requested postponement of a scheduled preliminary hearing and asked for a judge from another county to investigate his allegations against Hyland.
Judge Hyland rejected all requests, finding no merit in the claims against him or his colleagues. As part of his ruling, Hyland unsealed documents Troupis had submitted, revealing the nature of the misconduct allegations that had initially been kept confidential.
Among the unsealed materials was an analysis by an expert who claimed to identify similarities between Remington’s writing style and the language used in Hyland’s August 22 decision. The expert pointed to specific linguistic patterns, including “unusual adverbs such as ‘impliedly.'” Troupis also claimed that Remington’s son, who works as a law clerk, appeared in the metadata of the August order.
Hyland firmly stated in his ruling that no one other than himself and a staff attorney had any role in drafting the August decision that denied Troupis’ motion to dismiss the case.
The unusual conflict has roots in Troupis’ brief tenure as a Dane County judge. Appointed by former Republican Governor Scott Walker in 2015, Troupis served less than a year before stepping down, citing his mother’s death and the need to manage her estate. According to court documents, Troupis had also hoped for an appointment to the state Supreme Court at the time but was passed over.
In one of the unsealed filings, Troupis’ attorney acknowledged that the former judge wasn’t everyone’s “cup of tea” during his short time on the bench. However, Hyland noted in his ruling that he personally wasn’t serving when Troupis was in office, nor were five of the other seven judges currently in the Dane County criminal division.
The criminal case itself represents one of the most significant legal actions taken against individuals involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Attorney General Kaul has filed 11 felony charges against the defendants, alleging they attempted to defraud the 10 Republican electors who signed documents falsely claiming Trump had won Wisconsin.
This rejection of Troupis’ motions means the criminal proceedings will continue as scheduled, marking another chapter in Wisconsin’s contentious post-election legal saga. The case is being closely watched by legal experts and political observers as one of several ongoing prosecutions related to attempts to subvert the 2020 election results in key battleground states.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
Attempts to remove a judge from a case due to perceived bias are not uncommon, but the judge’s firm rejection of the claims suggests they were likely unfounded. Upholding the rule of law is paramount in these matters.
The alternate elector scheme is a concerning attempt to undermine the democratic process. I hope the legal proceedings can shed light on the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing and hold any responsible parties accountable.
The judge’s decision to reject the misconduct claim and stay on the case seems like a reasonable move. Maintaining impartiality is crucial for the integrity of the judicial process, especially in high-profile election-related cases.
This is a complex and contentious issue, but the judge’s decision to remain on the case despite the misconduct claims suggests a commitment to upholding the law rather than succumbing to political pressures.
This is an important development in the ongoing legal battles around the 2020 election. It will be interesting to see how the case against the alleged false electors proceeds and what implications it may have.
The charges against the defendants for their alleged roles in the alternate elector scheme are serious. I hope the judicial process can uncover the full truth and ensure accountability, if warranted.