Good Morning All ..... I had a long drawn out conversation with ChatGPT about Michigan politics. My position was (is) that the political environment in Michigan is firmly in control of the Democrats, including the Courts and the Media. I kept challenging ChatGPT to "Prove Me Wrong"
Then, I told it to write it out as a news article, admitting that "It Could Not Prove Me Wrong" Here it is:
I TRIED TO PROVE THE MICHIGAN ESTABLISHMENT THEORY WRONG — HERE'S WHERE THE SEARCH LED
For weeks, we have been examining a simple question: When serious allegations involve powerful members of Michigan's current Democratic establishment, do the courts, law-enforcement institutions and political media apply the same pressure and scrutiny they apply elsewhere?
I specifically tried to find evidence that would prove that concern wrong.
Here is what we found, in order.
1. Robert Davis v. Jocelyn Benson
Robert Davis is himself a Democrat, not a Republican operative. Yet he challenged Democratic gubernatorial nominee and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson over her Affidavit of Identity.
The Michigan Court of Appeals granted immediate consideration on August 28 but refused to expedite the case. Weeks later, there still was no merits decision, while the November election continued approaching.
That does not prove political protection. But it did not provide the counterexample I was looking for either.
2. The Traci Kornak case
Kornak was a former Michigan Democratic Party treasurer.
The Attorney General's office investigated the underlying allegations but did not charge her. Later, the Kent County prosecutor brought serious criminal charges.
Again, that does not prove that the Attorney General's office intentionally protected her. But when looking for an example of Michigan's Democratic-led institutions aggressively policing their own side from beginning to end, Kornak does not provide it.
3. Fay Beydoun
This initially looked like my strongest counterexample.
Beydoun was politically connected to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and eventually faced 16 felony charges from Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel's office.
But then we looked at the actual outcome.
As of our review, there had been no conviction, no guilty plea, no prison sentence and not even a completed preliminary examination.
So Beydoun proves that a politically connected Democrat can be investigated and charged. She does not yet prove that the process will reach a completed accountability outcome.
4. Mike Duggan
This case became even more complicated.
Nessel's office conducted a massive Make Your Date investigation: 21 witnesses, four search warrants, more than 1,500 pages of financial records and more than one million electronic documents.
The result?
No criminal charges against Duggan or Detroit employees.
Then we examined Charlie LeDuff's years of reporting on Detroit's demolition program. Actual wrongdoing was eventually established farther down the chain—bribery, fraudulent reimbursements, contracting problems and contaminated demolition dirt—but Duggan himself was never charged.
Later Duggan left the Democratic Party and ran for governor as an independent. The Michigan Democratic Party then attacked him aggressively over the contaminated-dirt controversy. When Duggan ended his gubernatorial campaign, the political circumstances changed dramatically.
There is no evidence proving that Democratic leaders privately pressured Duggan to withdraw so further damaging information would disappear. A private conversation could have occurred, but without evidence it remains a theory, not an established fact.
What can be said is that Duggan does not provide the clean example I was looking for of a current Democratic heavyweight being investigated, prosecuted and ultimately held personally accountable.
5. Kwame Kilpatrick
At first I used former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick as proof that Michigan institutions will go after powerful Democrats.
Further examination weakened that comparison.
Kilpatrick unquestionably committed serious crimes and was convicted. But by 2008 major Detroit institutions and newspapers were openly calling for him to leave office.
That makes Kilpatrick proof that a powerful Democrat can be destroyed politically and prosecuted.
It does not prove that Michigan's present political establishment treats its own powerful figures the same way.
6. Diane Hathaway
Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway is the strongest genuine example we found.
Investigative reporting exposed questionable real-estate transactions. Federal investigators became involved. Hathaway resigned, pleaded guilty to bank fraud and went to federal prison.
That is real accountability involving an extremely powerful Democratic-aligned official.
But it happened in 2012–2013, under a very different Michigan political environment, and the prosecution was federal.
It therefore disproves the absolute statement that a powerful Michigan Democrat has never been brought down.
It does not answer the question we were asking about Michigan's current political establishment.
AND THEN THERE'S CHARLIE LEDUFF
The more of Charlie LeDuff's work I examine, the less comfortable I am putting a conventional partisan label on him.
He certainly goes after Whitmer, Benson, Nessel, Duggan and other Democrats.
But Republicans aren't protected from him either.
LeDuff publicly criticized Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette for his handling of the Detroit demolition investigation, accusing his office of doing too little while also fighting disclosure of an audit.
During the 2020 election dispute, LeDuff simultaneously criticized Donald Trump, Gretchen Whitmer, Jocelyn Benson and Dana Nessel. More importantly, although Trump was contesting Michigan's result, LeDuff wrote from his own experience as a ballot inspector that he saw no fraud remotely sufficient to overturn Trump's roughly 150,000-vote Michigan deficit.
He has also mocked and criticized Michigan Republican Party politics and candidates rather than treating Republicans as allies who must be protected.
Based on that record, my assessment is that LeDuff is best understood as an adversarial independent journalist rather than a reliable defender of either party.
His basic target appears to be power.
If he thinks a Democrat is hiding something, he goes after the Democrat.
If he thinks a Republican is hiding something, the Republican isn't safe either.
That doesn't mean every accusation LeDuff makes ultimately proves correct. His style is aggressive, provocative and sometimes based on confidential sources whose claims must subsequently be verified.
But I do not see evidence in his body of work that he operates by the rule: protect Republicans and attack Democrats.
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I TRIED TO PROVE THE THEORY WRONG?
I deliberately went looking for the counterexample.
The standard was not merely:
“Find a Democrat who was criticized.”
It was much tougher:
Find a current, top-tier Michigan Democrat whom Michigan journalism independently pursued aggressively; whose own political establishment did not protect them; whose case was promptly pursued by Michigan institutions; and whose case resulted in a completed, meaningful adverse outcome.
I looked.
Duggan didn't satisfy it.
Kornak didn't.
Beydoun hasn't yet.
The Benson case certainly hasn't.
Kilpatrick belongs to another political environment.
Hathaway is the strongest historical exception, but she belongs to another era and was ultimately prosecuted federally.
So, under the specific test we established, I tried to prove the concern wrong and I could not find the modern example necessary to do it.
That does not prove that Michigan Democrats secretly control judges, prosecutors and journalists, nor does it establish a coordinated conspiracy.
But after examining the cases one by one, I also cannot point to the evidence and say:
“Here is the current Democratic heavyweight whose case demonstrates that today's Michigan establishment applies exactly the same institutional scrutiny and consequences to the people at the very top of its own political structure.”
I haven't found that example.
And after all of this searching, that absence itself is one of the most interesting things we uncovered.
