House Republicans Charge Nessel with Ethical Violations in Associate Cases

Michigan House Republicans Accuse Attorney General of Ethical Violations

Michigan House Republicans have raised serious allegations against Attorney General Dana Nessel, accusing her of repeatedly violating ethical firewalls designed to prevent conflicts of interest in criminal cases her office is investigating. These claims come after a lengthy Oversight Committee hearing that focused on two specific cases involving potential misconduct.

“This is a clear behavior – multiple times, multiple cases – that the most powerful law enforcement officer in the state of Michigan has stepped around a firewall, whether intentional or not, to benefit individuals that they have a close personal relationship with,” said Jay DeBoyer, chair of the House Oversight Committee and a Republican from Clay Township. “That’s a problem and I don’t care what your politics are.”

The allegations center around two separate instances where Nessel’s office allegedly failed to maintain proper ethical boundaries. The first case involved an investigation into attorney Traci Kornak, a former Michigan Democratic Party treasurer and member of Nessel’s transition team when she was elected in 2018.

According to documents obtained through subpoenas, Nessel’s office did not implement a firewall to isolate her from the investigation until September 2022, despite having prior knowledge of the case. Subpoenaed emails show that Nessel requested updates on the case and was provided information about it before the firewall was put in place.

When the firewall was finally established, it required that Nessel not be given access to the case file and that staff avoid discussing the case in her presence. Despite this, Nessel reportedly asked for the case file after Kornak contacted her, claiming the allegations were hindering a potential judicial appointment. The case was later closed without charges, with the AG’s office stating that the alleged victim did not wish to pursue legal action.

DeBoyer argued that the investigation was incomplete, as no interviews were conducted with the elderly woman who was the victim of the alleged fraud, the insurance company that was billed, or the whistleblower who initially reported the issue. According to Nessel’s office, the whistleblower had stopped responding to communications, but DeBoyer claimed that the lack of due diligence raises concerns about the integrity of the process.

Second Alleged Conflict of Interest

The second case involved a referral by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office to Nessel’s office regarding a potential campaign finance violation by the nonprofit Bipartisan Solutions. According to Benson’s office, there was reason to believe that Bipartisan Solutions coordinated with and fundraised for a ballot question committee, which would require them to register as a ballot question committee.

Bipartisan Solutions was not the subject of a firewall, as Nessel’s wife had no direct association with the organization. However, the ballot committee in question, Fair and Equal Michigan, was co-chaired by Nessel’s wife at one point. A firewall had been implemented in 2020 regarding Fair and Equal Michigan, but it did not apply to Bipartisan Solutions.

Despite the existing firewall, Nessel reached out to Benson about the referral, leading to the case being taken back for further review. Nessel’s office stated that the decision was based on the need to ensure the process outlined in law was followed properly. No charges were ultimately filed in the case.

Legislative Response and Ongoing Debate

Following the hearing, the Republican-led committee issued further subpoenas requesting more information in one of the cases and unredacted communications from the AG’s office. The committee also recommended holding Nessel in contempt for not appearing before the hearing, though Democrats on the committee voted against the measure.

Nessel’s spokesperson, Kimberly Bush, defended the AG’s actions, stating that the office never influenced investigative or prosecutorial efforts and that no standard of professional conduct was violated. She also criticized the committee for declining to speak with prosecutors who had direct knowledge of the investigations.

DeBoyer emphasized that the evidence presented during the hearing suggested either incompetence or cronyism on the part of Nessel’s office. He noted that three separate entities had taken more substantial action than the AG’s office in the Kornak case, raising questions about the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation.

As the debate continues, the implications of these allegations extend beyond political lines, highlighting the importance of maintaining ethical standards in law enforcement and ensuring that no individual, regardless of their position, is above scrutiny.