LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel announced on Monday, May 5th that she’s dropping all charges against seven anti-Israel protesters who were arrested at the University of Michigan (U of M) encampment last spring for trespassing and resisting police.

But instead of admitting that political heat or antisemitic smear campaigns may have influenced her decision, Nessel pointed to a “circus-like atmosphere” and a nonprofit’s supportive statement in her press release about the dropped charges.

MORE NEWS: BREAKING: Hung Jury in Schurr Trial

According to Nessel’s statement in her press release, the issue wasn’t a lack of evidence or shaky charges. In fact, she doubled down, saying a reasonable jury would have likely convicted the protesters.

But because the Jewish nonprofit, the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor, expressed public support for Nessel’s original charging decision and defended her against accusations of bias from those asking her to recuse herself, Nessel claimed that the statement reaching the court made continuing the case improper.

So, in a baffling twist, the AG dropped the charges, stunning the defense lawyers in the courtroom.In the statement from the JCRC (Jewish Community Relations Council), an arm of the local Jewish Federation, it stated, “If it were successful, this would mark the first time a prosecutor would be disqualified from prosecuting a case based on perceived bias due to their religious faith. The notion that AG Nessel is biased against Muslims and Americans of Arab descent is unfounded and deeply offensive.”

Accusations of bias.

To summarize what happened at the U of M, pro-Palestinian protesters weren’t peacefully holding signs on the Diag. They were allegedly obstructing officers and violating campus policies. But the court still hadn’t ruled on probable cause a year later and Nessel said the motion for her recusal had been a “diversionary tactic which has only served to further delay the proceedings.” During that time, she said the case had become a “lightning rod of contention.”

Meanwhile, Nessel lamented “baseless and absurd allegations of bias” hurled at her – not by the Jewish community, but by pro-Palestinian activists who’ve made antisemitic rhetoric mainstream again on college campuses.

Justice delayed, then abandoned.

Rather than press forward and let the judicial system do its job, Nessel tapped out and blamed “delays” and “distractions” for ending the fight. One could argue that this move was less about prudent use of resources and more about avoiding a politically inconvenient showdown that might be highlighted in an election year.