Connect with us


Michigan AG Says Trump-Backed Opponent is “A Dangerous Guy” Who “Does Not Believe in Democracy”



The top law enforcement official told Rogue Rocket her Republican challenger is unfit for office because of his false claims about the 2020 election and other far-right extremist views he holds.

DePerno’s Dangerous Election Lies

Much of the national discourse around the upcoming midterm elections has focused on the contests that will ultimately decide the future of the House and Senate. Some statewide races for attorney general and secretary of state, however, have garnered significant media attention due to the notoriety of the Republican candidate who could assume power.

One of the most high-profile and widely-discussed contests this year is the race for attorney general of Michigan, where Democratic incumbent Dana Nessel is locked in a close battle against the attorney and well-known election denier Matthew DePerno.

DePerno rose to prominence among far-right conservative circles after filing a lawsuit in Antrim County, Michigan disputing the results of the 2020 election. The suit, which was struck down in court, became well-known nationwide in the effort to spread disinformation. Despite that, DePerno has continued to spread false claims about election fraud.

In an interview with Rogue Rocket, Nessel said DePerno was hand-picked by former President Donald Trump because of his lawsuit, noting that her opponent was also at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“He became the nominee for the Republicans simply because that’s who Trump wanted,” Nessel said, adding that “if he were to be attorney general in our state,” he could “very likely manipulate [elections] in a way so that it’s not the will of the millions and millions of people who vote in the state of Michigan.

“Matthew DePerno has said all kinds of things. It’s not just that he’s still, to this day, legally trying to decertify the 2020 election by filing lawsuits to do so,” Nessel continued. “He’s a dangerous guy, does not believe in democracy, gets very upset if you call America a democracy. He stops his foot, and says, ‘it’s a constitutional republic. We are not a democracy. Stop calling us a democracy.’ I’ve never seen anybody so upset about the concept that, you know, each person should be able to have a say in their government and have their views represented.” 

DePerno is also currently under criminal investigation for an alleged scheme to tamper with voting machines. 

“In 2021, there was a set of circumstances where we learned that tabulators, election tabulators had been taken from clerk’s offices and placed into the hands of third parties that were not legally permitted to have possession of that election equipment,” Nessel explained, adding that her office began investigating the case, which was referred by the Michigan Department of State.

“Unfortunately, it led to a trail directly to my opponent, Matthew DePerno,” she continued, noting that she could no longer investigate the case because it posed a conflict of interest, and thus referred the case to a special prosecutor.

Other Extremist Stances

Nessel also detailed to Rogue Rocket the many other extremist views DePerno has voiced, including on hot-button issues like abortion.

“He’s gone so far as to say it’s not just that he believes [in] abortion criminalization, without exception of rape, without exception to incest, but he’s even said even if the mother is going to die,” she said.

“But he went even a step further than that and said he actually wants to also ban birth control. And he said specifically he wants to treat plan B the same way you would treat illegal fentanyl shipments that come across our border.” 

Nessel further noted that DePerno also has some very extremist views on guns that go beyond the traditional Republican base.

“His views on the Second Amendment are so extreme that he doesn’t think that there should be a prohibition on owning firearms by anyone, anywhere, anytime,” she asserted. “So that includes people who have been convicted of domestic violence, of sexual assault, you know, homicide.

So basically guns for all, guns for children, guns for convicted murderers.”

To Debate or Not to Debate

Like a few other candidates in contentious and polarized races, Nessel has refused to debate her opponent. 

However, unlike those other races, Nessel’s reasons here are in part based on legal concerns. Specifically, she is unable to speak about the investigation into DePerno because it would violate the code of prosecutorial ethics established by the American Bar Association.

“But he can talk about it. If he talks about it during a debate, I can’t respond,” she added. “All I can say is, ‘no comment, no comment, no comment, no comment.’ I don’t see how that’s informative for the public and it’s really like going to a boxing match with one arm tied behind my back.”

 There are other reasons the Michigan Attorney General will not debate DePerno, including the fact that he “continues to disseminate disinformation about the 2020 election.”

“I think what it does is it undermines people’s faith and confidence in the election, and we know 100% we know that what he’s saying is untruthful,” she stated.

“And lastly, he’s a bully who engages in name-calling,” Nessel continued. “He continually refers to me as ‘General Groomer.’ He says that because I’m the first openly gay person to hold statewide office in Michigan.”

“You know, to call a person a groomer because they are, you know, outward LGBTQ, I mean, to me, what it does is it diminishes the community,” she explained. “And for children, for kids who hear that kind of talk, it leads LGBT kids to self-harm, to feel terrible about themselves, and to oftentimes commit suicide. And I’m not going to give them a platform to do that.”

Nessel concluded by arguing that the reason her race is so close is that many people are blindly supporting DePerno as the Republican candidate without knowing all that he stands for, and to beat him, she says it is important to discuss how extreme his beliefs are.

“This is a person who would really have the authority to do a lot of damage in our state. And I think he would if he was given the opportunity. So I think the more we tell people about him and the more that we highlight his very extreme and radical viewpoints, the less likely it is that voters are going to consider him come November.” 

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Detroit Free Press) (The New York Times)


White House Endorses Bipartisan Senate Bill That Could Ban TikTok



The measure does not target TikTok specifically but instead would set up a framework to crack down on foreign products and services that present a national security threat.


A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Tuesday that would allow the federal government to restrict or even outright ban TikTok and other technologies produced by foreign companies.

Under the legislation, dubbed the RESTRICT Act, the Commerce Department would have sweeping authority to identify and regulate technologies that pose a risk to national security and are produced by companies in six “foreign adversary” countries: China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.

In other words, the proposal would not explicitly ban TikTok, but instead creates a path for future prohibitions on the Chinese-owned platform. 

While the bill’s text does not specifically mention TikTok, the group of senators made it clear that the app is their number one target, directing most of their criticism to the platform in statements announcing the measure.

The legislation, however, would go way beyond TikTik: it is also designed to prepare for future situations where apps or technologies from an “adversary” country become popular in the U.S.

The bill’s Democratic sponsor, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Ma.), echoed that point in his remarks Tuesday.

“Today, the threat that everyone is talking about is TikTok, and how it could enable surveillance by the Chinese Communist Party, or facilitate the spread of malign influence campaigns in the U.S.,” he said. “Before TikTok, however, it was Huawei and ZTE, which threatened our nation’s telecommunications networks. And before that, it was Russia’s Kaspersky Lab, which threatened the security of government and corporate devices.”

“We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren’t playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they’re already ubiquitous.”

Proponents of the bill also hope that, given the broad scope of the legislation, it will gain more traction than past proposals that zeroed in on TikTok. Support for the measure was further bolstered when the White House announced it would back the move shortly after it was rolled out.

“This bill presents a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in a statement. “We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President’s desk.”

A Bumpy Road Ahead

Despite the bipartisan push, there are still some hurdles for the RESTRICT Act to overcome.

Although the legislation does not directly ban TikTok, because that is clearly its intent, the same issues with an outright prohibition still stand. One of the most serious concerns is that banning TikTok would violate the First Amendment.

There is past precedent on this front: in 2020, a federal magistrate judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring Apple and Google to take the Chinese-owned app WeChat off their app stores.

In that decision, the judge argued that the government only had “modest” evidence about the app’s risks and that removing it from app stores would “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government’s significant interest in national security.”

TikTok has emulated that argument. In a statement responding to the RESTRICT Act Tuesday, a spokesperson for the company said the legislation could “have the effect of censoring millions of Americans.”

Meanwhile, even if the act does pass, there is also the question of whether the Biden administration would decide on a full-scale ban. 

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo would be the one responsible for overseeing the process under the bill, and while she said she said in a statement that she “welcomed” the proposal and promised to work with Congress to pass it, she has also previously expressed hesitation for a full prohibition.

On the other end of the equation, there are concerns that this measure will not ultimately get enough bipartisan support from Republicans who do want an outright ban and will refuse to accept anything that falls short of that.

While speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) said the new plan did not go far enough and argued that Congress “should pass a bill that bans TikTok.”

Even if the legislation does get enough support in the Senate, its path is unclear in the GOP-held House, where it also does not yet have a companion bill. Republicans in the House recently introduced a measure that would give the president the power to unilaterally ban TikTok in the U.S.

That proposal, however, is not bipartisan like the RESTRICT Act, which will be a key test to see if legislators can find a middle ground on the matter.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Reuters) (NBC News)

Continue Reading


What You Need to Know About Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race — The Most Important Election in 2023



Gerrymandering, abortion, the 2024 presidential election, and much more are on the line.

Primary Election

An election to fill an empty seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that has been described as the most consequential race of 2023 has now been narrowed to two candidates after the primary Tuesday.

Liberal Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz easily took first place, winning 46.4% of the vote with nearly all precincts reporting. In second place with 24.2% was conservative Daniel Kelly, a former Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice who was appointed by the state’s then-Republican governor in 2016 but lost his re-election in 2020.

Notably, the wide discrepancy in votes can be explained by the fact that Kelly split Republican ballots with another conservative candidate who came in a close third with 21.9%. As such, the general election is expected to be tight.

Also of note, this race is technically supposed to be non-partisan, but Protasiewicz has closely aligned herself with Democrats and Kelly has done the same with Republicans. Both parties, as well as dark money groups, have poured millions of dollars into the high-stakes election that will determine whether liberals or conservatives will have a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court at an incredibly consequential time.

There are a number of paramount issues at play here that have widespread implications not just for Wisconsin but America at-large.

Gerrymandering and Elections

Wisconsin is one of the most important swing states in the country: it helped decide the outcomes of both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, and it is the center of debates on gerrymandering and free and fair elections that have played a role in those races.

The state Supreme Court, which has had a conservative majority for the last 14 years, has been instrumental in shaping those policies, having weighed in on many of the most crucial topics and almost always siding with Republicans.

For example, in what VICE described as “arguably the most important decision the court made in recent years,” the court ruled 4-3 last year to uphold one of America’s most gerrymandered maps that gave Republicans a massive advantage.

“The maps are so gerrymandered that Republicans hold six of Wisconsin’s eight House seats and nearly two-thirds of legislative seats in the state—even though Democrats won most statewide races last year,” the outlet reported.

That ruling created something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: the conservative majority court has decided so many critical topics because the state government is deadlocked with a Republican majority in the legislature and a Democratic governor.

So, by approving a map that massively favored Republicans, the conservative court kept that system in place, ensuring that they would continue to have the final say on so many of these essential areas.

However, if Protasiewicz wins the general election, the court is all but certain to revisit the gerrymandered map. Protasiewicz, for her part, explicitly stated in a recent interview that a liberal majority could establish new election maps. Kelly, meanwhile, has said he has no interest in revisiting the maps. 

A decision unfavorable to the GOP-drawn maps would have significant implications for the internal politics of Wisconsin and control of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a very slim five-seat majority.

To that point, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also plays a big role in how the state’s elections are administered and how its ten Electoral College votes will be doled out in the 2024 presidential election. 

Last year, the conservative court banned absentee ballot drop boxes, and in 2014, it upheld a GOP voter ID law that studies have shown suppressed Black voters. While the court did vote against considering former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit to try and overturn the 2020 election in Wisconsin, it only did so by a thin margin of 4-3.

The court will very likely be tasked with wading into elections-related cases in the coming years. Already, it is anticipated that the justice will hear a lawsuit by a conservative group aiming to further limit voting access by banning mobile and alternate voting facilities.

Abortion and Other Important Statewide Subjects

In addition to the ramifications for America broadly, there are also plenty of paramount issues concerning the state Supreme Court that will materially impact the people of Wisconsin.

Much of the race has been centered heavily on the topic of abortion and reproductive rights because the composition of the court will almost positively determine whether or not abortion will be legal for the state’s six million residents.

Following the Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade, an 1849 Wisconsin law banning abortion went back into effect. Currently, a lawsuit against the ban is winding its way through the court system, and it is all but assured that battle will eventually go before Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.

Experts and analysts say that if Kelly wins, it is essentially guaranteed that abortion will remain illegal in almost all cases. Protasiewicz, by contrast, has campaigned extensively on abortion rights and vocally supported the right to choose.

Beyond that, there are also several other major issues the court will likely rule on in the coming years. For example, Protasiewicz has also said she believes a liberal majority could reverse a 12-year-old law that basically eliminated collective bargaining for public workers. All of that is just the tip of the iceberg.

“Everything is at stake, and I mean everything: Women’s reproductive rights, the maps, drop boxes, safe communities, clean water,”  Protasiewicz told VICE. “Everything is on the line.” 

See what others are saying: (VICE) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading


Republicans Want to Cut Food Stamps — Even As Pandemic-Era Programs Wind Down



Experts say cuts to food stamps could have a devastating impact on the 41 million Americans who rely on the program.

GOP Weighs SNAP Cuts in Budget

In recent weeks, top Republican lawmakers have floated several different ideas for cutting food stamp benefits.

Earlier this month, Republicans now leading the House Budget Committee flagged food stamps — formally known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP —  as one of the ten areas they would support cuts to in their new budget proposal. 

In a memo, the panel argued that stricter work requirements would “save tens of billions,” while a more rigid verification process for applicants would limit waste, fraud, and abuse. The idea comes as part of a broader effort to reduce the federal deficit.

Experts, however, say the proposed changes could result in debilitating cuts for the 41 million Americans who rely on food stamps and exacerbate an ongoing hunger crisis at a time when inflation has sent food prices rising.

SNAP provides low-income households with an average of around $230 a month for groceries. For many of those families who are also the most impacted by inflationary price increases across the board, that money is absolutely essential.

Experts have also noted that any additional cuts to SNAP would be especially harmful because Republicans are still proposing new cuts despite the fact that Congress already agreed just two months ago to end a pandemic-era program that had increased benefits in some states.

Under the pandemic policies, SNAP was expanded so households could receive maximum benefits instead of benefits based on income testing while also giving bigger payouts to the lowest-income Americans.

That expansion is now set to expire in March, and according to the anti-hunger advocacy group the Food Research and Action Center, an estimated 16 million households will see their per-person benefits drop by around $82 a month.

The Farm Bill Debate

Even if Republicans do not end up cutting SNAP in the budget, the program may still be in hot water.

While raising the debt limit is at the forefront of ongoing partisan battles at the moment, there is already a fight shaping up over another essential piece of legislation: the farm bill.

The farm bill is a package that has to be updated and reauthorized every couple of years. One of the most important legislative tasks Congress is responsible for, the farm bill includes many important subsidies and programs that are imperative to America’s food systems, farms, and much more.

SNAP is among the nutrition-based programs that fall under the purview of the farm bill, and Republicans have already tossed around the idea of cutting food stamp benefits in their ongoing negotiations.

Those debates are quite forward-looking, though it is normal for such discussions to occur early during a year in which Congress is charged with passing the farm bill. Lawmakers have until Oct. 1 to either enact a new version or agree on some kind of extension.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Business Insider) (Axios)

Continue Reading