Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel likes to talk a big game about ethics, accountability, and protecting the vulnerable. But according to testimony and documents laid out in a House Oversight Committee meeting [1] in Michigan on Tuesday, when it came time to follow her own conflict-of-interest rules, the “isolation wall” around her office appears to have been more decorative than functional.
That kind of wall is supposed to be a hard stop between people, information, and decisions when there’s a conflict of interest. But the committee said the record showed Nessel repeatedly crossing it anyway.
A personal friend and a not-so-isolated investigation.
Tuesday’s three-hour meeting focused on two separate matters: a criminal investigation involving Nessel’s personal friend, attorney Traci Kornak, and a criminal campaign-finance referral involving Bipartisan Solutions – an entity tied to Fair and Equal Michigan, the ballot committee behind the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act expansion, where Nessel’s wife, Alanna Maguire, served as co-chair.
In both cases, the Attorney General’s office formally established conflict, or “isolation,” walls meant to keep Nessel out of the decision-making. On paper, everything looked on the level. In practice, not so much.
The Kornak case.
Let’s start with the Kornak case. Kornak was investigated over allegations involving financial exploitation of vulnerable senior, Rosalene Burd [2]. Despite the acknowledged personal relationship between Nessel and Kornak, testimony showed that Nessel received updates and reviewed materials – all while the conflict wall was supposedly in place.
The case was ultimately closed by the AG’s office, citing insufficient evidence. Later, an independent sheriff’s investigation by the Kent County Sheriff’s Department reportedly recommended felony charges anyway and said that Burd had been a victim of felony embezzlement. Hmm…
For an interesting take on things, check out the video here [3] from Michigan Enjoyer.
The firewall goes up again – but doesn’t appear to mean anything.
Then came the Bipartisan Solutions matter, which makes the first case look subtle. The Secretary of State’s office (Democrat Jocelyn Benson who is buddy-buddy with Nessel) actually sent a criminal referral to Nessel’s office, recommending that she prosecute Bipartisan Solutions for alleged violations of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Surprise, surprise.
Because Nessel’s spouse was connected to the ballot committee involved, her office again set up a firewall. Nessel herself even acknowledged, in writing, that she should have “no involvement” whatsoever.
And yet, according to testimony and internal emails, Nessel personally picked up the phone and called Benson – asking her to take the referral back. It appears that Benson initially agreed to look into it – but then her own legal counsel later pointed out a small problem: state law doesn’t actually allow a criminal referral to be “taken back” once it’s made. Sorry, ladies. Turns out state law doesn’t include a “let’s-cover-for-each-other” clause.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Committee presenters were careful to say they weren’t drawing conclusions. But they didn’t have to. The timeline did the talking. And so did the emails and the other evidence.
Asking for help.
One of the saddest parts of the testimony came when a letter was shown that was written by Burd and sent to the Allegan County Court System. In the letter, she alleges that Kornak was taking advantage of her and that she needs to contact Adult Protection Services to file a complaint of the “wrongful care of my finances.” According to the testimony, those concerns were raised directly with state officials – yet no meaningful intervention followed. Instead, the situation continued unresolved, leaving the impression that clear warning signs were acknowledged but ultimately ignored.
Committee members noted during the hearing that Kornak serves as a conservator for additional clients, though the total number remains unknown. Yikes!
A pattern that undercuts the AG’s ethics push.
What emerged at the end of the three hour oversight meeting regarding Nessel’s bad behavior, was a pattern that committee members said clashes head-on with Nessel’s public image and includes conflict walls erected late, crossed often, and enforced selectively. Supporters may argue nothing illegal occurred. Detractors see something worse – a justice system that seems far more flexible when friends or family are involved.
For an Attorney General who brands herself as Michigan’s top ethics cop, that’s not a great look. When the firewall keeps failing, people start wondering whether it was ever really there – or whether it was just political theater.
What does Nessel have to say about this? Who knows. She was invited to the committee meeting to defend herself but she didn’t show up.
Not just talk, but action.
Meanwhile, the committee actually took some action. During Tuesday’s hearing, the House Oversight Committee voted to recommend to the full Michigan House that AG Nessel be held in contempt for what members described as noncooperation in the committee’s investigation. Additionally, Rep. Josh Shriver, (R-Oxford) described Nessel’s conduct as “impeachable conduct.”
The committee also voted to authorize a new subpoena to the Attorney General/Department of Attorney General demanding previously subpoenaed documents be produced unredacted, arguing the redactions prevented meaningful oversight.
Finally, the committee voted to authorize a separate subpoena to MDHHS, specifically seeking Adult Protective Services records related to Burd, and stating the documents should be produced without redaction.
What happens next is now in the hands of the full House. But the fallout may extend well beyond AG Nessel. With Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson running to be Michigan’s next governor, her willingness (however brief) to revisit a criminal referral at Nessel’s request raises its own questions about judgment, independence, and respect for the law.