Matthew DePerno, the Michigan lawyer indicted in 2023 as a part of an investigation into a conspiracy to gain access to voting tabulators after the 2020 election, testified to the House Oversight Subcommittee on Weaponization of State Government on Wednesday about his concerns regarding the role of Attorney General Dana Nessel and her office in his case.
DePerno repeatedly alleged that Nessel had misused her office and had a conflict of interest in investigating his role in that criminal case while also involved in a civil dispute filed by DePerno contesting the results of the 2020 election in Antrim County.
The Attorney General’s office responded to those allegations in a statement, stating, “While the Committee and Mr. DePerno are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.”
“Matt DePerno is a discredited Big Lie conspiracy peddler and a desperate criminal defendant the likes of which this office is not unfamiliar,” Kimberly Bush, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s office, wrote to the Michigan Advance. “It’s unfortunate that he’s found support from the Republicans on this committee.”
“I want to address the conflict created when the Attorney General investigated her opposing counsel in active litigation, who later became her political opponent,” DePerno said, referencing his run for Attorney General against Nessel in 2022 — a seat which he is again seeking in 2026.
“This is an attempt to show every other attorney out there that if you file a lawsuit challenging the election, you will be prosecuted by Dana Nessel,” he continued.
Charges against DePerno include unauthorized access to computers, conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine and undue possession of a voting machine. Muskegon County Prosecutor D.J. Hilson has served as the special prosecutor in the case since September 2022 — which was requested by Nessel’s office because she was facing DePerno in the November general election for attorney general that year and wanted to avoid any conflict of interest.
“This petition further stated that when the investigation began, there was a conflict of interest, but that there was not a conflict of interest, but that a conflict had since arisen,” DePerno said, calling himself the presumptive Republican nominee in the Attorney General election as of mid-2021, when he was endorsed by Donald Trump. “We know this to be false. She had a conflict the entire time.”
However, State Rep. Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia), questioned the line between an investigation and a prosecution — Hilson was appointed months before formal charges against DePerno and his co-defendants were announced. Though DePerno said that he “absolutely” believed that an investigation leading up to the prosecution was a part of that prosecution.
“How are we supposed to investigate crimes?” Pohutsky asked. “The appointment of a special prosecutor is not unique to Dana Nessel or her office. So how is the state supposed to investigate crimes where eventually a recusal is completely appropriate, and the appointment of a special prosecutor?”
The Attorney General’s office itself also denied any impropriety in the case, including in the placement of the special prosecutor, which was requested, the office said, after the investigation made it clear that DePerno “was not just involved, but a potentially criminally culpable subject.”
“Since the placement of this matter with Muskegon County Prosecutor DJ Hilson, the Department of Attorney General and Attorney General Dana Nessel have had no influence, special insights, or control over this prosecution,” Bush wrote. “Special prosecutor assignments are not ‘an unusual process.’ In 2025, there were 693 cases placed in other offices, and 81 already assigned this year.”
DePerno also repeatedly alleged that his prosecution was the target of a “vendetta” by Nessel, adding that she was “laser focused” on prosecuting the issue of election denial and “she only needed a defendant,” which he said she found in him.
Subcommittee chair Rep. Angela Rigas (R-Alto), who prior to the hearing posted on Facebook calling DePerno a “leading advocate for election integrity,” played into those same concerns, asking at the start of the hearing, “We are here to ask one simple question, is this justice or is this retaliation?”
DePerno referred to a number of public statements made by Nessel in the campaign leading up to the 2022 election, as well as a recording of a conversation by a number of staff at the attorney general’s office where they discussed preferring to try the case in Oakland County as opposed to Roscommon County, as evidence of this wrongdoing.
“Public officials are free to speak, but when a prosecutor publicly characterizes the subject of an ongoing investigation who is also her opposing counsel and her electoral opponent as an extremist and domestic terrorist,” DePerno said, “that raises legitimate concerns about neutrality and prejudgment. It raises questions about her agenda.”
Nessel’s office wholeheartedly denied that those conversations were in any way improper, saying that the deliberations referenced by DePerno “involved common discussions when an alleged crime or series of crimes occurs in multiple venues.”
“Despite Defendant DePerno’s protests, the Prosecutor is not neutral nor expected to avoid pre-judgment,” Bush continued. “It is wholly unsurprising that those suspected and charged with felonies may be unhappy with conversations surrounding their criminality.”
Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.
