And so being able to protect the rights of people to, to pray as they choose to pray, uh, without having to fear that they are going to be targets for violence, uh, and hate speech is absolutely critical.

We, we've had attacks not, not only against Temple Israel, uh, which is, I think, the example we talk about a lot, but I mean, look at the attack on the LDS Church in Grand Blanc.

I mean, four people died, and it's a miracle that more people didn't.

We've had other attacks on, uh, a, a church in, in Wayne, Michigan.

Um, this unfortunately has been an escalation, uh, of things that we've seen in regard to domestic terrorism, and I think we need to be doing everything we possibly can to combat that hate.

Um, and for me, that includes not just the physical security of those structures so that people can feel safe going to church or synagogue or temple, uh, or a mosque.

But, um, also I think we need substantial changes in the law when it comes to, uh, I think what is, what is the, the biggest inspiration for the hate and the toxicity and the division, and that's social media.

What do both of you hope Michiganders will take away from seeing the two of you standing together around the values and goals that you share today?

Don't..." Are people saying things like that to you?

Well, let me say a couple things about this.

First of all, let me make this abundantly clear.

I will amputate my right arm before I fill in the oval next to Mike Rogers' name.

Um, I think that keeping a majority, a Republican majority in the Senate is incredibly dangerous.

I think Mike Rogers would be a, a rubber stamp for all of the worst excesses, uh, of, of, you know, the most, uh, corrupt, uh, administration we've ever had in American history.

So he is a danger.

And if, and if Jews in America keep putting, uh, this, this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone's gonna come around and take action, not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.

you know.

Immigration.

Right.

Exactly.

Because he can't get anything through Congress to do it legally.

And so to go it alone, he has to declare some sort of an emergency.

But, you know, in that event, I mean, we'll do what I've been doing, unfortunately, all these years since I've been in office, which is we'll take him to court.

I don't think that's ever going to happen.

Who, who specifically would you like to stand up more about this?

Well, first and foremost, the, the party chair should be demanding that we enforce a code of conduct and we have certain levels of decorum.

Um, you know, like, uh, party events, uh, sometimes have been boisterous.

But lately they have turned, um, frankly scary and venomous.

And, you know, there's a lot of, uh, videotaped footage from what happened at our last convention, the endorsement convention that took place in, uh, April.

And unfortunately, you know, there's no consequences for anybody, uh, irrespective of how you behave.

And, you know, these should be inclusive events.

What's your response to that?

But do you believe that they are trying to safeguard democracy? I mean, are the courts going to see it that way?

No, I don't think so.

We've been so successful in our lawsuits against the federal government.

You know, we now have around 60 lawsuits in Michigan that we filed.

We've already won about 30 of those cases.

So we've been very successful.

This is just another effort, of course, to try to, as you suggested, weaponize the money that is owed to these states.

So what's what is this fight all about for voter rolls? How do you expect the appeal to succeed or not?

So what are you preparing for? What do you think could be one of the biggest risks here or the biggest threats that he may try to do around the November election?

Well, I think that, as usual, the administration is focused on Michigan.

In this year, in a year where he's not on the ballot, I think what he's most focused on is the fact that we have three congressional districts for the U.S. House of Representatives that are likely to flip, the fourth, The seventh and the 10th congressional districts are all looking very much like they may flip.

And the last thing that President Trump wants is to have to deal with the Democratic majority in the United States House of Representatives, where, of course, a bare majority can issue articles of impeachment.

So, of course, he's already trying to sow the seeds of doubt.

in our elections and to undermine people's faith in the safety and the security of our elections.

I think it's important to note we have 1,600 local clerks that actually administer the elections in Michigan.

What are you—and I assume other attorneys general are constantly in contact with each other—what is the actual plan to protect the voters from the federal government?

What can you tell us about what's accurate about what he just said?

Well, first of all, let's note the fact that, um, in the DOJ, uh, filings, they couldn't even spell Muskegon correctly, uh, let alone get all the other information correct.

But, uh, Muskegon was an example of, uh, the system working and things going exactly as they should.

Yes, somebody tried to submit, uh, fraudulent, uh, applications for registration, but the clerk immediately flagged it, and as a result, no one was improperly registered.

There were no ballots that were improperly distributed or sent out.

Uh, nobody cast those ballots.

And, um, no fraudulent ballots were counted.

Have, have you heard from Patel or anyone at the FBI?

W- what's your reaction to those decisions?

Well, obviously the courts, um, have looked at these, uh, executive orders and have found them to be, um, you know, absolutely, uh, illegal, and in many cases, unconstitutional.

We know that it's the states that, um, regulate the time, place, and manner, uh, for voting, and that they are best suited to administer elections.

Certainly, it should not be the federal government who administers our elections.

And so obviously I'm grateful for the court's ruling, but I'm concerned about the misinformation and the disinformation that's been distributed by Donald Trump and by the federal government, uh, in an effort to undermine people's confidence in our election results.

And, you know, I- it's done for one reason and one reason only.

In the event that, uh, Donald Trump's preferred candidates lose, especially for, for Congress, he wants to be able to say that, you know, there was something that, um, you know, people should be concerned about in terms of, uh, the election results, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Um, amid all the scrutiny and the conspiracy theories you referred to that float around about our, our elections, why challenge policies that are meant to make elections and voting safer?

State leaders like Nessel don't deny that things might work out for all concerned, but for that to happen, she believes we all need to know in advance the scope of data center construction, the effects it's likely to have on the community, and what commitments the developers and owners are making to address the possible local downsides.

The request was made before our utility regulator, the Michigan Public Service Commission, uh, for this contract that was filed, uh, for an ex parte hearing, meaning a, a, uh, a hearing that would take place behind closed doors that we wouldn't be allowed to be part of.

So the contract that was posted publicly was heavily redacted, and that included redactions to some incredibly important information, you know, involving things like exit fees, what would happen upon the termination of the contract, even, you know, basic terms and definitions had been redacted, customer credits.

Even the signatories to the contract had been redacted so that we can't even know who signed this contract or what company they're affiliated with, uh, which is pretty insane when you think about it.

How are we supposed to know whether or not rate payers are getting a fa- a fair deal if we're not even allowed to see the contract itself?

Who will bear the cost this time remains uncertain.

In the event that the bubble bursts and something happens and this, uh, hyperscale center in Saline Township is no longer needed, somebody is going to have to pay all of the extra costs, uh, of this new infrastructure.

And who's gonna pay it? Well, it's either gonna be borne by the, the rate payers in this state, and we already are, are subject to some of the highest rates and the worst reliability, uh, anywhere in the country, uh, or it'll be the taxpayers.

Walk us through what the unredacted Van Buren Google contract reveals about who gets protected, who gets paid, and who gets left holding the bag.

Yeah, so obviously on the Celine project, you know, I was very upset, as you recall, that there was an ex parte hearing that we weren't involved in, that everything was done behind closed doors with the Michigan Public Service Commission, and that for the first time ever, my department wasn't permitted to see that contract.

And again, for the biggest energy project in the history of the state of Michigan.

So for the Van Buren site, which is going to be operated by Google, You know, it wasn't the MPSC that said, we want this to be more transparent.

And it wasn't DTE.

It was Google who said, we don't want to go through what happened last time with Saline Township.

So we are going to have a normal process and a contested hearing for the purposes of this project.

So how do you reflect on that?

State leaders like Nessel don't deny that things might work out for all concerned, but for that to happen, she believes we all need to know in advance the scope of data center construction, the effects it's likely to have on the community, and what commitments the developers and owners are making to address the possible local downsides.

The request was made before our utility regulator, the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Uh, for this contract, it was filed, uh, for an ex parte hearing, meaning a, a, i- a hearing that would take place behind closed doors that we wouldn't be allowed to be part of.

So the contract that was posted publicly was heavily redacted, and that included redactions to some incredibly important information, you know, involving things like exit fees, what would happen upon the termination of the contract.

Even, you know, basic terms and definitions had been redacted, customer credits.

Even the signatories to the contract had been redacted so that we can't even know who signed this contract or what company they're affiliated with, uh, which is pretty insane when you think about it.

How are we supposed to know whether or not rate payers are getting a fa- a fair deal if we're not even allowed to see the contract itself?

Who will bear the cost this time remains uncertain.

What triggered the lawsuit?

Well, because this is a disaster in the making for this local community.

Uh, they did not discuss, uh, this plan, the DHS did not, with the state or county or local officials, and we only found out about it after the warehouse had been purchased.

Um, you know, this is a residential area.

It, they tell us that they're going to be detaining the worst of the worst there, and yet you're right near an elementary school, a middle school.

You're abutting these residential households.

And that facility also is in a floodplain.

I- if this location or another location selected by DHS, uh, complies with NEPA or, uh, with, uh, the other, uh, statute that you're referring to, i- is that something you would eventually have to support, you would support?

So I have questions about the investigation for you in a sec, but I s- I wanna start with your reaction to today's attack as I think, uh, the highest ranking Jewish state official in the State of Michigan.

Yeah.

Well, Jake, um, honestly, I'm very shaken up.

I'm from West Bloomfieldsh- Township.

My family lives just down the street from Temple Israel.

Uh, and I've multiple members of my family that are members of that congregation, which is the biggest Reform, uh, Judaism congregation, I believe, in the United States.

Uh, this is the place that I went to in 2018 where we memorialized, uh, those who were lost in the massacre in the Tree of Life, uh, temple in, uh, Pittsburgh, and I was just there last year doing a presentation on hate crimes and domestic terrorism, and trying to warn people there about how to report, um, hate crimes or how to report su- suspected acts that could lead to domestic terrorism.

Uh, do you think that that is likely having an impact on this rise of not just antisemitic views, but antisemitic actions?

What happens to that now?

Well, you bring up an interesting point, and, uh, I've long referred to some of the states that were able to have, uh, relief as a result of the lawsuits that were brought by the Democratic AGs and other parties as, um, freeloader states, because you had attorneys general in those states that, uh, were more interested in feigning loyalty to the President of the United States than they were, uh, interested in protecting the rights of the people who elected them to those offices.

So, whether you're talking about public health grants, whether you're talking about, uh, National Institute of Health funding and the millions and millions of dollars, uh, for various different states, uh, ESSER funds, um, money that went directly for grants to our public schools, um, you're in a situation, obviously, where if you are not a party to a lawsuit, if you are not a plaintiff state or some other party that can establish standing, um, these- this case would seem to indicate that you will not- then not benefit from the relief that is granted from the injunction from whatever court, uh, has issued that order.

And I- I, for one, am gonna be interested to see what our Republican colleagues do and how they are going to rationalize this or explain it to their constituents when only the states with Democratic AGs see these benefits, uh, and these rights protected, but not the individuals in their respective states.

So does that mean that automatically the other states that were not party to this lawsuit will basically lose the benefits of the nationwide order? Or is- there's some procedural thing that needs to happen before the nationwide injunction actually is lifted?

Well, AG Campbell can correct me, uh, if she thinks I'm wrong about this, but this particular order, I mean, it seems specific to the issue of birthright citizenship.

It doesn't seem as though it's impacting any of the previous injunctions.

But I would say, I wouldn't be surprised to see the government go back and try to revisit whatever the relief was that was granted in those prior lawsuits.

What do you do then?

Well, what I think is, is this, and, and this is what I've been promoting, is that the only real way I think that we have a chance at salvaging the country that we've all grown up to know and, and love is to, to be as bold as possible in fighting back, to let us m- let our neighbors, our friends, you know, our coworkers, our families understand exactly how bad these policies are and to not be shy about it, and for those of us who have Trump supporters in their family to really take the time, instead of just avoiding the topic altogether, take the time to make them understand what it means when we lose Social Security, what it means when the CDC shuts down and now it's impossible to fight the next Ebola or bird flu, these erratic tariffs and what that's gonna mean for our savings and our ability to afford basic necessities of life, to have those conversations, but to make people understand why we are out there...... peacefully and lawfully protesting the government, and candidly, for people to talk to their, their family members or friends that they know who are in active military service or who do serve in our state's National Guard.

And so that when we are out in the streets, and studies have shown, it only takes 3.5% of a nation's population to peacefully fight back in order to stop a country that is sliding very quickly from a democracy into an autocratic regime.

Um, you know, on April 5th, we got, like, five and a half million people out there to do it.

I- it'll only take maybe 12 million people in the United States to come out till I think we'll see, maybe Congress will finally start to take back their authority, understanding that they have the legal right and opportunity, and I would argue the obligation, to actually start taking back their power, and they would win in the courts if they challenged it.

And there needs to be the threat by Congress against a president that, "You will face impeachment if you don't work with us." And, and, and here's the thing that I find to be so insane about it, is if you look at all the most important pieces of legislation that has had long-time impact on our country, and whether it's the, you know, the ACA under Obama, or the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act under LBJ, or even more recently, you know, the, uh, Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Act by Biden, could you imagine if any of them tried to do that by executive fiat? By signing an executive order instead of negotiating with Congress? So Congress, take back your power that, again, Article I, the very first article of the Constitution that was provided to you, and make sure the president knows that if he does not abide by that, that Congress is, is gonna go to the courts where they'll certainly win on a number of different issues that, you know, the state AGs have had to file on and many other parties.

But for, for civilians in terms of what they can do, they can go out to these rallies.

Wow.