 Hello and welcome to Channel 17's Town Meeting Television. I'm Matt Kelly, your host for another live candidate forum for our 2018 midterm general election. Joining me this evening is Janssen Wilhoit and T.J. Donovan, candidates for attorney general. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Thank you for joining us. We'll begin this evening with opening statements from each candidate, and Janssen will begin with you. Thank you, Matt, and thank you, viewers. My name is Janssen Wilhoit, and I am running to be your attorney general. The reason I'm running is because my life, I have committed myself not only as a parent, as a foster parent, as a state legislator, and as an attorney to fight for and defend the rule of law for equal protection under the law and to protect the most vulnerable among us. Now, we have made strides when it comes to criminal justice reform here in Vermont, but unfortunately there is still too much disparity and disparity in our system. Many times, too often times, where someone happens to live or who they are determines their fate in the criminal justice system. That is why for the past four years in the legislature, I've worked vigorously to stop those policies and continue to do that as your attorney general. I am also running to be your attorney general because I believe in an open and transparent government. The fraud that occurred in the EB-5 scandal that affected the Northeast Kingdom's tragedy, it was the worst scandal in the history of that whole program. And the truth is, if anybody in our government was complicit to that fraud, they should pay for it. And that is why I have committed to making sure that if I'm your attorney general, I will seek the truth wherever it may lead us. Again, I thank you and I do ask for your vote. Very good, Jensen Wilhoit. TJ Donovan, your opening statement, please. Thank you. Thanks for having me. I'm running for re-election as attorney general to represent ordinary Vermonters, people who don't have a voice to truly be the people's lawyer. I think it's clear that in November of 2016, our country changed. You have environmental protections being dismantled. You have people's civil rights and fundamental rights being threatened. You have consumer protections being stripped away. And really the essence of our country, the character of our country, is that issue. This is why you need a strong attorney general to stand up for Vermonters. That's why I sued Purdue Pharmaceutical for starting the opiate crisis in this state. That's why I fought to preserve clean air and clean water fighting against the federal government as they seek to dismantle the EPA. Because something that we value in this state is our environment. That's why I've stood up against hate, not only in this state but across this country, protecting the civil rights of all Vermonters and protecting the fundamental rights of all Vermonters, including women's rights. I've also fought to preserve opportunity for people who get up every day, work hard, and deserve the government work for them. We've started a small business initiative in our state to reach out to the backbone of our community, small businesses, to simply ask them, what do you need to be successful in this state? I'm a believer that the best form of public safety is a good job. But before we get people job ready, we have to make sure that the fundamentals of our community are addressed. And that means access to healthcare, early childhood education, good public schools with robust mental health services, affordable housing, access to affordable higher education. That's redefining what a safe and vibrant community is for all Vermonters. That's what I'm fighting for. To make sure that everybody has opportunity to get ahead, to defend the most vulnerable, to stand up for folks, stand up for children, to stand up for the elderly, and to protect people's civil rights against the federal government that are threatening them today. Thank you. Very good, TJ Donovan, thank you. Reminder to our viewers that if you have a question for either TJ or Jensen, our phone lines are open at 862-3966. And we welcome all our viewers enjoying our online stream at ch17.tv. TJ, we're going to get right into some of the questions here. You've had a wonderful broad opening statement there. What are you personally, as the state's attorney general, working on as your priorities for this next biennium? Sure, number one, opiates. As I said, I've sued Purdue Pharma for starting the opiate crisis, a manufacturer of OxyCon. I think the opiate epidemic is the number one issue in our state. Too many people's lives have been ruined, people have died. Kids are being raised mostly by their grandparents because of the devastating impact of this disease. We've done a good job on the issues of treatment. We've done a good job on the issues of prevention. We need to do more. It's time for corporate accountability. That's why I sued Purdue Pharma. I'm also proud that I've started the community justice program in my office, which for the first time addresses the geographic disparities that exist in our criminal justice system in our 14 counties. We're moving to a standardized and uniform system in our 14 counties. The rates of diversion of pretrial services are up in all counties. This is success because for far too long, we've dealt with the issues of mental illness, the issues of addiction, the issues of poverty with a jail cell. It's a failed approach. We spend more money on corrections locking people up in this state than we do sending them to institutions of higher learning like UVM, Johnson and Castleton. That is a disgrace. We need to do better. I will always fight against investing in prisons and fight for investing in people, giving people an opportunity. But to address these issues, and I'm not afraid about holding people personal responsible. I put people in jail who deserve to be in jail. That's those that pose a threat to our public safety. I've done this job. I've been a prosecutor most of my life. But the vast majority of people who are in our prisons are people who are struggling with the issues of addiction, the issues of mental illness, the issues of trauma. We have to become better at understanding trauma. We have to understanding the adverse impacts these experiences have on children. So it is incumbent that when we address these issues of public safety, it's not just about talking about a jail cell. It's talking about mental health services. It's talking about access to healthcare. It's talking about early childhood education in good schools. Thank you. So we address these issues so kids can grow up in our state safe and have the opportunity for success. Very good. Janssen, we'll move on to you. That was a long-winded response. We apologize. We have such a limited time. We are asking respondents to limit their responses to two minutes or less here. The opiate crisis, a failure for Vermont and a failure of the Attorney General's office? Yes, well, if I may, I want to go there. But I also want to answer those questions about those two issues that the TJ brought as well. Again, we've made strides, but not enough. And again, I think the simple answer is, well, we're going to sue a big pharma for that. But we got to look at what we've done in our own state for the past 20 years. We have addicts that are in the throes of addiction, that are in crisis. And, Senator, for these control our own legislature, I said that these aren't criminals, these are people in a health crisis. But unfortunately, our criminal justice system still treats them as criminals. That's the reason why I fought for and advocated for having possession charges no longer be felonies in the state. So we aren't locking people up, but guess what? We still are. Because the majority party would not let that happen. I also fought to remove all bail for these low level offenders. Again, the compromise was, well, just $200. Because anybody can afford $200, but they can't. I just saw two weeks ago a young woman in Wyndham County get held on $200. So guess where she is now? In Burlington. And for months, for no reason. She should be getting the treatment she needs. So that does require us to invest more in treatment. And being able to have the resources we need to keep people out of prison with respect to the diversion piece as well. Again, we still have gross disparity there. I actually sent the Attorney General's office last year one of my cases from Wyndham County, specifically said, this is a perfect tamerac case. This is why it was written. And they agreed. But again, the problem is it's absolute discretion by the state's attorney. And so again, it depends on where you live if you're gonna get diversion. And so I also advocated for giving the court's ability to divert people to diversion, but again, pushback from our Attorney General and the Democrats. That is how we're gonna fix these problems, bold steps. Very good. We have a listener question here. We're excited to have a viewer dial on in and ask us a question. You're on the air, Collard. Do you have a question for TJ or for Janssen Wilhoit? I do. This is Thomas Joseph. I'm calling to inquire if Attorney General Donovan or candidate Wilhoit can offer some commentary on any transparency that they can bring to criminal fraud probes. I recently worked with the Attorney General's office for the past nearly three years. And Attorney General Donovan has not told the public anything. Certainly he hasn't told the public the truth, nor explained away. Significant evidence that demonstrates wholesale fraud. So I'd like to hear from Mr. Donovan as far as what he can work towards in his second term if he's so fortunate and also what Mr. Wilhoit might bring as a future Attorney General. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Collard. We're gonna actually begin this question actually with Mr. Wilhoit just in terms of our spacing here. The question was about fraud. And you raised this in your opening statement about the EB-5 scandal. And do you believe that all the answers or all the questions have been answered yet? No, they haven't. And regards EB-5 or what this caller is speaking about too. If there is fraud taking place, Vermonters expect and they deserve those answers. I mean, we have supposedly the most open transparent government. One of the things I love about being in the state legislature, it's really like none other. We don't have security. People can walk in, ask any questions. And that's what Vermonters expect. And that's same too with any kind of fraud that's happening. And to be frank, I'm not an insider. I have not been in throws of state government for years and years and have the pedigree of some of the cronyism, quite frankly, that's there. So I am willing to, again, follow the facts as they lead me. And that means even the most important people are to blame, then they deserve to be held accountable. And I promise all Vermonters that I will do that. Some serious charges, TJ Donovan. Cronyism, EB-5 scandal, have all the questions been answered, transparency. How do you address some of those questions? Well, I'm not sure who my opponent refers to when he talks about cronyism. Let's talk about transparency. I was the first person in this state to advocate for a change to the federal system, which would make public records presumed to disclose, to make them subject to disclosure. That was transparent. But there are exceptions to that rule. Litigation is one of them. These cases happen to be in litigation. And you don't, my opponent's an attorney, he knows this. Look, you have a job as an attorney to represent your client. That's what we're doing. But let me talk about transparency in this EB-5 case. There's a couple of cases. One was a securities fraud case up in Newport. I resolved that. I've gotten $2 million to fix that hole in Newport that we've all talked about. The state of Vermont has been sued. We defend the state of Vermont. That's the role of the attorney general, to defend the state of Vermont. If you don't defend them, you're not fulfilling your ethical and professional obligation. So this idea of not doing your job, voters should question that. Because the job, while it may be politically unpopular, is to defend the state of Vermont. And that's what I'm doing. But let's talk about the case that we're defending. We won. We won. That case is now on appeal in the Supreme Court. We're defending that. That's our job. So I've said, I will turn all the records over. And I will once the litigation is done, because that's the role of an attorney. But for me, that wasn't good enough because this does go to the heart of public trust and government. And I'll be very blunt with you. The answer is never gonna be told in a legal system because of the confidentialities and the privileges that we all know about. So I asked auditor Doug Hoffer, who's an independent third party. I said, would you do a review of what happened in state government? Who did what in state government? A completely separate review. He agreed to it. We've turned over 2.5 million documents to the state auditor who's doing this review. Who's gonna tell us the story of who did what in state government to restore the public trust in government. But at the end of the day, when you talk about being an attorney, being the attorney general for the state, one of your main clients is the state of Vermont. And so it's easy to say, I'm gonna get to the bottom of it. Well, we are getting to the bottom of it. We're defending the state. We've won every case we've been involved in. I don't control whether people appeal it up to the Supreme Court, but the job is to defend the state. That's the job. It's not a popular job on a lot of these cases, but that's the job. But I've gone the extra mile and said, auditor Hoffer, here's over 2 million documents. Tell us the story. And once this is done, we'll release the documents. I don't have a problem with that. But until we do that, I'm gonna follow the rules of our profession. I'm gonna follow the rules and the ethics of our profession. And anybody to suggest otherwise isn't fit to be attorney general. I'm gonna follow up with this just a little bit if I may. You say that you're representing the state of Vermont. Absolutely. Do you feel that you're representing Vermonters in that same? It's a great question. It's a great question. And when you talk about representing the state of Vermont, you're talking about representing the entities, which are state agencies. The state agencies. Are Vermonters being represented in this? And being, are there? Yes, they are. Because at the end of the day, if we're not, it's Vermonters, the taxpayers who are gonna pay. They are. And so you are representing Vermonters. Your client is the state agency, but you do that as being an elected official, making sure that you're providing legal services for the state. You're the state's lawyer. And let me just finish. And so when you talk about not representing the state, you know who you're putting that risk? You're putting that risk, the Vermont taxpayer. So what I've done, I think, is a very professional thing, a very prudent thing to say this. We're gonna fulfill our ethical obligation to defend the state because we're being sued. The case we brought have resolved. That was a $2 million settlement to fill the hole up in Newport, which the folks up in Newport are very happy about. We've been sued. We've won. That's in the Supreme Court. But I also understand the need for transparency. That's why I've asked Doug Hoffer to conduct an independent review. And that's why I've turned over all the documents and will continue to turn over all the documents to the auditor, who will be this independent third party to tell the story of who did what in state government to restore that trust in state government. This is a big deal. This issue of trust in government is a big deal. There's a lot of cynicism in the world right now. We know that. Let's go on. Let's give your competitor a chance here to respond. Do you feel that Vermonters are being served justice with the EB-5 process that is unfolding and that the state is being defended? Do you feel Vermonters are being served and being defended here? I don't think they are. And on the larger part of that too, while, again, I'm also an attorney. I understand the ethical and legal obligations of your client, but also you still have ethical obligations of, again, how you do conduct your business. And again, that's the reason why when there are freedom of information requests that are legitimate, they have to be honored. That's the reason, even under this administration, they have lost in court for that. Our state, we have cost our taxpayers money for losing some of those battles. So again, that's why it should always be yes before no. And so I do believe that we can still do the job properly to defend the state while still being open and transparent. That is what Vermonters expect and they deserve. Okay, we're moving on here. Privacy, data breaches. In the 21st century, they are a daily occurrence here affecting not only Vermont businesses, but Vermonters in general. The Equifax breach just as an example. What is the Attorney General doing to protect Vermonters in the 21st century of data for sale? It's a great question. And I think privacy really is the emerging issue in terms of consumer protection. Because as you said, we are in not only the 21st century economy, but it is a digital economy. And people's information is being bought and it's being sold. And let me tell you what the Attorney General's office did. We passed the first in the nation data broker bill where we now have a registry of data brokers so Vermonters can go do and say to these companies, what do you have on me? And what are you doing with it? So the issue of disclosure, the issue of a registry, the issue of providing information to Vermonters is the first step. You now have what's called the GDPR, I think the General Data Protection Act over in the EU, California adopted that. It goes much further than what we did in Vermont, although we were first. But this is gonna be a balancing act because Vermont has to be part of the global economy. We have to be part of the digital economy because that's the way the world's going. But at the same time, you can't give up the consumer protections about protecting people's privacy. So is it the owners on the consumer then that they have to opt out? I mean there are statistics that say within the next 24 months something like 50% of the telephone calls that you're gonna get on your cell phone are going to be spam texts and telephone calls. I think it's gonna be more than that. And I think it's astonishing the amount of robo calls we get and we're looking to address that. Does the consumer have to opt out? It should be an opt in at the end of the day, right? Because at the end of the day, this is about providing consumers choice. And when you talk about consumer protection, it comes down to choice. It comes down to informed choice. So that data broker bill that we fought so hard and advocated to start with first in the nation, incredible pushback from the industry on this issue. We passed it, we got it into law, we championed it. We're continuing to look at student privacy, but this issue of allowing consumers to opt in, I think, is the next step going forward to protect consumers, to create that balancing act in a digital economy that Vermont has to be part of. We have to be part of it, but we can't give up the consumer protection, which is privacy. This is gonna be one of the main issues going forward. Opting in or opting out? No, I do believe we should opt in, but the other concern though we have in this thing too is again, he's right to realize though that we're still part of a global economy, a global world. So what little we do will do much of anything unless we actually do work with other states and quite frankly both the nation and our international community. Because again, even if we do all the right things here, others can still break that data and if they're not, if they're outside the jurisdiction of Vermont, there's nothing we can do about that. So we really have to work more aggressively with those at the national level as well. In fact, I'm actually working on a panel for cybersecurity of some other state legislators. And in fact, also Mr. Condos, who has all walked in, he's also a part of that group too, because again, cybersecurity at all levels, including elections, is a big issue, but it's something that just Vermont exclusively isn't gonna be able to tackle. And so we're gonna follow up on this and we'll continue with you, Jens. And the next question on this comes about privacy and digital privacy. Does Vermont internet service providers do Vermont ISPs? Should they be required to protect Vermont and Vermonter's information? Currently, as we understand it, ISPs explicitly ask Vermont customers to opt in to share their data usage. We just kind of talked about that. Should there be a law here for anyone that provides internet service in the state of Vermont to actually be a little bit more protective of Vermont customers' privacy rights? Yeah, at this point, I mean, I really can't, I can't give a definitive answer, again, because the concern I have there though too, is if, say, we require that, but no one else does, then the access then to that information, which everything is online now, could also be a detriment to our safety. I mean, we work so hard to get folks in my neck of the woods actually access to the internet. But then again, if now it's really too cost prohibitive for that to happen, then we might lose that access. So again, I honestly think that unless we look at this, both at a national and global level, that us just isolating Vermont actually could hurt Vermonters more than help them. Hurt more than help, TJ Donaldson? This is why you need a strong attorney general because this is the issue, what's going on in the federal government? Take net neutrality, right? This is the issue. And are we gonna abdicate our responsibility to the citizens of Vermont and say to the FCC and the FTC, we trust you? Here's the thing, in Vermont, the attorney general stands up for Vermonters. So we fought, first thing was the data broker bill. We'll introduce this session about student privacy. This is going forward where you don't abdicate your responsibility and say the federal government has it. We're gonna trust the FCC, we're gonna trust the FTC. You can always trust, but I'm into verifying. And I'm also into making sure that we pass these laws in Vermont that are strong in terms of protecting consumers, that are balanced, that understand Vermont's role in the digital economy, we gotta grow our economy. But it's not an either or. And it's not enough to say, hey, let's see what the feds do. What I've done the last two years is fight against the federal government, not only in the issues of protecting Vermont consumers, the issues of civil rights, the issues of women's rights, and the issues of environmental protection. That's my record as attorney general, that's what I'm running on. I wanna just continue this a little bit here because you did bring up that neutrality. And that's actually a double-edged sword when you speak and learn about, you know, American and their racist Americans and what they can actually put out there on the internet. So can you speak, do you support net neutrality or do you think that these companies actually maybe have a fiduciary responsibility to monitor extremist views on their platform? Well, I support net neutrality and the principles of net neutrality because you don't wanna give one company the ability to throttle other companies and control the flow of information to Vermont consumers. So I do support the principles of net neutrality, but you raise the issue of hate speech. We're dealing with this issue, frankly in Bennington County. We took the lead and when a local, when it wasn't getting done at the local level, I stepped in as attorney general and said, these are the issues where you need a strong attorney general to conduct a criminal investigation when you have a sitting state representative essentially being bullied and threatened to resign her seat. This is when you have an attorney general that steps up and says, we're gonna investigate this. That's what I'm doing. Let me talk about the issue of hate speech though. The Supreme Court has ruled on a couple of matters about having what's called a true threat. And some of these issues may not be resolved in the court of law, but what we do in this state is stand against hate. That's why I've taken my civil rights unit across this state to a lot of high schools to talk to that next generation about what hate speech is and what the First Amendment is. We know what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia. That wasn't protected speech. That turned into criminal activity. And we have an obligation to educate our students this next generation that when you see hate, you confront hate, but you confront it at the next street corner with more speech. You confront it at the ballot box. You confront it in the legislature and you confront it in the court of law because we believe in the rule of law in this state and in this country. So, and I'll defend anybody's First Amendment rights, but when it crosses over, and I was the prosecutor who filed that charge against the KKK individual who was handing out flyers, not to the community at large. I'd argued that that would be protected, but to two women of color. I took that case on. We litigated, we fought, we had him incarcerated. We eventually lost at the Supreme Court, but I make no bones about that because at the end of the day, you need a fighter in the attorney general's office. You need somebody who's not gonna be intimidated. You need somebody who's going to go to bat for people who don't have a voice because that is the time we're in. Very good. Thank you, TJ. Net neutrality, it's a double-edged sword. You're up views on it. No, I also support the general principles. I do wanna go back if I can on the larger discussion of hate as well because again, unfortunately, the situation we have here is in a selective judgment on who we're gonna protect and who we're not to. I hope, and I'm glad that you're supporting Kaya in those efforts, but I hope, TJ, you're doing the same for Desiree as well here in our own backyard, while you're back there. The state police are investigating that case. The state police are investigating if you're referring to the candidate who's in Colchester, the state police have an open investigation. I've talked to the colonel of the state police. As I said, this is not a partisan issue, Jansen. When you were an attorney general, you don't pick sides, you do your job. That's what a prosecutor does. That's what I've done my entire career because let me tell you something. No, no, it's my current, I'm sorry. No victim has ever asked a prosecutor, no prosecutor has ever asked a victim, what's your political party? You do your job, that's my record, that's been my career. Well, Jansen. Well, it is, but again, the thing is, and maybe this is a bit different, because, again, because while, again, I can be just a strong fighter for the state of Vermont, I also do defend folks, and I fought for civil liberties all my life. And again, another important Supreme Court case that I won that got upheld was other so-called hate speech, but also was unanimous, 5-0, just a few years ago. It dealt with a man who had a daughter that was a special needs child that played fourth grade basketball, never got to play, ever. And so the last game of the season now, team was down by 20 points, last minute left, dad begging coach, let my daughter play just this one time, didn't happen. So what happened afterwards, he did confront her about it, he said mean words, and then he said to her, this isn't the FNNBA, he got prosecuted for that, and he got convicted, took it to the Supreme Court. Again, that's not nice things to say, but again, but we have the right as Vermonters to speak of injustice too. And so I firmly believe that we shouldn't be prosecuting people that are speaking passion and that have every right to do so. Very good. We'll now ask our candidates to do their closing statements and to please limit it to 30 seconds. And we'll begin with you, Jensen. Again, thank you so much, Matt, for having me and thank you viewers tonight. Again, I am running to be your attorney general because I do wanna defend the rule of law to have equal access and justice for everyone, regardless of who they are, where they come from, what family they were born into, and to protect our most vulnerable. I also do believe in an open and transparent government and making sure that we let the information follow where it may and that justice is served for all Vermonters, just not those in government. And TJ Jonovan, your final closing statements, please. Thanks for having me. I'm running for attorney general to really be the voice of regular Vermonters who need government to work for them. That's been my record not only as state's attorney, but as attorney general these past two years, whether it's a small business owner, whether it's a victim of crime, whether it's somebody who's just simply calling our office asking for a question. There's a guy who called our office who thought that he got ripped off by a mortgage company when he sold his house. It's a couple hundred bucks, but this is the culture I created. In the past, that call never would have been returned because they would have said in this office, it's not our problem. What I said was this, every call a Vermonter makes may not be the most important call for us, it's the most important call for that Vermonter. We get on the phone, we talk to that big corporation, we get that money back to that Vermonter. That's never gonna show up in a headline, that's never gonna be a story, but to that Vermonter, that couple hundred bucks, that makes a difference, that's who I'm fighting for, that's the culture I'm seeking to change, those are the people who I'm seeking to represent, that's why I'm running for reelection. I ask for your vote. My thanks to TJ Donovan and Jensen Wilhoit for joining us here this evening and a reminder that Rosemary Jekowski while not here this evening, her name is on the ballot, she is continuing to run under the Liberty Union moniker. For a complete list of upcoming calendar of events or a calendar of upcoming candidate forums, please visit our website ch17.tv and a reminder that early voting is already underway in the state of Vermont, you can register to vote and vote all the way up until November 6th. Do join us Tuesday, November 6th for election results beginning at 7 p.m. right here at Channel 17, Town Meeting Television. I'm Matt Kelly for all of us at CCTV, thank you for watching.