Bill Text: MI HR0165 | 2023-2024 | 102nd Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: A resolution directing the impeachment of Dana M. Nessel, Attorney General of the state of Michigan, for corrupt conduct in office.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 8-0)
Status: (Introduced) 2023-11-09 - Referred To Committee On Government Operations [HR0165 Detail]
Download: Michigan-2023-HR0165-Introduced.html
tHIS RESOLUTION IS OFFERED TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE XI, SECTION 7 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION OF 1963.
house resolution no.165
Reps. DeSana, Friske, Fox, Smit, Maddock, Carra, Rigas and Schriver offered the following resolution:
Whereas, Article XI, Section 7 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 states, in part:
The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching civil officers for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes or misdemeanors, but a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein shall be necessary to direct an impeachment.
; and
Whereas, Dana M. Nessel has failed to satisfy her duties and abused her position as Attorney General. She has failed to charge individuals responsible for submitting “clearly fraudulent” voter registration applications while simultaneously bringing felony charges against individuals who she has indicated do not have the requisite specific intent to have committed the crimes charged. She also improperly inquired about an investigation into a member of her transition team, creating at least the appearance of impropriety; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That Dana M. Nessel, Attorney General of the state of Michigan, is impeached for corrupt conduct in office. The following Articles of Impeachment are adopted by the House of Representatives and shall be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AGAINST DANA M. NESSEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HER FOR CORRUPT CONDUCT IN OFFICE.
ARTICLE I
Dana M. Nessel, Attorney General of the state of Michigan, has violated her constitutional oath of office by failing to faithfully discharge the duties of her office. Despite the fact that an October 2020 investigation found evidence that an organization submitted clearly fraudulent voter registration applications to the Muskegon City Clerk, Attorney General Nessel has failed to charge those responsible for forging and filing these documents.
Article XI, Section 1 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides, in part, “All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of .......... according to the best of my ability.”
The attorney general is a position entrenched firmly in the history of Western civilization, which at common law possessed a broad array of powers beyond those specifically conferred by statute. An officer of the executive branch, the Attorney General in the state of Michigan has continued this tradition, developing the duties and obligations of this office. In particular, the Attorney General has become the face of law enforcement in this state, with the “responsibility, together with other peace officers, for enforcement of the laws and the preservation of the public peace,” as stated in a 1977 opinion of the Attorney General.
Prior to the November 2020 election, an entity known as GBI Strategies was conducting voter registration activities in Michigan. Ann Meisch, the Muskegon City Clerk, estimated that this group had delivered between 8,000 and 10,000 voter registration forms to the Muskegon City Clerk’s office by mid-October. Meisch discovered numerous irregularities in some of these voter registration applications, including similar handwriting on multiple forms, mismatched signatures, invalid or nonexistent addresses, and incorrect phone numbers. On October 16, Meisch and Deputy Clerk Kimberly Young notified the Muskegon Police Department that election crimes may be taking place and delivered for examination 42 applications the clerks suspected to be fraudulent.
On October 20, Brianna Hawkins, a supervisor at GBI Strategies, delivered an estimated 2,500 additional voter registration forms to the Muskegon City Clerk’s office. Meisch contacted the Muskegon Police Department, and Hawkins was interviewed by the police. Hawkins had been employed by GBI Strategies since August 2020, and she was paid to provide individuals with voter registration forms. GBI Strategies also supplied Hawkins with material resources to assist her in this work, including a rental car and lodging in local hotels. Hawkins initially told investigators that employees of GBI Strategies who went door to door registering residents to vote were paid for each completed voter registration form, but she later claimed these employees received a flat hourly rate.
The Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Muskegon Police Department launched a joint investigation into the alleged voter fraud. On October 21, Tom Fabus, Chief of Investigations for the Michigan Department of Attorney General, asked the Michigan State Police for their assistance in this investigation. Investigators at the Attorney General’s office, the Muskegon Police Department, and the Michigan State Police had several online meetings with representatives from the Michigan Department of State regarding this case.
Irregularities in voter registration forms filed in the Muskegon City Clerk’s office were analyzed and investigated by both a Department of State analyst and a Muskegon Police Department detective. In examining a batch of 18 voter registration applications, the police found that the handwriting on each form was the same; the signatures had similarities; and multiple forms were missing key information, had duplicate last names at different addresses, and contained inaccurate information. The police concluded that some quantity of the voter registration application forms were “clearly fraudulent”; some quantity were “highly suspicious” because they contained erroneous information or were missing key information, such that they merited further follow-up; and some quantity were legitimate.
The Michigan State Police, assisted by members of the Attorney General’s Criminal Investigation Division, also conducted further investigations into GBI Strategies. This enterprise and its predecessors received major funding from political candidates and organizations, with some committees reporting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in expenditures where GBI Strategies was the recipient. While this organization was based in Tennessee, materials seized by the police indicate that they were operating in numerous Michigan cities, including Benton Harbor, Flint, Inkster, Muskegon, and Southfield. Job postings indicate that the group may also have been operating in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, DC.
This case has remained open since the November 2020 election. In March 2021, the reports of the Attorney General’s Office, the Michigan State Police, and the Muskegon Police Department were sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist them in a related nationwide investigation. The Michigan State Police have continued to maintain the evidence in this case since that time. No one has been charged by the Attorney General’s Office in connection with this investigation.
Attorney General Nessel’s failure to bring charges against those responsible for the fraudulent voter registration applications identified in the October 2020 investigation constitutes neglect of duty. She has not faithfully discharged her duties, thus violating her constitutional oath of office and her promise to the people of Michigan, and she has not acted in the best interests of the people of this state.
Wherefore, Dana M. Nessel, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE II
The state of Michigan’s process for choosing our Electors of President and Vice President is governed by the Michigan Election Law and federal statute. Pursuant to that statute, each party names a slate of Electors, and the slate of Electors nominated by the party whose nominee receives the most votes in the November general election is elected. The Electors meet in the Capitol to cast their votes for the nominees of their political party for President and Vice President, signing a formal certificate to document their votes, copies of which are transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Michigan Secretary of State, the Archivist of the United States, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
In November 2020, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified that the nominees of the Democratic Party for President and Vice President received the greatest number of votes at the November 3, 2020, general election. As such, the Democratic Party’s slate of Electors were declared elected, and they met in the Capitol on December 14, 2020, to cast their votes on the official “Certificate of Votes for President and Vice President.” However, another 16 individuals, including 14 of the Republican Party’s original slate of 16 Electors and two individuals selected to fill vacancies, also assembled as Electors on December 14. They signed a document titled “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Michigan,” asserting that they were the Electors of this state, and cast their votes for the Republican nominees for President and Vice President. Both certificates were transmitted to the statutorily required recipients for the official certificate.
In July 2023, Michigan Attorney General Dana M. Nessel charged each of the 16 individuals who signed the “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Michigan” with eight felony counts, including forgery, MCL 750.248, election law forgery, MCL 168.933a, and uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses. Each of these crimes includes a specific intent element: the conduct must be done with the intent to defraud.
In September 2023, Attorney General Nessel was recorded stating that the individuals she charged genuinely believe that they were in the right and the Republican nominee for President was the real winner of the November 2020 general election. This statement is entirely inconsistent with the Attorney General’s decision to charge these individuals; she cannot simultaneously assert that these individuals believed that the Republican nominee actually won the election and that these individuals signed the certificate with the intent to defraud. Attorney General Nessel’s own statements indicate that her decision to charge these 16 individuals was an abuse of her position, constituting corrupt conduct in office.
Wherefore, Dana M. Nessel, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE III
On July 13, 2022, in an article published in The Detroit News, it was alleged that Traci Kornak, the legal guardian of an individual living at an assisted living facility, had improperly billed an insurance company for care provided to her ward. Joe LeBlanc, now-former chief executive of the facility known as The Village of Heather Hills, alleged that Kornak had used the facility’s taxpayer identification number and federal employer identification number without their permission, and that she falsely indicated that the individual providing these services – later revealed to be Kornak’s daughter – was an employee of the facility. The article stated that, over the course of two years, Kornak billed the insurance company nearly 50,000 dollars for this care.
Attorney General Dana M. Nessel immediately expressed interest in this article, asking members of her staff whether this was something they should investigate and requesting that they keep her updated on the matter. In response to Nessel’s interest, the Financial Crimes Section of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Department of Attorney General began an investigation into Kornak.
During this investigation, Scott Teter, Division Chief of the Financial Crimes Division, became concerned about a conflict of interest presented by the past professional relationship between Nessel and Kornak. In 2018, Kornak assisted with Nessel’s transition into office after she was elected Attorney General. Teter believed that “it would create the appearance of impropriety for AG Nessel to access information about this investigation.” “Specifically, if the Department of Attorney General declined to seek charges against the suspect, it might appear that the professional relationship between Attorney General Nessel and Traci Kornak had influenced the investigation.” Therefore, he asked “for a conflict wall to be established preventing Attorney General Nessel from being provided or accessing any information related to this investigation.” The notice establishing this conflict wall was distributed to all staff members in the Department of Attorney General on September 7, 2022.
As of December 2022, this conflict wall was still active. In a December 2 email, employees were reminded to “[e]xclude Attorney General Dana Nessel from access to the . . . files in this matter.” On December 5, employees assigned to the case discussed closing the case, but an employee was still reviewing the matter. That same day, however, Aubrey Sargent, Chief of Investigations of the Criminal Investigations Division, emailed four reports on the Kornak case to Attorney General Nessel, in seeming disregard of the conflict wall.
On December 6, Attorney General Nessel emailed Sargent and Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud about this case. Nessel stated that Kornak had contacted her seeking the documents from the investigation, because the allegations against her were holding up a potential judicial appointment for Kornak in Kent County. Nessel communicated her belief that Kornak “wants to be able to assert that the claims made . . . were never substantiated by our investigation and the case is closed.” Nessel also wrote: “There is some urgency to the matter in that she needs to supply this information by the week’s end.” The following day, Nessel forwarded the reports on the Kornak investigation to Chief Deputy Attorney General Christina Grossi.
While closing this investigation was being considered by members of the Department of Attorney General’s staff in late September 2022 and was discussed again on December 2, the investigation was not formally closed until at least December 19, when the staff member assigned to the matter wrote a memorandum where he “recommend[ed] closing this investigation.” This phrasing indicates that the investigation was officially still open before that date. Thus, the investigation was closed well after the Attorney General had communicated with staff on the case about Kornak’s urgent interest in being able to report that the investigation had been closed. There is no way to know what influence this had on the staff member’s December 19 recommendation to close the investigation.
Attorney General Nessel created at least the appearance of impropriety by communicating with staff members involved in the investigation of Kornak, Nessel’s former associate, before the investigation was formally closed. Regardless of whether Nessel’s actions breached the particular terms of the conflict wall, she should not have contacted staff members assigned to the matter in order to communicate Kornak’s interest in having the investigation closed quickly so that she could secure a judicial appointment. Writing that “[t]here is some urgency to the matter” could have put pressure on Nessel’s employees to close the file quickly, without further review.
Wherefore, Dana M. Nessel, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
; and be it further
Resolved, That in accordance with Article XI, Section 7 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the House of Representatives will proceed with the election of three members from its own body whose duty it shall be to prosecute such impeachment and that these members are authorized and empowered to prepare and present the Articles of Impeachment adopted by this resolution.
