 Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us today at VT Diggers Attorney General Debate featuring TJ Donovan and Jansen Wilhoit. We really appreciate everyone coming out and braving the weather. So this is our second hosted event during the election cycle. The next one we're going to do is going to be on Thursday, November 1st at the Highland Center in Greensboro, and that will be with David Zuckerman and Don Turner. So we hope you show up for that one as well. And for more information and full coverage of all the election articles, profiles, and look into the issues, please visit vtdigger.org. We have an election guide up right now and sign up for our daily email, and you'll get all the stories in your email box. So I want to turn this over to Colin Mein, who is our news editor and our moderator for today. So thank you. Hi. Thanks for braving the storm to come out. So I think we're going to have to pass the microphone around a bit, a bit of a cooperative exercise here. Do we don't need these anymore? Oh, you guys have microphones. Okay. Great. I'll just hold this. Cool. All right. So we're going to pass on opening statements, jump right into questions. Each of you will get 90 seconds if the question is, if you're the first person responding, we'll go alternate who responds first to questions, get 60 seconds to follow up on questions. And then we'll sort of, you know, I'll decide if you guys have things that you want to add in, you can just sort of make that request and we'll play as we go. At the end, concluding statements, you get three minutes. And so first, we're going to sort of ask specific questions to each of you. Then we'll do some basic sort of policy questions. And then at the end, you guys can ask each other a few questions. All right. So we're going to start off with out of state prisoners, which is something that you both agree on. Both of you think that out of state prisoners, you know, Vermont should not have them, that Vermont should be taken care of its own inmate population. We recently sent over 200 to Mississippi. So Janssen, we skipped introductions here. For those of you, I have the questions laid out a bit. But if anyone's curious who the gentlemen on either side of me are, to my left is Janssen Wilhoit, a public defender who lives in St. Johnsbury, but works in Wyndham County, and also spend two terms as a representative of St. Johnsbury and the House of Representatives. And to my right is Attorney General TJ Donovan, seeking his second term previously the state's attorney in Chittenden County. All right. Now back to the debate. Janssen, out of state prisoners, what would you do to get them back to Vermont? Well, thank you, Colin. Thank you so much everyone for being here today. I've always opposed incarcerated Vermonters out of state. There's many things that we do well when it comes to criminal justice, particularly taking care of our prisoners, and that's mainly the reasons why I'm a practice law in Vermont, but this isn't one of them. And the concerns that I have with warehousing inmates from Vermont to other states is because the lack of oversight to make sure that we really can keep them safe and protected. The lack of programming to really help them be able to rehabilitate in our societies. And last but not least, then to be able to continue to have the positive relationships with folks that are necessary to be able to come back and be productive members of society. Because even in Vermont and some of our most heinous crimes, there is a day almost always that folks do come home, and we need to prepare them for that. So why I do not oppose either it be a private or public prison, because obviously Pennsylvania wasn't good for our inmates either. We have to find a way to keep all of our inmates here in Vermont. I also don't think that means building more prisons though either, but it actually looks at how we address who we incarcerate and why. While we've made improvements in this as well, still we have too many folks, both pre preconvictions, so during the detention part of the phase of the process and conviction that are that are in our prisons for nonviolent offenses, and many for possession offense as well with no indication that they were that they were actually dealing drugs. None of those people should be in prison, period. And thanks. So that's and so I think that's how we can get the numbers down. Thank you. Sure. Attorney General Donovan. Colin, thanks for hosting this and thanks to Vermont Digger for putting this together. And again, I want to thank Jansen for engaging and participating, I think now in our third debate. I've enjoyed it. And let me say this about the question. I agree with Jansen and I want to commend him for his advocacy and his leadership on this issue. And I look forward to working with him on this in whatever capacity either of us may be and I to oppose sending prisoners out of state and I oppose Vermont contracting with for profit corporations to incarcerate Vermonters. And let me tell you why it is the job of the state. When somebody is sentenced, they are remanded into the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections, not to a private corporation. And as we all know, the duty of a corporation is to take care of its shareholders. That is inconsistent with what we do with vulnerable populations. But by definition, our prisoners, the numbers 200, I think, and let me put this in context to Vermont has done a tremendous job in reducing its prison population. We are down by 30% from the projected prison population that we were supposed to be at. That's because a lot of these smart on crime initiatives. I don't know how much time I have here. So let me just, what are we doing 60 seconds? Okay. So I think the biggest issue that we can do in terms of reducing our prison population is to invest in transitional housing. Jansen is right. The thing about prison is this, when you go to jail, you're going to get out of jail for the vast majority of people. And there's many people who are in our prisons who are held past their minimum release dates for lack of adequate housing. We need to make sure we invest in housing. Number two, we should be looking at compassionate release programs, alternatives to our criminal justice system, such as the programs that I started in Chudin County, bail reform that both Jansen and I pushed this past session. I think we need to look at the issues and the policies behind our furlough and our parole board, where you have no judges, but you have a system where people can be put back in jail without seeing a judge. I think there needs to be more oversight. I think there needs to be more scrutiny. And we have to continue to build out our public health network in our community, which is going to make a difference. We spend more money locking people up in this state than we do on higher education. That's something that both Jansen and I oppose. And I look forward to working with him on it. If I may, I'm going to add on to that. Sure. If I could just mention that because one microphone, it sort of takes away my weapon to cut you off. So if I could just ask that I'm going to set the stopwatch next to each of you as the questions begin. It's 90 seconds for the initial response, 60 seconds for the rebuttal. Jansen, if you want to take 30 seconds to respond, that's fine. I know. I know. I also wanted to thank TJ for acknowledging the parole issue as well. And in fact, as I'm sure he's probably aware, actually, Barbara Rachelson and myself actually fought to do this last session. And it actually was in corrections institutions. But unfortunately, again, a lot of pushback to be rather frank with Vermont DLC to do that. But he's right. We also need to look at a fair way to deal with those that we do have incarcerated actually have a chance to get out as well. Thank you. Thanks. So we're going to move on here to Comcast and a group of industry groups recently sued the state of Vermont over a law that would require companies that provide internet to the state to follow net neutrality standards. I'm wondering how you would defend the state against that lawsuit. We're going to start with you, Attorney General Donovan. Thanks, Colin. Well, I support net neutrality and I support the principles of net neutrality. I support a free and open internet for everybody, including the state of Vermont. And the irony is not lost on me when we talk about free market and you have talked about companies who espouse a free market theory and don't like government regulations, essentially what they're saying to the state of Vermont as a market participant. You can't choose to do business with people who values you support or whose company you ask. They adhere to certain principles set out net neutrality. That's essentially what this issue boils down to because it comes down to procurement, the government, the state as an entity contracting with businesses to provide internet. And what all that said is we want to do business with these ISP companies that adhere to net neutrality principles, which is a free and open internet for everybody. And I think that's an incredibly important thing when we talk about how people obtain their information. We don't want companies throttling other companies, so people only get certain content. This is about democracy. This is about a free and open market in the state of Vermont being a participant in that market. So I look forward to litigating that case in court. The industry group says that essentially the state is trying to create laws through its buying power that you wouldn't be able to regulate otherwise. I'm just wondering if you could take maybe 15 seconds to respond to that specifically. I disagree with it. The state of Vermont is a consumer in the marketplace. We all exercise our values by what we buy and what companies we do business with. The state of Vermont as an entity, as a market participant, is no different. Thanks. Representative Wilhoi, if you could take a minute. Thank you. Again, this is, I don't know how, how entertaining of a date this is going to be if we keep agreeing all day. Again, so the attorneys are all, I mean, we also debated this quite extensively in the legislature this last year as well. And again, it still goes back to the obligation we have as, as, as, as elected officials to actually look out for and be trust, the trustees of, of everything that I just lost the one in the mic. And so, because of that, again, I, I, I think it, it is, it goes to the corners of, of, of free and open market and the ability for people to be able to have access to information and be able to share information. And so I, I, I honestly don't see this being a difficult suit for the state. And I look forward to either myself or, or your current attorney general defending the state on this issue. Thanks. I'll move on to something that you guys did disagree about, although I think that you've come into agreement on this, which is a tax and regulated system for marijuana. Attorney General, I think Jansen is going to get the first go at this. You know, you've been way ahead of your party on this. The Republicans, a number of your colleagues in the house have recently come around since there was partial legalization. And what I'd like to ask you guys is how would you prosecute until there is a tax and regulated market? How would you prosecute people who are charged with selling or distributing marijuana? I'll take the last, a ladder first, and I'll get to the first part. Again, I mean, currently under the bill that, that was passed, I mean, that, that's still, that's still a crime. And so while I was selling the books, again, I, I honestly don't think that that would be a crime that should be led by this, that by the Attorney General's office. And it's going to be something that will be handled at this, at the state level. And I mean, at the county level and, and respect of state's attorneys and how they prosecute. However, with respect to tax and regulation, again, I, while I, I'm glad that I, I, I came to my senses, if you will, sooner than, than many, I think much of that has to do with information. I mean, again, it goes earlier to what we talked about before. It's remarkable how much, how, how people can make better decisions in cooling legislators when they have information. And if, if everybody might recall, actually my, my colleague on the, in the, in the lower side of the Senate, and also my, one of my Senators, Senator Benning was, was in the forefront even before I was. But it was because the Senate did the deep dive and really researched the issue. So if we're going to actually have free access and free access to marijuana, what's the best way to do that? And, and they came to the realization of a tax and regulation. And I'll never forget my first week on this, the first of this painting on the, in the House Committee when we, we had this issue running down to the, to the legislative lounge, to Joe Benning and saying, Joe, you're so right, you're so right. Again, because I started getting the information too. And so I do believe that as all of my fellow colleagues get that information, they'll realize tax and regulate is the only way to make sure that we have access to a safe product and, and something that, that, that we can, we can, we can trust that is not going to affect Vermonters and it's not going to be in the, get in the hands of, of our children and also is not going to be a way to, to have people introduce themselves as drug dealers. Thank you. And Attorney General Donovan, you've been quite a bit behind your party on this. We spoke recently, you said that, or the summer, you've sort of, because of the partial legalization that you've sort of changed on this. I'm wondering if you could describe that and also how you would prosecute people until there is a tax and regulation system. I supported the bill that was passed. That was signed by Governor Law, which essentially legalized possession. And I thought it was almost a libertarian approach to this issue, which I support. I don't think the government has any role in what people do in their homes as long as it's, as long as it's consistent with public safety. And I supported that and, and I thought it made sense. And I, to use a cliche, thought that was kind of the Vermont way. We respect people's privacy. And so I did support that. I think when July 1st came, it became abundantly apparent that we forgot the other side, that we said you could possess it. We just didn't explain how you can get it. And what you had was all these pop-ups happening in terms of the gifting where it was, we'll sell you a sticker for 50 bucks. And as a gift, we'll give you a bag of marijuana. And at first, okay, maybe perhaps that doesn't make sense. And then it was, well, you can pay for delivery service and get a bag of marijuana, which was clearly a sale. And so why I've evolved to why we now need regulations is simply this. You need regulations to protect the public health, the public safety, and the public welfare. And you want to make sure that consumers are protected. You want to make sure that kids are protected. And this issue is not going away. Obviously, what's happening in Canada, what's happening in Massachusetts and Maine is going to have an impact. So I think it is time, and the market's not going to wait. And so I think it is time to have a regulated system in our state that addresses those issues of public health, public safety, and the public welfare. And it became abundantly clear to me, we had to put out guidance over the summer, saying you can't gift, because it was getting, frankly, out of control, where people, I think there was one company that had a Facebook account that literally was saying, pay us for a delivery service. And then the question was, well, what are you delivering? Well, nothing, but then we're going to give to you, give to you marijuana. Well, that that's a sale. And you need the issue. And we're lucky that nobody got hurt. No kids were hurt. There wasn't a motor vehicle tragedy. And that's why you need regulations to protect the public health and the public safety. And that became abundantly clear to me when the law took effect on July one. So I do support regulations. Do you think that people who have been caught selling and distributing marijuana should face potential jail time? Well, you know, how we dealt with it. And I think this is consistent with my, my approach as attorney general, I believe in talking to people, and I believe in giving people the opportunity to comply with the law. And arguably, you could have prosecuted some of these folks who were gifting or doing the delivery service. But we reached out to them. We had a conversation. And we said, Hey, look, the issue of public safety and public health, particularly with kids is too important. I know you feel passionately about this. Let's wait till the legislature convenes in January. Bring it up then to their credit. They listened. And so I think we're gonna have and it stopped as far to the best of my knowledge. And so I think this is a debate that should happen in Montpelier at the State House in January. I think it's overdue. I think we have to have the debate. And I want to say this about being a prosecutor, whether you're a state's attorney or attorney general, the most important quality of a prosecutor is the exercise of restraint, of actually choosing not to charge somebody. Because I think Janssen and I both agree that collateral consequences and the damage that we can do through our criminal justice system sometime far exceeds the public safety goals that we seek. So restraint is incredibly important. I'm a believer in it. The exercise of that power in a, give me the look. Okay. I'll try to be more explicit about how much time when we ask follow-up questions, that sort of things. And if you guys could be more mindful of that. Thanks. You both are big believers in second chances and part of that is very personal for you, Janssen. You spent the jail time for defrauding investors. While in Kentucky, Attorney General Donovan, you were charged with assaults over a fight, drunk and fight as a teenager. And you know, this is sort of, you know, sort of out front of both of your policy platforms. Others in law enforcement have talked about this essentially leading to a catch and release system where jail becomes a tool that basically they can't access, that it's too easy. Bail is so low. Janssen, you support a $0 cash bail for non felony offenses. Attorney General Donovan, you helped push for a $200 bail. So I guess I'm wondering what you say to law enforcement officials who say that basically this sort of belief in second chances is making it very difficult for them to do their job when people are a threat to the public. Thank you. Again, I, many reasons because I agree with, with the law enforcement and also from honors that we want to have safe communities. But to have safe communities, then we actually really have to focus our attention to those that quite frankly are, are community acts of violence and are, are a threat to themselves and others. Those are their people even under our existing bail statutes and those that we can hold without bail, even if they have a gazillion dollars. And that, that's where, where jails oftentimes are appropriate. But again, it also comes down to when you have safe communities and you have engaged communities to, and communities that recognize more and more, and I think, I think for ours are coming around and recognizing the epidemic that we have in the state with, with folks battling addiction. And it crosses all aspects of people's lives, all ages, all socioeconomic, all races, everyone. And so when we start dealing then with our family and we, and our friends and see that they're going through struggles, we, we realize jail doesn't make sense for them, but treatment support does. And again, I, I, and I, and I do believe when we continue to focus efforts on, on having those resources available to persons that are, that are struggling as opposed to putting them in jail and only we're going to have safer folks and safer communities. But then we're not, we're not going to have recidivism. We're not going to, we're not going to institutionalize and, and really unfortunately break down families and, and barriers for people to be positive productive citizens because they're going to still be a part of their communities. And so that's, that's why I, I believe for safer communities, we really need to be much more strategic about who we choose to put in jail to begin with. Thanks. And Attorney General Donovan, I'll give you 90 seconds since you were actually supposed to have first shot at this one. Thanks. That's okay. Yeah. We have marginalized an entire subset of our population in the name of public safety and it has not worked. It's the poor. It's the mentally ill. It's increasingly people of color in this state, certainly nationally. And it's those that suffer from substance abuse. And you need not look any further than what our recidivism rate is over 50%. And I don't think you can name a business. I don't think you can name another state agency that fails and it is a failure rate five out of 10 times and stays in business. And the question is, why is it acceptable for our criminal justice system? It's been acceptable because that is the constituency that I just referenced the poor, the mentally ill and people of color. And it hasn't worked. It's been $79,000 a year to incarcerate a woman close to 60 to incarcerate a man. And this is the thing. I've been a prosecutor for most of my career. We know who the bad guys are. That is a small percentage of people. And I don't have a problem with people in jail who truly pose a threat to our public safety. The vast majority of people who are in our courthouses, who are in our jails, are people who are suffering. So we need to do a better job of understanding the role trauma plays on children. We need to do a better job of redefining what a safe and vibrant community looks for everybody. It starts with access to healthcare, early childhood education, good public schools with robust mental health programs, affordable housing, access to affordable higher education. And yes, I am a prosecutor talking about those things because that is a foundation in the fundamentals of a safe and vibrant community for everybody. Thanks. I'd like to follow up on this topic, since it's something that's very important to both of you. You know, the sort of investment in the systems outside of the prison system, mental health system, and substance abuse in housing is, you know, I think you both would admit too low, right, that it can't handle the capacity of what the state needs. So I guess I'm wondering, Attorney General Donovan and Representative Will White, you both pushed policies that are ahead of the infrastructure in some ways. And I guess I'm wondering why you wouldn't wait for the legislature to actually fund these things before moving people into this system. Attorney General Donovan, I'll give you a minute. Well, because it comes down to leadership. And if you're going to wait, nothing's going to happen. You need to push and you need to lead and you need to bring people along. And you need to really be a trailblazer on this issue, which I think the state of Vermont has been with so many people. And I've always looked when we talk about jail in that highway to jail, you should have exit ramps based on need and based on risk. And when you begin to jail, that you truly do pose that threat to our public safety. We have 14 systems of justice in our 14 different counties. We have the issues of geographic injustice in this state. We have issues that concern access to justice in this state. It does matter where you grow up. We are all products of our environment that people who grow up in Bennington should be treated the same that grow up in Burlington. But we have different systems in terms of alternative justices and diversion. One of the first things I did when I became Attorney General was to start the community justice division, my office to try to standardize and bring uniformity across the 14 counties by making sure that everybody has the same access to justice when it comes to diversion programs, three different programs, the diversion program, Tamrat program that it deals with the acute substance abuse and mental health needs, as well as pretrial services, something new, something radical. We have a 20% increase across counties in terms of the use of that diversion. We're getting towards standardization and uniforming, getting towards equal access to justice, minimizing the geographic injustice while retaining local control. We're not there yet. We've made a lot of progress. This is something that is fundamental when you talk about the issue of marginalizing the poor in this state because with a criminal record impacts on housing, impacts on education opportunities, impact on employment opportunities. I do believe a job is the best form of public safety, but you got to address the first things first to get people job ready. We've taken away a lot of opportunity from people. We've taken away and haven't recognized the potential of so many people again in the name of public safety. We need to do better. You need to lead. You can't wait. Again, if you could keep answers to the allotted time. No, but I mean, and again, I do appreciate a little bit of the generosity and time because these are big issues, though, and quite frankly, issues that I don't think in SAB explained in 60 seconds. But it is about leadership. And again, to say we're going keep doing it the wrong way, incarcerating people, breaking homes, and really unfortunately really marginalizing those in our society that have so little to begin with, that's not the right answer. And so it does take both leadership and really strategizing and being much more strategic about who we choose to incarcerate and limit it to those that actually are threats to our community. But again, I'm also happy that we've done work when it comes to diversion and other community based treatment programs outside of our jail cells. But again, it is true that we still see those disparities because unfortunately still it still is solely the discretion of a state's attorney if they're going to make that referral. I did do a bill this past session to when it's a specific charge that already the legislature determined is a diversion worthy case that a judge could actually send it over the state's objection. Unfortunately, I was not able to get that through. And again, it's going to take both leadership to make sure that that does happen. So that way, whether you are in Bennington or Rutland or Essex County or Chittenden County, everyone that deserves the chance to actually get the treatment they need and not have it in jail cell have that opportunity. Thank you. Thanks. I'd like to start the next question with a quote from former ACLU director Alan Gilbert, which was in he said regarding police shootings. At some point, somebody has to say too many people are being killed this way. I mean, why aren't people outraged by this? I'd like to ask whether you're outraged by the number of police shootings that have happened in the last couple of years. There was a stretch of six months where three men were killed by police. And do you see anything that could be fixed in the current standards used by police in deciding whether or not to use force against people? We're going to start with you, Attorney General Donvan, 90 seconds, please. Thank you. I am outraged. I think everybody including the police are outraged. This is nobody wants to see an officer involved shooting where somebody is killed. Obviously, it's terrible for the individual. It's terrible for the community. It's also terrible for the police officer. As to the legal review, that here's the problem with a legal review. This is an issue that is more than just a legal issue because what is consistent in all these is the issue of mental illness. And it raises a policy question, not a legal question. Should the police be not only the first but the only responder to a mental health call? That is not a legal question. That is a policy question. It's a policy question for the legislature. It's a policy question for city councils and select boards across this state. Should the legal standard change? No, it should not change because it's a reasonable standard, a reasonable person standard. What we've done is started a police fatality mental health review. This commission is going back and looking at these officer-involved shootings, not as to the legal question, but the larger systemic response about what happened. How did we end up in a place where somebody who is a danger to themselves or to others and the police respond and somebody ends up dead? I am outraged. Everybody should be outraged. How is it that you have a 77-year-old guy who's getting an eviction notice and the police respond? I am outraged. Everybody should be outraged. What are we doing? I know the state police are doing a review to look at less than lethal force. I'm a believer in de-escalation. I'm also a believer in just simply waiting and exercising patience, making sure that the public safety is addressed and waiting. Confrontation oftentimes ends in violence. So this is a complicated issue. It's an issue that we have to look at it from a systemic response, not just a legal response, and at the core it is a mental health issue. Please stick to the allotted time. I am outraged. I mean, as a society, as a fellow Vermonters, a fellow human, anytime someone dies by gunfire, that's a horrible thing. But again, it also goes to a greater question about our communities and the support that we're giving folks that are in crisis and really having safe and open communities where people can feel safe and be able to deal with their struggles. And so again, I agree it also goes back to then who are first responders? Who are the people that are called to deal with these folks? But then again, when it talks about the oversight of how we're going forward, one of the things, sometimes I'm asked, you know, in the country where I was the best thing, you've heard why you've gone around places. And actually when I was at the NAACP forum in Rutland and they brought up this issue, someone brought up the question, well, why not have an independent third party or like the defender general do the overviews? Because again, the idea would be that, wow, again, not saying that there's anything wrong or untoward with the attorney general doing that. But again, they are the chief law enforcement officer, so it's more like an internal review. So I have something more of someone more independent external look at it. And again, I think for just the betterment and maybe the greater trust for the public good, that is something we should consider. Because again, we have to make sure that Vermonters realize that, you know, there's no covering up, there's no protecting anyone here, but everything was truly done right and by the book. Yeah, if you could briefly respond to whether or not you'd support moving these sort of investigations outside the Attorney General's office. No, because at the end of the day, it's the job of the Attorney General and the job of the state's attorneys, the chief law enforcement officers to do concurrent investigations. But I want to address the issue of transparency on these shootings. I think what we've done, because in addition to mental health, the other major issue here that we don't talk about is the issue of public trust, when it's an officer involved shooting, and that you now have body camera footage, oftentimes cruiser footage that is always released. You have press conferences where in the past it was simply a press release with no questions asked and no questions answered. You know, what we do is hold a press conference with the agencies, with the Vermont State Police and answer every single question and release everything after the investigation is complete because at the core, this goes to the issue of public trust. I think a large question for each community in our state is, who do we want responding to mental health crises? For me, that is ultimately the question. And for too long, it has been the police. And I think we have to question that. Thanks. I'd like to move on to a couple of reader questions, one Twitter question. In fact, we've got 24 questions from readers for the debate and a number of them have already been addressed in these earlier questions. To you, Representative Wilhoit, the Vice Chair of the State GOP, Brady Tunzing, wrote on Twitter today that responding to a profile of you and VT Digger, that he was surprised to see that you have not paid back victims of the fraud that you carried out in Kentucky. And he said that you should step away from the race unless you committed to paying those victims back. I'd like to know what you think of that and whether or not that's something you'll consider. No, I'm not going to step away from the race. And again, as I think it was even in the article as well, because this has been asked many times, every time I've run for office as well. In Kentucky, when one is convicted for the crime that I was convicted, if someone completes their entire sentence, then there isn't restitution. And it wasn't that I was running from it either. I actually fought and tried to get release on probation. It didn't happen. In Kentucky, there was what's called shock probation. And I filed for that independently. I was one of those, I guess, jailhouse lawyers in because I did it on my own. And I filed that. And again, it was rejected. I'll never forget when I went to the court. And one of the victims was very clear that he said, no, I wanted the rotten hell. I don't want him to get out. I'd rather him stay in jail than to pay me back. And so I didn't get out. And then I filed for parole in Kentucky after 20% of your sentence, you're eligible for that, for nonviolent offense. To that, got denied. Again, by rejections of those involved and did it again after three years. And at that point, that's when I had to serve out the remainder of my sentence. And no denying that prison was hard for me and my family. And some really bad things happened. Also, while I was in prison, I don't think that minimizes my responsibility in any way, but also shows I mean, I do truly believe I pay my debt and the governor of Kentucky believed so enough, the fact that he even pardoned me. And so, but the story that I, I mean, the man I am now is the man that I've been here in Vermont and working as a foster parent, as an attorney, as a legislator, as a community leader. And I would ask and hope that the people of Vermont will consider me based on the man I am now, not for the horrible sins I committed 15 years ago. Thank you. Thanks. And another question from a reader for you, Attorney General Donovan. They said, in the past several years, you've joined the city of Philadelphia in a lawsuit regarding alleged gender pay gap. You've joined the state of Hawaii and has challenged President Trump's travel ban. You've joined an out of state lawsuit in support of public sector unions, and you've launched a website in support of funding Planned Parenthood. Are these things really a job of the Attorney General? Are you worried about turning the office into a political action center? How do you answer critics who say you need to focus on the job you have rather than building a resume for the job you want? That is the job. It's about standing up for people. It's about standing against hate. It's about standing up against taking away women's fundamental rights, constitutional rights, whether it's here or any part of this country will stand up against the rollback of women's fundamental rights or any individual's civil rights. That's the job of the Attorney General. I'm proud of my record. I'm proud of my record speaking out against pay inequity, because we believe in equality. That's a value of this state. I forgot the last lawsuit I got criticized on. What was it? I'm proud of my record and I stand on my record. And it is exactly the job of the Attorney General to stand up for people. Whether it was what seems to be this proposed rollback of not recognizing or identifying people who are transgender will oppose that. Because this is about recognizing people and standing up for people and standing up for people that don't have a voice who have been marginalized historically in this state in our country. And at a time, oftentimes, with what's happened in Washington, you see it is exactly an Attorney General who's oftentimes the first and last line of defense. And I'm proud of my record. I'm going to continue to do it. I want to say this about Jensen Wilhoit. He has every right to run for Attorney General. He's an attorney and good standing in our state. He is a member of our state legislature. He's a productive member of our community. He's a wonderful family man. I met his family earlier today. I'm proud to call you my friend and I'm glad you're in this race, Jensen. Thanks. The next question regards migrant workers. The state's Darian agriculture industries rely heavily on a migrant workforce. And they complain that they are not given the same legal protections as other workers in the state. I'm wondering what you think the Attorney General can do to be sure that these workers have access to proper workplace conditions and legal recourses, if not, and Attorney General Donovan will give you the first shot at this. 90 seconds, please. The question is what the Attorney General can do to ensure that the state's migrant workforce, some of whom are in the country illegally, have access to proper workplace conditions and legal recourse if that's not possible or if that's not happening? I think we have to do everything we can to protect our migrant workers in this state and we have to be honest about this one fact that they are here. They're working on our farms in many cases, working jobs that Vermonters won't work. And we have to make sure that, number one, we recognize them. We give them an opportunity to be a productive member of our community because they are members of our community and that includes access to our services, whether it's going to the hospital or whether it's going to the police as a victim of crime. I was proud to work with many others in developing a fair and partial police policy and the migrant community spoke out about that and made sure that their voice was heard because when we talk about a safe environment community, that includes every single one of us and it's not allowing people or forcing people to live in the shadows because violence occurs everywhere. And if there's a victim of domestic violence who happens to be a migrant worker, I want to live in a community where that person without fear can access our services, can go to the police without fear that she or her families would be subject to deportation, that their child is sick, that they can go to a hospital without fear that she or her family would be subject to deportation. This is about protecting Vermonters, period. I'm wondering specifically with the federal government who's sort of cracking down on illegal immigration, you know, if you could speak briefly and specifically about what the Attorney General of Vermont can do to offer people protection from that threat. Well, it's exactly what we've done, whether it was joining lawsuits to oppose what I view as unconstitutional travel bans, whether it was working on this fair and impartial police policy. Because let me tell you, when we talk about immigration, it's not just about some of the rhetoric coming from Washington. Immigration is going to play out and immigration enforcement is going to play out on a back road in Vermont with a local law enforcement officer at 3MA in the morning. I was proud to work with Governor Scott and others to pass S79, which said this, we're not going to allow Vermont law enforcement to be de facto immigration officers. We're going to do policing in Vermont the way we've always done it, which is community policing, which is based on trust. Getting back to the FIP, which we authored, which we passed, which is now law, which every department in the state has to follow. We said very simply about how you do law enforcement traffic stops. You don't ask that you don't honor warrantless civil detainers from the federal government because it's unconstitutional. Because when I commit my traffic violation on the way home today in the snow, I'm never going to be asked where I'm from. That should be the standard for everybody. Thanks, and Jensen, give you 90 seconds for this. Thank you. And again, I'm glad that the Attorney General did bring up S79, because again, I do believe that at least with respect to protecting Vermonters that are here, that might not be documented. We were right and prudent, and I think the Attorney General, and we talked about this in between one of the segments of our last debate, see even to the time to meet with myself and another member of my committee personally to talk about these issues very deeply. Because again, because oftentimes we got lost in the argument, well, then are we going to then protect people that might be here illegally that are committing crimes? And that's not what this was about at all. It was, again, about people that are just protective members of our society. And we're not going to deport them away from the communities that love them and the families that care for them just because they're undocumented. But again, that also means as the Attorney General also, I'm sorry, Attorney General also said as well, though, it goes back to also making sure that we have communities that are opening and welcoming and protective for all persons. So just as equally if any acts of violence occurred toward them or they commit acts of violence on others, there should be a question of where they are, who they came from, the fact is, did you hurt somebody? And if you hurt somebody, there's also that protection, that requirement for the state, quite frankly, to protect those that are hurt in our state. And so that's why, whether it be an undocumented worker, whether it be someone that's, you know, a ninth generation, generation of Vermont are, we have the obligation and the duty to protect them. And that's what we should do to be a more better and a more beautiful Vermont. Thanks. I'd like to move on to gun laws and ask you each sort of a specific question. And Jansen, Representative Wilhoit will go with you first. You voted against S-55, which was the landmark bill that made historic changes to state's gun laws that increased the minimum age for buying guns and expanded background checks, did a few other things, including a magazine ban. The legislation is currently facing two constitutional challenges. If you were elected as Attorney General, you would be responsible for defending the state against those challenges and supporting S-55. I'm wondering how you would do that. Well, as the Attorney General, there'll be my obligation, my duty, and I would. But again, with respect to if the question's also, but maybe why I supported those measures I didn't, and I would like to answer that as well, if I may. Again, there were many bills that came through. And each and every bill that dealt with acts of violence or threats of violence to an individual or concerns of violence, I supported them all. I supported the Extreme Resurrections Orders. I supported the final version of 422 that got passed that initially, again, I didn't support it because it lacked the due process. And again, that's why it wouldn't get through the Senate, but we were able to get it through the second half of my ban because, again, we added adequate due process. Again, a way for law enforcement to take someone's firearms when they've committed an act of violence or there's a threat of act of violence. Those are all, I think, complete proper limitations. The concerns I had with some of the components of H-55 that I couldn't support dealt with limitations and restrictions on persons that had not done anything wrong, had not committed any crimes. And so because of the protections that we have, not only are there the Second Amendment, but I think quite more vividly in this issue under Article 16, the right to protect oneself. I thought that was over-broad. It wasn't narrowly tailored. And so that was concerning. And so because of this, if I was Attorney General, again, fortunately, as Attorney General, you always have your best prosecutors solicitor dealing with the case. And that's just going to be dealing with the case, because obviously, if I was on the other side, I would want to quote the Attorney General and the things that he said about it in the committee to try to fight the case. But I'll make sure that we find it vigorously. But again, I still stand on my record that I think there are some problematic issues with respect to that, as well as specifically the enforceability of the magazine ban. Because again, the fact of the matter is that there's the grandfathering clause, and we're talking about something that you really can't trace back. And so those are concerns, and those are concerns, I'm sure that the current Attorney General is going to have to deal with as well. I wouldn't get to my first 220, I did. So I did it once. I was going to say, I'm very worried that our Attorney General is influencing our Republican candidate here. You sort of pointed towards a question that I wanted to ask the Attorney General, which is that during the drafting of this bill, your office said that a magazine ban would be difficult, if not impossible to enforce, but you still supported it. What's the point of having a law that you can't enforce? I think it is enforceable. I think the question presented was, will it be difficult? Yes, it will be difficult. I think for the reasons that were articulated, but in the final analysis, it would be enforceable and is enforceable. And it comes down to good police work. And we have a world-class police organization with the Vermont State Police. We have great municipal police departments. And should this legal issue arise, I trust the men and women of the Vermont State Police to conduct a thorough investigation. And I think this question ultimately is not going to be answered in a debate. It's going to be answered in the court of law. And I think it's enforceable. I trust the Vermont State Police. And should the facts and circumstances give rise to a case, we'll prosecute it. Thank you. Again, we're going to touch on the EB-5 scandal now and the Attorney General's handling of that. And I'll have separate questions for each of you. Attorney General Donovan, your office has repeatedly denied records requests related to the EB-5 scandal. By your account, I think it's about 2.5 million documents, including a number that had been requested by our news organization, VT Digger. Your position is that defending state officials and the state's liability for a potential legal payout take precedence over the public interest in knowing what happened at JPEC. Why does the public interest take a back seat to legal interests of the state and state officials? Well, thanks for the question, Colin. I don't think the public interest takes a back seat. Let me explain my position. I've always been for transparency in government. In fact, I advocated for Vermont to adopt the federal standards with the public records law, which presumes disclosure. And we did after I advocated in my first run for Attorney General. With that law comes exceptions, one being a litigation exception. The state of Vermont is being sued. And as Attorney General, you have a number of roles. You do represent the people of the state of Vermont, and you represent them through protecting their civil rights and environmental rights and consumer rights. I'm very proud of that record. You also are a lawyer for state agencies, and you have to defend them when they're being sued. And that's what I'm doing right now in the cases in litigation. But I also know when you talk about the EB-5 scandal that this goes to the issue of public trust. And I do think the question of who did what in government and when needs to be answered. But I want to be very direct about this. That question, it's not going to be answered in the court of law. If it is, it'll be answered in five to seven years. I don't want to wait that long. I think we need an independent third-party review. That's why I asked Auditor Doug Hoffer to do just that. In the 2.5 million documents you referenced, that's what I've sent to Auditor Hoffer. He's getting everything. He's going to conduct an independent review and produce a report about who did what in state government to answer this question. At the same time, I'm going to fulfill my legal obligation, my professional responsibility, my ethical obligation to represent our clients. And I know this is politically unpopular. But that's the job. And you can't walk away from the job. We got sued. You have to now defend the state of Vermont. And to throw up your hands and say, I'm not going to do it, I think is malpractice. I think you put the Vermont taxpayer at risk. So I think we can do parallel tracks, make sure Auditor Hoffer does his job by us giving the records. We're doing it. Make sure that I'm doing my job by defending the state. And I want to say something about that. We won in the state of Vermont. LaMoyle County Superior Court, we won. That case is an appeal. That wasn't our decision. Now we have an obligation to defend it. We're being brought into federal court. We have an obligation to defend ourselves in that as well. The only case that we controlled was the securities fraud case up in the kingdom. I resolved that. Got $2 million for economic development for the Northeast Kingdom. There are multiple different things happening here. And I'm proud of my record. All right. Rather than ask another question, Representative Wilho, I'm just going to let you respond to that since I know that you have a different position on it. And take some time if you want it. Oh, thanks. So I know it'll be three minutes. But I think I will take a little time. Again, I admit this is really hard. It's a very hard predicament that that the attorney general is confronted. But it goes back to some of the early discussions we talked about. Sometimes you have to have also bold leadership. And again, in this case, while it is true that there's obligations to defend those that might have done things that were wrong and maybe criminal. Also, there are duties under Article 6 to the trust and the welfare and the betterment of the people of Vermont. And the people of Vermont are also the victims here. They're immigrants that are victims and also the folks in the Northeast Kingdom. And to be honest, I got to admit, I mean, the same way, I mean, hopefully you can tell from this already, I mean, I'll just first say, I mean, I love TJ Donovan. I mean, he's, I mean, you know, in a very like, like my brother of course, but the point is, like, I mean, he's, you know, I do. And, you know, I've thoroughly enjoyed working on issues with him over the last two years. But, but, but also in that, in that same love, I also, I do think he's wrong. And again, as I think he would also agree the fact that that's the beauty of lawyers, I mean, it's hard to find any lawyers that agree on everything all the time together. But again, on this issue, I do think he's wrong just because again, when I first got asked to run and running on behalf of my party for this position, I am from the kingdom. And so this is the issue that as we all know, there's been politics, everyone tells you every minute what you should be running on. But the thing is, this is what I hear about every day. Because the people in my neck of the woods are really upset. They want to know what happened. Who did this? Why did they do this? And so that's why I do believe it is, I think sunshine cures, I really do. And I believe by, by having public exposure to really what happened, that we can not only better protect Vermont from wrongdoing, but also that we can, we can be better stewards of our responsibility as government officials. Thank you. If you'd like to take 30 seconds to respond. I just want to provide a little bit more context to it's important to note that the federal government has an ongoing criminal investigation. One of the first questions I asked when I took over in January of 2016 was why didn't the state bring a criminal started criminal investigation? I think it's a fair question. The civil suit that was brought was brought before my time. And again, going back to the rules of our profession, you can't start a civil proceeding against somebody and then threaten a criminal prosecution after the fact it's against our rules because obviously, in a civil case, you can you can compel people. Obviously, you can't do that in a criminal case. So I've worked very closely with our federal partners. I've worked very closely with Governor Scott's team on this. Again, we resolved the case that we controlled, which is that was the securities fraud case up in the kingdom. And we're able to get $2 million for economic development there. And now we've been sued and we're defending. And I don't see how as a lawyer, you can just put up your hands and say, I'm not going to do my job. Because at the end of the day, that's the job. You represent state agencies. That's a statutory obligation. You do represent the people of Vermont, as I articulated earlier. So this is a this is a balancing act. It's difficult. I think of being creative by creating this path for Doug Hoffer to be that independent third party. He's getting all the documents over $2.5 million have been given to him. I think we skipped a great deal of context in this conversation, but talking about the civil suit that you're speaking about against Ariel Curos and Bill Stanger is been settled. So why not bring criminal charges now? You can't because once you initiate those criminal, that civil process, you can't then go through that process where people perhaps have been interviewed, who perhaps have been given statements. You could not use that if you were to bring a criminal case because it would be a violation of people's constitutional rights. This sort of points towards public records more generally. I'd like to ask one more question about that and then give you each opportunity to ask a question to the other candidate. I believe former Attorney General Cheney was very much involved in the Initial Public Records Act that was created in Vermont, and he wrote it. He'd probably be a better person to ask this question than me, but a lot of critics say that since that time that a lot of the exemptions have come to be interpreted too broadly and that there's just flat out too many exemptions, which makes it too easy for the Attorney General's Office and other government agencies to block records whenever they please. Anecdotally, I think this is true. So I'd like to ask whether you, Representative Wilhoit, think that there needs to be changes to the Public Records Act and how it's interpreted? Well, I do. Again, I understand the exceptions. Again, I mean, the other unfortunate thing, some of it when you're a lawyer, there's always an exception, right? But again, I still think even in these cases of exceptions with respect to pending criminal matters or civil matters, still, it still should be very narrow in its focus. You know, you can't just have a blanket no because of this pending litigation. And I can also talk much about my own personal work and practice too. And when I've seen in times of, in the work, the case I've dealt with, how much easier it is to get to the truth in an issue when you have more open access to records and more open—I can't think of the word all of a sudden—when you're going through discovery, thank you. Sorry. So, yeah, more open discovery. Because again, and I'll be honest with you, and even some of the most trying, difficult cases that I've represented folks in, it's so much easier when actually, you know, everyone sees everyone's records to really get to the truth. And also, quite frankly, greater hostility and greater concerns of, wait a minute, what's being hidden here, what's being hidden there happens when you really have to fight for it. Because people, I think, especially Vermonters, just say, show me what you got. And guess what? If you don't got anything, then that's great. But if you do, then we want to know about it and we want to be able to do something about it. And so it's so much—again, it goes back to, like I said before, sunshine cures so much in these situations. And so that's why I do believe that we should be far more restrictive when it comes to what we choose not to let people see. Thanks. And the question is whether or not there should be changes to the number of exemptions in the Public Records Act and whether those exemptions are being interpreted too widely by government agencies if you take a minute to answer. Thanks. Well, I want to thank my good friend Kim Cheney for writing that. We're in a different time. I mean, I think we all understand that. And there's a lot of cynicism in this state, in this country. There's a lot of cynicism towards government. And I understand that. And I do agree with Jansen that being transparent is the best way to rebut that cynicism and build that trust in government. It's incredibly important. But there are exemptions that are entirely appropriate. People's personal privacy is one of them. The issue of litigation is one of them. And, you know, I've had this conversation with people in the audience before that we have rules of our profession that we have to follow. And sometimes it is hard to reconcile that with the Public Records Law, one of them being the attorney-client privilege. When you're a lawyer and you represent clients, you want clients to tell you everything because they need to trust you and you need to be able to defend them or to represent them depending. And that's really the hallmark of the legal practice. And it is a privilege that is fundamental to our legal system. And so how does that comport with the Public Records Law? Oftentimes there's that tension. And I want to be clear. It's not the attorney who holds the privilege. It's the client that holds the privilege. And in order to say, I'm going to release this, you need your client to say, yes, you can release it. And that provides, I think, difficulty because if you were going to look back and you said to your client, hey, you need to tell me everything so I can adequately defend you. And if that trust wasn't there, that would erode our legal system. So I don't know what the right answer is. I do agree that transparency is incredibly important today, perhaps more than ever, given the cynicism that exists right now. And I do commend the media for pushing this issue. It is not always a comfortable issue to talk about for people in my position. But it's incredibly important that this issue continue to be pushed by the media because we have to build that trust in government, that credibility in government, and leave it up to the people to decide whether or not this is a valid exception that they're using or not. So as much as I don't like going through this process, and we've gone through it a lot, it's an incredibly important process and discussion to continue to go through. So I appreciate it. And I appreciate Kim for bringing up these issues. And this is more complicated than sometimes people want to give it credit for. Thanks. I'd be very curious to hear your answer as well. But that's right. I'd like to ask one more question. Then I'll hand it over to you guys for hand it over to you guys for a question each. What do you see as being the point where you disagree most with your candidate and why do you think you're right? Start with you, Attorney General Donovan. I mean, I think from our last debate, the two issues that come to mind is probably the issue of guns. I do think you can pass reasonable regulations that are in the interest of public safety and public health. And I think when it comes to the reproductive health of women, I support a woman's right to choose. Thanks. And this is actually going to give a tweak or probably I'm going to have to retreat my one question, though, because maybe the Attorney General changes his mind as I say this. But one of the things that I fought most vigorously for at the end of the session that I still think would have done a lot to cure me and the issues we dealt with the criminal justice and in those we incarcerated earlier goes back to how we charge possession and the fact of under our current laws, it's based on 1980 1980s data on on what was deemed, you know, too much of a certain substance to have on you, which wasn't scientific, wasn't accurate. And so we have folks battling addiction that get that get charged literally on a daily basis here for felony possession. And that that is what is used to hold them. That's what's used to give them time in jail. And sadly, oftentimes is even used as leverage to hold them for a misdemeanor. I mean, I just recently, you know, really battled out in William County for in a case that was right at one of those stupid thresholds. And but the best I could do is get a misdemeanor. But then they're going to go to jail longer for the misdemeanor. I mean, really, is that the situation we're supposed to be in? And so that's why I fought for for making misdemeanor for for all possession. And then also for no bell for those cases. Because again, it becomes very about socioeconomic and also when you have no bell in the case, it also tells the court and I think also prosecutors that as a legislative body, we're saying that this isn't something people should be going to jail for. And so we're hopefully really thrilled that thwart that process. That's why, you know, I, even though I sounded modest, you know, just the $200 compromise. But again, again, I see it daily. Actually, Mimi Braille was just chatting with me about this. She's the main public defender. And when she's like, I just had two or three women held this week on $200 and they're up in Burlington. I'm like, I know, I mean, that's why I fought for it. I mean, this is, and that's the problem that this is causing these disparities again. And so why we shouldn't be be holding folks because they don't have money on the law offenses. And we shouldn't be charging people bound addiction with felonies. And so I really wish the attorney general would have stood by me to get that through. I worked my butt off quite frankly with Celine Coburn to work our, to work our committee and also the floor so we could get it passed. But at least I was released by my chair. We're still waiting to hear from the attorney general. We didn't. So and that hurts me because I mean, I believe in my four years, I could have been the greatest thing that I did because I really would have saved lives and families. And so that's, that's something that, that at least it looked like we still disagree with, but I'd be really happy to know if maybe he's come, he's come to my side now. And then if that's the case, then, then we're really going to have a hard time finding things to disagree on. So I think the question sort of is whether or not $200 cash bail is too high and continuing. No cash bail and no felony possession. I appreciate Janssen's advocacy on this issue. I think bail reform is incredibly important. I think many people, and it certainly goes to your earlier question about sending in for my teammates out of state, the detainee population is a big part of our incarcerated population and it kind of flows anywhere from 300 to 400. I don't know the exact number today. And I can tell you from being a prosecutor, people who get held on bail try to make a rational decision to get out of jail. And that's to plead out. And then you take the record and all the collateral consequences that attach to it in terms of housing, employment, and education. That's why bail reform is so important. I think the science is even clear that you have a low risk offender who is even held for I think up to two to three days. The recidivism rate actually increases. So it is consistent with public safety as well. I think why we asked for the $200 was because the Constitution talks about offenses being bailable. In our interpretation, the Constitution was a needed a little, it needed some cash bail then to pass constitutional muster and remain law. So I think it's a good first step. We want to make progress on this issue, but we want to make sure that the law stands up in the court of law as well because it's something that we incredibly both care about. Bail reform is incredibly important because being poor is not a crime. As to making all possessions misdemeanor, we did support the defenalization aspect of the bill. I do think it's important though that people who sell drugs for greed or for profit that we do get to prosecute. And I think we were proposing a compromise where essentially a charge that would have been consistent with possession with intent to deliver. I think people that sell drugs for greed or for profit need to be prosecuted in the state. I think people who suffer from addiction need treatment. $200 is somewhat arbitrary number it seems. If it's simply that it needs to have some cash amount, why not go down to a dollar and really reduce that barrier? I think you're right. It was an arbitrary number. I think sometimes bail is appropriate. I want to be clear about that too. I've done this job long enough that bail is appropriate in some circumstances. So it was an arbitrary number. I couldn't tell you where $200 came from other than that we thought that was a fair compromise. I want to acknowledge I understand $200 is a lot of money for folks. But I do think this is a good first step. And if we need to go back and tweak it, if it's not achieving what we intended it to do, you always reserve the right to go back and make things better. Thanks. And if you'd like to ask me a question to Representative You didn't watch the full 18 meetings last night, did you? That's better than me. That's better than me. Jensen, we talked about this the other day. Did you vote for H422, which was the bill that allowed police officers the ability to seize weapons at the time of domestic violence incident occurred? This is something that we strongly supported in my office because domestic violence is a serious issue in Vermont. Over half of our homicides are related to domestic violence. And it's incredibly important that we give the police the tools to keep women safe and to keep our communities safe by taking by seizing weapons at the time of a domestic violence incident. And did you support that or did you oppose that? No, again, I appreciate you bringing it up again, again, because again, like I said last time, I know that I supported what finally came out. But if you recall, there are so many bills and so many iterations. So then I did go look at the legislative record to make sure I was right on was. So what had happened was is there was an initial bill that there were concerns about about adequate due process that while it did get through the house, but I did not support it and I get through the Senate. And then actually, there was changes made in committee. And then in the second second year, I did actually vote. I supported that bill. I actually was one of the persons from my committee that spoke on behalf of it on the floor. And we passed it through. And so yeah. And like I said, if you look at the record, all the bills with respect to dealing with with gun violence, and all the proposals in that sphere that dealt with acts of violence or threats of acts of violence, I supported all those bills. Were those things specific to just further limitations for someone's rights to possess? Regarding a woman's right to choose, which you raised, TJ. Obviously, the Trump administration and with Brett Kavanaugh moving on to the Supreme Court, there's a great deal of concern about whether those protections will continue to exist on a federal level and what states can do about it. So I guess I'm wondering if you could quickly explain your position on a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion or not and what you think the Attorney General in Vermont can do to counteract perhaps the federal changes if indeed they happen and you're the Attorney General. Chance, and we'll start with you. No, again, I mean, just as I said last time when he asked me to, because I dealt with actually a resolution and whether or not I supported it, I am personally pro-life. It comes from my faith and the faith of my wife and my family. And but that doesn't change the rule of law, that it changed the laws of Vermont. And so again, I'm still going to fight and defend the rights and protections that we as all Vermonters and women in Vermont have, because again, that's separate and apart. I mean, it goes back to what it means to be a lawyer. I mean, again, my expectation, I think we're even seeing that with the current Attorney General and the UB5 situation, you know, you often have cases and things that you might personally have difference of opinions, but you have a duty to do your job and you're going to do it well. And so, I mean, I would hope and trust that all Vermonters realize I'm still going to fight and defend the rules and protections we have as Vermonters, but again, I wasn't going to lie about my personal views. I mean, because again, because of my faith and the faith of my family, I am pro-life. 60 seconds to respond. I support women's right to choose, and I think the state of Vermont should codify Roe v. Wade and stay statute. And I support that and I look forward to advocating for that come January. Also was proud to stand with Planned Parenthood to defend Planned Parenthood in their Title X funding, which was an effort by the federal government to strip Planned Parenthood, which provides, which has 10 healthcare clinics around this state. And people say, well, what is that about? Well, let me tell you what it's about. What Title X funding does, it goes to family planning, cancer screening, and STDs. I can't find it. I don't understand how you would oppose providing funds to do cancer screenings for women. But that's what the federal government did. That's why I opposed it. And I was proud to stand with Planned Parenthood. And let me also mention this, that access to healthcare for these 10 clinics around our state of Vermont, for we're mostly for low income women. So I'm proud to oppose that. And I will continue to oppose that. I think, as I said, when we talk about this issue, if I go to my doctor, and I ask for options for healthcare issue I may have, I'm going to get options. Women should have the same opportunity. Thanks. And just a quick follow up. Do you also support codifying the protections in Roe v. Wade in Vermont law? I would support those again, as a representative of my community. And I would, I've always believed going back to article six, you know, it goes back to representing the people of Vermont. And so I would always in the interest of, of, of, of Vermonters in my, in my community. Again, obviously in this, if I am so fortunate to have this new position, I wouldn't have that vote. But I've, if you can even look at my record, I've always voted with my community. Great. So we're going to do closing statements now. And Representative Will White will go to you first. You've got three minutes to give your closing remarks. Again, thank you everyone so much for, for being here this, this afternoon. Again, I am Jansen Wilhoit. I've had honor and privilege of serving my beloved town of St. Johnsbury last four years in the legislature. And I do ask for a vote to be your next attorney general. My story, though I'm not a native Vermonters is so much of a Vermont story. It's a story of, of hope, of redemption of second chances of a community first at Vermont law school. And then in St. Johnsbury welcoming me and my wife and, and a family finding the, finding his voice. It is here in Vermont that, that my wife and I became foster parents and that becoming forever parents. It is here that, that I, that I learned the law, that I began practicing the law and love, I'm sorry. I love doing that work. I truly found my voice in Vermont and my voice to protect children that are, that are abused and neglected. A voice to, to, to, to be an advocate for, for those that, that, that so often don't have a voice. And also a voice to, to deal with those in our communities, our friends, our neighbors, our loved ones that are battling addiction. I'm proud of my record in, in working with that voice, not only in the legislature but also as an attorney, as a community leader on my local diversion board in my, in my community justice center and also on a local community, on youth boards of advocacy. And I stand on that record today and, and ask for your vote because as your next attorney general I'll continue to fight and defend the rule of law for equal fair access to just underlaw for, for, for all persons and also for more open and transparent government. That's why I'm running to be your next attorney general and I do ask for a vote on November 6th. Thank you. Thank you and attorney general Donovan. Thank you Collin and Vermont Digger for hosting this debate and I also want to thank Jansen Wilhoit for engaging in a, in a civil debate for being a candidate for the office of attorney general. It's been a privilege and honor to compete against you. I'm running for attorney general to continue the work that I've started these past two years, which is to stand up and represent from honors. Regardless of who you are, regardless of where you're from, regardless of what you look like, I'm going to be an attorney general that defends and protects everybody in this state. We understand there's challenges, not only coming from the federal government, but also here in Vermont and whether it's in protecting our environment, standing up for our consumers, standing up for the elderly or innocent children or protecting civil rights, that has been my record as attorney general and I'm going to continue to do that. Regardless of the case, whether it's too big or too small, I'm going to represent Vermont. I'm proud to have sued Purdue Pharma for starting the opiate crisis in this state. I'm also proud of creating a new culture at the attorney general service, one that's based on service, one that's based on listening and caring about Vermonters. We get a call a couple weeks ago at our office and a Vermonter called and thought he'd been ripped off. He had sold his piece of property and he thought the mortgage company was holding on to his money that he was entitled to and he called us because I think the issue that most Vermonters know about the attorney general is this. They don't know what we do, but they know we work for them and they know that we're supposed to fight for them and stick up for them and this Vermonter called and asked for our help. In the past, we would have said not our problem, we don't do that, but because I believe in listening to Vermonters and solving people's problems and creating that new culture, our staff got on that phone understanding the power of the attorney general's office, talked to that big company and got that Vermonters money back. Never going to show up in a press release, never going to be a story about it, but that's how you represent Vermonters. That's how you provide service to Vermonters. That's how you solve problems for Vermonters and that's how you build trust in government. I understand their cynicism in government right now. I know there are questions about what we're doing, but I believe in this state. I believe in the people of this state and I'm going to be the champion for everybody in this state. I ask for your vote on November 6th. Thanks for having me. Thank you so much, Attorney General Dunham and Representative Wilhoit for joining us for the debate. Thank you to Orca Public Media for recording it and it will be available on vtdigger.org as well as through Orca. We do have our election guide on our website vtdigger.org slash elections which has information about candidates for all races across the state. Thank you all for turning out this afternoon.