Nessel turns down debate with DePerno, cites investigation into election tampering

“In ordinary times, comprehensive debate between opponents vying for political office can be an essential tool for voters who seek to learn the policies, positions, and qualifications of candidates seeking elected office. Generally, I believe in the utility and importance of such forums. In 2018, I was extremely disappointed when Tom Leonard refused all offers to debate me in the race for Michigan Attorney General, which I offered despite consistently being ahead in the polling. I believed the voters were entitled to hear firsthand the answers to questions posed to the candidates at a forum open to both the media and the public.

“I have never shied away from events in which I can be subjected to unfettered questioning and/or criticism. During my tenure as Michigan Attorney General, I’ve personally argued twice before the Michigan Supreme Court, I’ve testified before the Michigan legislature on nearly a dozen occasions, and I routinely hold press conferences and FOIA/OMA seminars in concert with the Michigan Press Association, in which I allow unlimited questioning from the press and public. I believe most voters and reporters in our state would agree, I am no shrinking violet when it comes to defending my policies, positions, or my record in office.

“Unfortunately for the voters of Michigan, I must decline any debates against the Republican nominee for Michigan Attorney General in advance of the November election. On August 8, 2022, my department referred a case involving the illegal mishandling of election tabulators from multiple jurisdictions to the Prosecutors’ Association Coordinating Counsel (PACC) for reassignment to a special prosecutor. While my opponent, Mr. DePerno, has made numerous statements in regard to this matter, I have personally made no comments in regard to this investigation. Under the American Bar Association rules and responsibilities for prosecutors, I am obligated to refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused, or which may materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding (see ABA rules 3.6 and 3.8). Therefore, if questions are asked in regard to this matter — which is undoubtedly of great public interest in relation to this office — I am strictly prohibited from commenting.

“I have every reason to believe Mr. DePerno will interject on this subject, whether asked about it or not. And in abiding by my oath of office, I will — for all intents and purposes — be drawn into a boxing match with one hand tied behind my back, unable to speak about the matter and unable to repudiate any untruthful or misleading statements Mr. DePerno may assert.

“In addition, Mr. DePerno has demonstrated not just a complete and utter inability to relay truthful information about the 2020 election, my positions, or virtually any subject matter, but he also has a propensity to engage in name-calling, and in utilizing racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and misogynistic rhetoric and imagery. Such hateful language and the constant spread of disinformation inevitably leads to the rise in hate crimes and escalation in violence against government officials, and undermines the electorate’s faith in our system of elections and our democracy as a whole. Mr. DePerno’s inability to distinguish fact from fiction and his persistent use of disparaging, dangerous tropes are beneath the dignity of the office he seeks to hold. I will not be a party to creating a forum which will further allow Mr. DePerno to disseminate such hateful and dangerous rhetoric. Mr. DePerno is not a serious person, and he is not a serious candidate for the office of Michigan Attorney General. He has not earned his ability to be treated as such. He can continue his abusive and bullying behavior on social media as long as his chosen platforms will allow it, but I will not provide a forum for him to further denigrate our democracy or the good people of the state of Michigan.”