By "shenanigans," you mean election fraud that disqualified two primary candidates? I mean, yeah, I'm concerned by it, and glad they were disqualified as a consequence.
In Michigan it was five candidates. There's absolutely no indication that anyone involved thinks the Republican candidates were anything but unsuspecting victims.
The best case for the disqualification being a miscarriage was probably Perry Johnson. Michigan requires 15k signatures. Perry turned in over 23k, generally well beyond the margin for signatures that are likely to be disqualified. The Board determined that 13.8k were valid, and threw out 9.4k (of which 6.9k were from the fraudulent actors). That's clearly a candidate that had groundswell support and likely only stopped collecting legitimate signatures because of the deliberate actions of the fraudster. The fraudsters (in each case) made sure that they "collected" more than enough signatures to completely blow through the standard safety margins - that's quite literally an intentional and deliberate decision that's designed for no other purpose than to ensure the signature verification process will fail if challenged.
The DNC did challenge the signatures. The four member Board split on party lines 2:2 on whether to allow the candidates (who no one legitimately questioned were the victims, unlike your snarky and baseless inferences) onto the ballot. With the tie the candidates were off the ballot. So literally, the Democrats on the board eliminated these candidates from the ballot. It's hard to me to see the justice, at least in Perry's case, of that decision where you had actual knowledge of the campaign being defrauded and clear evidence they had received significant groundswell support (to the tune of 13.8k signatures) and that "but for" the fraud they would have continued to collect signatures and likely hit the goal prior to the submission deadline.
James Craig was the front runner, and he ended up with 10.2k accepted signatures and 11.1k that were rejected (of his 21.3k submitted, 9.8k were from the fraudulent actors).
The MI courts (at the lower levels) effectively ruled that the Board didn't have to verify each signatures before it was rejected and in fact, part of the complaint was that the Board threw out entire sheets based on who the canvasser's were. The case was appealed to the MI Supreme Court and the relief requested was an order putting the candidate's name on the ballot. The MI SC rejected the case on technical grounds, effectively saying that the relief was the "wrong" relief - he couldn't require the court to require the Board to put his name on the ballot, but they also said that he may have been entitled to have required the board to comply with the law on specific verification of the names. In any event, it was too late for him to do so (because the hard coded ballot submission timeline would lapse).
So you have a candidate that any reasonable observer would believe that "but for" being defrauded would have gotten the signatures, who very likely could have gotten replacement signatures if the Board had communicated that it was considering rejecting the signatures in a timely manner, kept off a ballot for election based on the decision of 2 members of the opposite political party. Does that really serve the interests of the electorate? Remember getting on the ballot does not mean that you win the nomination, and if the candidate did win the nomination, wouldn't that mean that it was the correct answer? It's been the historical practice of the federal courts to err on the side of including such a candidate on the ballot rather than excluding them, since the election itself would cure any possible risk on this issue.
What interest does excluding a defrauded candidate on a technicality serve, where the electorate could have directly weighed-in?
Let's charitably ignore your attempt to draw a false equivalence between actual forgery and technical inconsistency, and instead focus on your assertion that we should be angry at Democrats because some Republicans were caught engaging in shenanigans, which of course they would not have done. I mean, no one's asking for signed confessions, here; they were actually asking William for any evidence at all to suggest that the firms paid by piece to collect signatures did not, for their own benefit or the benefit of their client, generate fake signatures.
Why? Seriously, why on earth would we presume guilt of the victims? Do you not seriously understand how messed up that demand is?
Not to mention there is no serious account of this that's consistent with your spurious insinuations. The former police chief withdrew as soon as he found out - he wanted no association with the fraudsters. Yet here you are demanding "proof" before you'll actually consider fairness?
It's literally the truth that the DNC filed the challenges (no evidence that this was coordinated, but also none that it wasn't - based on your theory can you "prove" that they did so in good faith - discounting any statements they or apparently any neutral observers made on the situation). It's literally the truth that decision of the 2 Democrats on the Board kept them off the ballot and it's hard to see how that serves the interests of a fair election absent a demonstration that the candidates caused the fraud (all neutral accounts seem to agree they were not aware of the fraud - not least in part because they would have had the opportunity and incentive to correct it if they had been).
Instead, we should jump at the contra-logical interpretation that the candidates themselves went out of their way to make sure that they had enough obviously fraudulent petitions to eliminate the standard safety margins in their signature collection efforts.
These are suspicious times and WM hasn't carried the burden that the DNC or any material chunk of Democrats caused this as part of a deliberate plan, but there is zero question that the bad actors in fact did engage in a deliberate strategy that ensured each of these candidates would both belief they had an adequate safety margin and also not in fact have an adequate safety margin.
