>> WELCOME TO THE IDAHO DEBATES.

TONIGHT, THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CANDIDATES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THE IDAHO DEBATES IS ORGANIZED BY THESE PARTNERS.

FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION ENDOWMENT AND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>> Melissa: HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE IDAHO DEBATES AND THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION STUDIOS.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF THREE DEBATES WE ARE HOSTING BEFORE THE MAY 17 PRIMARY ELECTION.

TONIGHT THE THREE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE THE STAGE TO ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDS IDAHO LAWS IN COURT.

THEY SIT ON THE STATE LAND BOARD AND OVERSEE DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL WHO PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO IDAHO STATE AGENCIES.

THE WINNER OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY WILL FACE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE STEVEN SCANLIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

I WANT TO WELCOME THE CANDIDATES, ART MACOMEER, RAUL LABRADOR AND LAWRENCE WAS DEJ.

ART MACOMEER HAS TAUGHT LAW AT NORTH IDAHO COLLEGE AND GONZAGA SCHOOL OF LAW.

FORMER CONGRESSMAN RAUL LABRADOR S AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN NAMPA, PRIOR TO REPRESENTING IDAHO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ONE FOR FOUR TERMS HE WAS IN THE IDAHO STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE WASDEN IS SEEKING HIS SIXTH TERM IN OFFICE.

PRIOR TO BE ELECTING TO ATTORNEY GENERAL HE WORKED IN THE AG'S OFFICE FOR 10 YEARS.

I WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR PANEL OF REPORTERS WHO WILL ASK CANDIDATES QUESTION.

MORGAN ROMERO, OF KTVB, KEITH RID LER OF THE PRESS AND I'M MELISSA DAVLIN HOST OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION.

I'M MODERATING THE DEBATE.

REMINDING THE CANDIDATE OF TIME IS MACY UTECH, VOLUNTARY FROM LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.

WE DREW NUMBERS A FEW MINUTES AGO TO DETERMINE THE ORDER AND MR. MACOMEER, YOU HAVE THAT HONOR.

>> Mr. Macomeer: THANK YOU, MELISSA.

I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE BEHIND THE SCENES AT KTVB.

MY NAME IS ART MACOMEER.

I'M THE ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL NOT BEHOLDEN TO SPECIAL INTERESTS AND QUALIFIED TO FIGHT FOR IDAHOANS.

I AM A 15 YEAR LITIGATOR THAT STEPPED IN THE RACE BECAUSE IDAHO IS IN TROUBLE.

THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENED IN COVID LOCKDOWNS.

OUR BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS WERE CRIMINALIZED, YOUR INCUMBENT ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WITH THE POWER TO STOP THIS CRIMINALIZATION, BUT HE FAILED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

HE IS CORRUPTED BY 20 YEARS OF COZY RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE POLITICAL INSIDER CLASS.

MR. WASDEN MUST GO.

MY OTHER OPPONENT LEGISLATURE TURNED LOBBYIST HAS NEITHER THE INDEPENDENCE TO STOP THE ABUSE OF YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS NEXT TIME.

THIS ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE WILL PROVIDE LACKLUSTER JOB PERFORMANCE AS HE PREPARES FOR HIS 2026 GUBERNATORIAL BID.

I'M THE ONLY CANDIDATE WITH INDEPENDENT LEGAL JUDGMENT AND SKILLS TO GET IDAHO BACK ON A CONSTITUTIONAL FOOTING.

I WROTE IDAHO'S CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENT 2018 LIMITING THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

IF I HAD BEEN IDAHO'S ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, I WOULD HAVE JOINED THE TEXAS VS. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION INTEGRITY SUIT AND SUED BRAD LITTLE AFTER THE SECOND RENEWAL OF HIS EMERGENCY PROCLAMATIONS.

IT IS TIME TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, IDAHO.

MAY 17 IS TIME FOR THE ELECTION OF OUTSIDER, TIME TO PUT THE INSIDERS OUT.

>> Melissa: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR.

>> Mr. Labrador: THANK YOU.

IT IS GREAT TO BE WITH YOU ON IDAHO PUBLIC TV.

IT IS GREAT TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

WE HAVE AN INCUMBENT WHO HAS BEEN IN THE OFFICE FOR 30 YEARS, 10 YEARS AS A DEPUTY, AND 20 YEARS AS THE ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AND HE BELIEVES THAT HIS JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE BUREAUCRACY OF IDAHO AND HE BELIEVES THAT HIS JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT OF IDAHO.

BUT HE DOESN'T THINK THAT HIS JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

I BELIEVE THE JOB OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2 OF THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION STATES THAT IS INSTITUTED FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

I HAVE BEEN A CONGRESSMAN FOR EIGHT YEARS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., A STATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR FOUR YEARS.

IN WASHINGTON, D.C., I FOUGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS.

I FOUGHT FOR YOUR LIBERTY.

I WAS ONE OF THE FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THE FREEDOM CAUCUS WITH PEOPLE LIKE RON DeSANTIS, JIM JORDAN, MARK MEADOWS.

I FOUGHT FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM, THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE OF IDAHO WANT.

YOU NEED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE STATE OF IDAHO WHO UNDERSTANDS HIS NUMBER ONE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO FIGHT FOR THE LIBERTY AND THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

>> Melissa: THANK YOU, ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN.

>> Mr. Wasden: thank you, my name is >> The rule of law means all of us, including the attorney general are bound by the law.

under the law, I don't represent conservatives, liberals or moderates.

>> I defended audio's sovereignty.

I pushed back on federal overreach by filing legitimate lawsuits, not those intended to get my face on fox news.

acts in law determine the cases to join.

I'm vigorously endorsing the heartbeat Bill.

I ask for your vote.

>> Melissa: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THE FIRST QUESTION FROM KEITH RID LER.

>> Keith: WHY ARE YOU SEEKING SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC OFFICE NOW AND WHAT SETS YOU APART FROM YOUR OPPONENTS WHO SAY THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO CERTIFY NEARER THIS I NOR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH MY CAMPAIGN CREATED OR REVIEWED OR SEEN THE OR HAD KNOWLEDGE TO THE QUESTIONS IN THIS DEBATE.

MY ANSWER IS IN HEARING THE QUESTIONS THE FIRST TIME FOR MYSELF.

THE REASON I ENTERED THIS RACE IS BECAUSE IDAHO IS IN TROUBLE.

I'M A FULL-TIME LITIGATOR.

I HAVE DONE THAT 15 YEARS.

I GREW MY LAW FIRM FROM 0, TO, WELL, 0, ME, TO SIX ATTORNEYS OPERATING IN THREE STATES.

I HAVE BEEN TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT SIX TIMES.

WHEN YOU ARE A LAND USE ATTORNEY, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER IDAHO IS A COMMON LAW STATE.

WE GO BACK IN THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN IDAHO TO ENFORCE OUR LAWS.

AND SO WHEN I SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE COVID LOCKDOWNS AND WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT DOING, I DECIDED TO GET IN THE RACE.

I THOUGHT, YEAH, I CAN DO THAT JOB.

IDAHO NEEDS A FIGHTER.

I'M A FIGHTER.

LET'S GO.

>> Melissa: ALL RIGHT.

NEXT QUESTION IS FOR CONGRESSMAN LABADOR.

>> Keith: YOU RAN FOR GOVERNOR FOUR YEARS AGO AND LOST TO NOW GOVERNOR BRAD LITTLE.

DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL?

>> YES, I DO.

I NOT ONLY WANT TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT I'M GOING TO BE A GREAT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO DESERVE A PERSON OF INTEGRITY WHO IS AGGRESSIVE IN THE ACTIONS THEY TAKE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST STATE GOVERNMENT OVERREACH.

AS I WATCH WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHEN WE HAD AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO WAS UNWILLING TO STAND UP TO THE GOVERNOR, WHO BECAME A YES MAN TO THE GOVERNOR WHEN THE GOVERNOR WAS DOING THINGS THAT WERE PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OUTSIDE THE LAW.

INSTEAD WAS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE TO THE GOVERNOR HE COULD INTERPRET THE LAW OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTE STATUTES.

I THOUGHT IDAHO NEEDED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STAND UP FOR THEM.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL THINKS HIS NUMBER ONE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO JUSTIFY LEGALLY WHATEVER THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO DO YOU NEED TO TELL THE GOVERNOR WHAT THE LAW IS.

YOU NEED TO TELL THE LEGISLATURE WHAT THE LAW IS.

YOU NEED TO TELL THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES WHAT THE LAW IS.

WHEN YOU INTERPRET THE LAW IN A WAY THAT HOLDS BACK THE POWER, IT ENSURES THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ARE PROTECTED, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TELL THE GOVERNOR NO.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TELL HIM YES.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE QUESTION IS.

THE REALITY IS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WE HAVE BEEN IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IN THE STATE OF IDAHO WHEN THE STATUTES ALLOW FOR 60 DAYS TO BE IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY.

THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD THE GOVERNOR HE COULD INTERPRET THE LAW THAT WAY AND THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> Melissa: NEXT QUESTION.

>> Keith: GENERAL WASDEN, YOU ARE THE LONGEST SERVING ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THIS IS YOUR SIXTH TERM.

DO YOU STILL HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO THE JOB?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WE HAVE HAD A CONSTITUTION IN THE STATE FOR 130 YEARS.

MY JOB IS TO READ THOSE DOCUMENTS AND DO WHAT IT SAYS.

I HAVE FIRE IN THE BELLY TO DO THAT AND HAVE A PROVEN RECORD TO DO THAT.

FOLKS WHO MAKE THE CLAIM THEY KNOW WHAT ADVICE I GAVE THE GOVERNOR ARE INCORRECT.

THEY WEREN'T THERE.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ADVICE I GAVE THE GOVERNOR.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS TO READ THE LAW AS IT EXISTS, READ THE CONSTITUTION AS IT EXISTS.

I DON'T GET TO ADD WORDS OR TAKE WORDS AWAY.

MY JOB IS TO GIVED A VOICE AND I DON'T USURP THE AUTHORITY OF OTHERS TO MAKE THEIR DECISIONS.

ABSOLUTELY I HAVE A FIRE TO CONTINUE PROVIDING ADVICE TO MY CLIENTS AND ALSO TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> I FIND IT FASCINATING HE KEEPS SAYING FOLKS ARE MISINTERPRETING WHAT HE SAID.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE TOLD THE GOVERNOR, BUT WE DO KNOW WHAT HIS OFFICE WROTE.

THEY WROTE AN OPINION ABOUT THE STATE OF EMERGENY AND THEY WROTE THAT OPINION SAYING YOU CAN INTERPRET THE STATE OF THE EMERGENCY, THE STATUTE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO TO MEAN YOU COULD GO INDEFINITELY ON A STATE OF EMERGENCY.

I DON'T HAVE TO GUESS WHAT HE TOLD THE GOVERNOR.

THEY ACTUALLY WROTE AN OPINION OF THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.

>> THAT IS NOT REALLY THE WORST PROBLE FROM AN ATTORNEY'S POINT OF VIEW BECAUSE THE STATUTES ARE WHAT THEY ARE.

YOU ARE TALKING 461008 WITH 30 DAYS AND 60 DAYS EVERYONE WAS ARGUING ABOUT.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INCUMBENT TOLD THE GOVERNOR.

WE DO KNOW HE WASN'T ABLE TO KEEP HIM IN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

YOU TAKE MILLIONS OF FEDERAL DOLLARS UNDER THE CARE ACT OR OTHERWISE AND DISTRIBUTE IT WOULD A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, THAT IS AGAINST ARTICLE 3 OF THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION.

WHEN THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION GIVES RIGHTS OF FAITH, THEY ARE RESTATED IN SECTION 19 AT THE VERY BACK OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I'M READING THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THAT IS OUR ANCHOR HERE IN IDAHO.

ARTICLE 21, SECTION 29, SORRY, SECTION 19, IT IS ORDAINED THAT PERFECT TOLERATION OF RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT SHOULD BE SECURED AND NO INHABITANT SHOULD EVER BE MOLESTED IN PERSON OR PROPERTY IN WORSHIP.

>> Melissa: ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN, I GIVE YOU 60 SECONDS TO RESPONSE.

>> THANK YOU.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW.

THE GOVERNOR CAN ISSUE AND EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR 30 DAYS, ANOTHER ONE FOR 30 DAYS.

WHAT THAT STATUTE DOES NOT SAY IS WHAT HAPPENS ON THE 61st DAY?

YOU DON'T GET TO ADD WORDS OR TAKE WORDS AWAY.

THE QUESTION IS WHO MAKES THE DECISION?

THE GOVERNOR MAKES THE DECISION, NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES.

67-3615 THAT SAYS WHEN MONS ARE NOT COG NIZABLE AT THE TIME THE APPROPRIATION IS MADE, WHICH WOULD BE THOSE MONIES, THE GOVERNOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THOSE EXPENDITURES.

THERE IS A STATUTORY FRAMEWORK.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S JOB IS NOT TO MAKE THE GOVERNOR'S DECISION.

THE JOB IS TO GIVE ADVICE AND REPRESENT THE GOVERNOR.

THAT IS WHAT A LAWYER DOES.

HE DOESN'T GET TO USURP HIS CLIENT'S AUTHORITY OR ATTACK HIS CLIENT.

>> Melissa: WE WILL HAVE MORE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE.

THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM MORGAN ROMERO.

>> Morgan: MR. MACOMEER, YOU SAID YOU HAVE ARGUED IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT.

MOST RECENTLY IN 2020 THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EASTSIDE HIGHWAY.

DO YOU HAVE SUCCESS NEEDED TO DEFEND THE STATE'S LAWS?

>> WHAT BRINGS SUCCESS RATE IN IDAHO SUPREME COURT IS GOOD FACTS.

THE LAW REMAINS THE SAME.

WHEN YOU BRING THE FACTS AND THE CLIENT SAYS I WANT TO BRING MY FACTS FORWARD AND APPLY THE LAW TO THEM, AND APPEAL THE CASE, THAT IS WHAT YOU DO.

THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE CIVIL LITIGATION PROCESS HAS THAT ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

MR. WASDEN MENTIONED ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

HE TOOK AN OATH UNDER THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION, SO IF HE TOLD THE GOVERNOR, NO, YOU CAN'T CLOSE CHURCHES BECAUSE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, RIGHT OF FAITH.

THAT THESE PEOPLE GET TO GO TO CHURCH, YOU HAVE TO TALK THEM INTO IT, OKAY?

IF HE TOLD THEM THAT AND THE GOVERNOR DISOBEYED IT, THEN HE IS STILL DEMONSTRATING HE IS NOT A GOOD ATTORNEY BECAUSE ATTORNEYS KEEP THEIR CLIENTS WITHIN THE LAW.

THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

IT IS NOT AS IF GOVERNOR LITTLE IS SOME KIND OF A METH HEAD WHO IS GOING TO GO BREAK THE LAW REGARDLESS.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

HE IS THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

SO HE SHOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO REASON.

I BELIEVE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO KEEP HIM WITHIN THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION AND IDAHO LAW.

>> Morgan: CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, YOU TOOK A BREAK FROM BEING AN ACTIVE PRACTICING ATTORNEY DURING YOUR TIME IN CONGRESS.

SINCE RETURNING YOU HAVE BEEN A LOBBYIST FOR SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INTEREST GROUPS.

ACCORDING TO THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT YOU HAVE NEVER ARGUED IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT.

DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCE NEEDED FOR THIS JOB?

>> I DO.

I WAS ACTUALLY A TRIAL LAWYER THE WHOLE TIME I WAS PRACTICING LAW.

WHEN I WENT TO WASHINGTON, D.C., I ENDED UP WORKING ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR YEARS.

CHAIRMAN OF THE IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE.

THE JOB OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL pIS TO LEAD A GROUP OF ATTORNEY.

I HAD A LAW FIRM THAT HAD THREE LAWYERS, FIVE PARALEGALS AND WE DID LITIGATION ALL OVER THE STATE.

I NEVER ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, BUT I HAD CASES BEFORE THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE U.S. COURT AND BEFORE THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS.

SO I HAVE DONE A LOT OF APPELLATE WORK.

BUT THAT WAS NOT MY SPECIALTY.

MY SPECIALTY WAS A TRIAL LAWYER AND I WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL AS A TRIAL LAWYER AND I HAD A LOT OF SUCCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT AND THE CRIMINAL COURTS'.

I HAVE THE SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE NECESSARY.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I HAVE IS THE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE.

THIS JOB IS NOT JUST A LEGAL JOB, IT IS A POLITICAL JOB.

YOU HAVE TO GET ALONG WITH THE YOU HAVE TO GET ALONG WITH THE GOVERNOR.

YOU HAVE TO GET ALONG WITH THE HEADS OF AGENCIES.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT TO THESE PEOPLE IN A WAY THAT IS NOT JUST LEGAL, BUT ALSO POLITICAL, SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE THINGS HAPPENING IN THE STATE.

THAT IS WHY I HAVE OVER 33 LEGISLATORS THAT ARE ENDORSING ME IN THIS RACE.

BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THEY DON'T TRUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANYMORE.

THEY DON'T TRUST HIS LEGAL ADVICE, EVEN WHEN HE GIVES GOOD LEGAL ADVICE THEY IGNORE IT AND THAT IS WHY THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ARE SUFFERING AND PAYING A PRICE.

IT IS TIME TO FIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO AND HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL IN OFFICE.

>> Morgan: MAY I ASK A FOLLOW-UP?

HOW DO YOU MEASURE AND TRACK SUCCESS IF YOU CLAIM SUCCESS?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LOSES MOST OF THE CASES THEY ARE INVOLVED IN, BUT ALSO GIVING GOOD LEGAL ADVICE.

I HEAR A LOT FROM PEOPLE THAT WE DON'T NEED AN AGGRESSIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE A LOT OF CASES.

IF YOU ARE GIVING GOOD LEGAL ADVICE TO YOUR CLIENTS, MAYBE YOUR CLIENTS WILL LISTEN TO YOU.

THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CLIENTS THAT ARE NOT LISTENING TO HIM.

HE GIVES THEM LEGAL ADVICE, SOMETIMES GOOD, SOMETIMES BAD, MOST OF THE TIME BAD, BUT THEY DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT HE IS SAYING AND THAT IS COSTING THE STATE OF IDAHO A LOT OF MONEY.

THE SUCCESS IS BEING ABLE TO SIT DOWN WITH YOUR CLIENTS AND LETTING THEM KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS, THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR ACTIONS AND HOPEFULLY PREVENTING THEM FROM MAKING BAD DECISIONS THAT WILL AFFECT THE STATE.

>> Morgan: GENERAL WASDEN, YOU HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE 20 YEARS.

WHY SHOULD YOU STAY?

>> WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN DEMONSTRATED HERE TONIGHT IS THE REASON I SHOULD STAY.

THAT IS FOLKS, WHO SAY 33 72 HAVEN'T SUPPORTED HIM.

>> HOW MANY ARE SUPPORTING YOU?

>> I DON'T COUNT THEM.

>> BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING YOU.

>> THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

>> THIS IS MY 60 SECONDS.

>> Melissa: YOU CAN CONTINUE.

YEAH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SEVENTY TWO SAID THEY HADN'T SUPPORTED HIM.

THIS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AND LARGEST LAW OFFICE IN THE STATE.

THE CLAIM THAT WE LOSE MOST OF OUR CASES IS NONSENSE.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

WE WIN MOST OF THE CASES THAT WE HAVE.

I HAVE SOME CLIENTS THAT DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE GOOD LEGAL ADVICE AND THEY CHOOSE NOT TO AND IT COSTS THE STATE DEARLY.

NOW, WE TRY AND HELP THEM TO IMPROVE THEIR LEGISLATION, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE JUST SIMPLY UNWILLING TO ACCEPT GOOD LEGAL ADVICE.

THAT IS NOT MY CHOICE, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

>> Morgan: WHO ARE YOU REFERENCING SPECIFICALLY?

>> MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY.

SOME OF THEM HAVE A VISION OF WHAT THE STATE IS AND HAS AND CAN DO WHICH IS NOT CORRECT.

ON ONE OCCASION A LEGISLATURE SAID WE CAN DO ANYTHING WE WANT BECAUSE WE ARE THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE.

THE ANSWER IS, NO, YOU CAN'T.

YOU ARE LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS A CRITICAL FACTOR.

VERY UPSET WITH ME OVER IT.

THE ANSWER IS YOU CAN'T DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

>> THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS TWO INSIDERS BATTLING OVER WHO CAN GET MORE ENDORSEMENTS FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL SEPARATION OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES HERE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, SHOULD NOT BE GIVING LEGAL ADVICE TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL INSIDE A LEGISLATIVE OFFICE.

IF THAT OCCURS THE LEGISLATORS HAVE THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS IN HOUSE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DEFEND THAT LATER AND THERE'S WAYS TO DO THAT.

NOW WE HAVE A CASE IN THE FETAL HEARTBEAT CASE WHERE THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD PEOPLE HAVE SIDED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION IN THEIR VERIFIED PETITION TO THE COURT SAYING THIS IS NO GOOD, RIGHT?

SO HE IS CAUGHT IN A CONFLICT WE HAVE TO FIX THIS IN IDAHO.

MY OFFICE WILL FIX IT.

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN UNDER A MACOMEER AG ADMINISTRATION.

>> Melissa: I WILL GIVE YOU 60 SECONDS TO RESPOND.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THAT IGNORES THE LAW.

67-1401 SAYS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RENDERS A LEGAL OPINION UPON REQUEST BY ANY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE.

I DON'T GET TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE.

WHEN I'M ASKED, I'M REQUIRED TO GIVE AN OPINION.

MY OPINION IS A LEGAL OPINION.

WITH REGARD TO THE HEARTBEAT BILL, ROE V. WADE, WHETHER WE AGREE, IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND ANUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

YOU DON'T GET TO LIE TO YOUR CLIENTS TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS.

MY JOB IS TO RENDER A LEGAL OPINION PRIOR TO THEIR PASSING.

THEN I VIGOROUSLY DEFEND THE POLICY CHOICES THEY MAKE.

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE LAW NOW SAYS.

I LIVE BY THE RULE OF LAW, I FOLLOW THE LAW, I OBEY -- >> Melissa: THE NEXT TOPIC.

>> THE PRECISE PROBLEM.

HE HAS BEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 20 YEARS AND IN THE OFFICE 10 BEFORE THEN.

THEY TOOK THE ATTORNEYS OUT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND PUT THEM IN THE AG'S OFFICE SO THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

IN 25 YEARS YOU COULDN'T FIX THAT?

YOU CAN'T POINT TO THE LAW TODAY AND SAY I'M GOOD WITH THE LAW TODAY WHEN THERE ARE 25 YEARS WHEN YOU COULD HAVE FIXED IT.

>> Melissa: WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

>> JAMES:WHAT SHOULD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND THE LEGISLATURE LOOK LIKE?

>> THERE SHOULD BE A MUTUAL RESPECT.

THE LEGISLATURE IS A DIFFERENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

MY FUNCTION UNDER THE LAW IS TO GIVE THEM LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPROVE LEGISLATION, WHICH WE DO.

A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THEM SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE THAT ADVICE.

THEY GET TO MAKE THE POLICY CHOICES.

I'M NOT TELLING THEM WHAT THEY GET TO CHOOSE.

I'M GIVING THEM LEGAL ADVICE, THEY CHOOSE THAT AND I REPRESENT THE POLICY CHOICES ONCE THEY MAKE THEM.

THAT IS PRECISELY HOW THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED.

IT IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM ANY LAWYER.

MINE HAPPENS TO HAPPEN IN PUBLIC, I GIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND IT IS VERY PUBLIC.

I DON'T GET TO SIT IN A CONFERENCE ROOM AND SAY, HERE IS WHAT YOUR CHOICES ARE.

THEY GET TO MAKE THEIR CHOICE WHETHER THEY FOLLOW THAT ADVICE OR DON'T AND MY JOB IS TO IT WILL GAT ON THEIR BEHALF ONCE THAT HAPPENS.

IS IT PERFECT?

NO.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE MORE FRIENDLY WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF PARTICULAR GROUPS OF LAWMAKERS WHO YOU GIVE ADVICE TO DON'T TAKE IT AND DECIDE TO RUN WITH WHATEVER IDEA THEY HAVE.

>> LET'S BE CLEAR.

I NEVER SAID I WOULD BE MORE FRIENDLY.

I'M FRIENDLY WITH EVERYBODY.

I SAID I WOULD HAVE A BETTER WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

WE HAVE TWO PROBLEMS WITH WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUST SAID.

NUMBER ONE IS THAT HE KEEPS BLAMING HIS CLIENT.

THE WORST KIND OF LAWYER IS THE LAWYER THAT KEEPS BLAMING HIS CLIENTS FOR THE BAD RELATIONSHIP OR THE CASES THEY LOSE.

I THINK THEY HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE HE KEEPING TALKING DOWN TO THE LEGISLATURE INSTEAD OF TALKING WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND WORKING WITH THEM.

BUT THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE WE HAVE AND I NOTICED THIS WHEN I WAS A LEGISLATOR, I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS ACTUALLY GIVING LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE LEGISLATURE IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

I THINK THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN ATTORNEYS.

I HAVE THOUGHT THAT MANY YEARS.

I PROPOSED THAT WHEN I WAS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS.

THE BEST THING AN ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DO IS ENSURE WHATEVER THE LEGISLATURE PASSES IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT CAN BE DEFENDED IN THE COURTS.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A SIMPLE EXAMPLE.

IN THE STATE OF TEXAS SOLICITOR GENERAL.

TED CRUZ WAS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL.

THEY WERE TRYING TO PASS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT AFFECTED THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

TED CRUZ TOLD THE LEGISLATURE IT WASN'T WRITTEN PROPERLY BECAUSE THE LEGISLATION WAS AMENDED AND IT WAS PASSED AND IT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND IT EXTENDED OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

IT IS THE FAMOUS HAILER DECISION.

IF YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS TRUSTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THEY WILL ACTUALLY FOLLOW HIS COUNSEL INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY BUTTING HEADS AND TAKE AWAY HIS FUNDING AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

>> THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS A SEPARATION OF POWERS PROBLEM.

YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN THE LEGISLATURE GOES NEXT DOOR TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THESE BRANCHES ARE HAVING ADVERSARY AL RELATIONSHIPS.

THAT IS THE WAY THE REPUBLICS ARE DESIGNED.

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WANTS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LAW AND THUS THEIR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR THE LEGISLATURE WHO IS TRYING TO EXERCISE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

SO JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE AND THIS WILL BE DISCLAIMED AT THE FAR END OF THE PANEL HERE, WHICH IS FINE.

BUT IN EXECUTIVE BRANCH LAW ENFORCER WILL WANT THERE TO BE FEWER DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.

EASIER TO ENFORCE.

THEY WANT IT TO BE MORE VAGUE.

IF YOU TALK TO A POLICEMAN ON THE BEAT, IT IS THE SAME THING.

THEY DON'T LIKE ALL THESE RULES, BUT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM.

SO WE NEED TO GET SOME ATTORNEYS.

I WILL MEASURE WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE BURDEN IS IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND I WILL FIRE THOSE ATTORNEYS AND TAKE THOSE POSITIONS AND PUT THEM BACK IN THE LEGISLATURE, WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A LEGAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE FOR THE LEGISLATURE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED.

>> Melissa: WE HAVE TO MOVE ON.

THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM MORGAN ROMERO FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN.

>> Morgan: WE TALKED ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

NOW MOVING ON TO THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNOR.

GENERAL WASDEN, ARE YOU WILLING TO PUSH BACK ON GOVERNOR LITTLE IF HE GETS RE-ELECTED AND DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES OF TIMES YOU STOOD UP TO HIM?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I CAN'T DISCLOSE THE TIMES WHEN I HAVE GIVEN THE GOVERNOR ADVICE WHICH HE HAS NOT FOLLOWED BECAUSE IT IS COVERED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

THE ANSWER IS UNDER THE LAW I REPRESENT THE GOVERNOR UPON HIS REQUEST.

AS HIS LAWYER, WHEN HE MAKES THAT REQUEST, I'M REQUIRED TO KEEP HIS CONFIDENCES, I'M REQUIRED TO BE LOYAL TO THAT CLIENT AND I'M REQUIRED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LEGAL POSITION.

WE HAVE OUR DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AND, IN FACT, I CAN GIVE YOU ONE THAT IS NOT COVERED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE REGARDING THE LAND BOARD IN WHICH WE HAD A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

I WROTE A MINORITY REPORT ON SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES BY THE LAND BOARD BECAUSE WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE.

BUT THAT IS NOT FUNCTIONING AS A LAWYER.

BY THE WAY, I WOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH DETERMINES WHO AND HOW I REPRESENT THEM.

IT IS NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION.

YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE PART OF YOUR OFFICE AND SAY, YOU ARE NOW GOING TO BE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE.

THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

THAT IS A SERIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WORK.

IN ADDITION, I WOULD POINT OUT THE TEXAS SOLICITOR GENERAL REFUSED TO FILE THE TEXAS VS. PENNSYLVANIA CASE.

THE TEXAS SOLICITOR GENERAL REFUSED TO DO THAT.

INSTEAD IT WAS FILED BY KEN PAXTON HIMSELF, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS.

>> I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS POINT -- >> Melissa: PUT A PIN IN THAT.

NEXT QUESTION TO CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR.

>> Morgan: OKAY.

YOU HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF GOVERNOR LITTLE'S POLICIES.

SPECIFICALLY WE TALKED ABOUT THE PANDEMIC.

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WORK WITH HIM IF HE GETS RE-ELECTED?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I HAVE TO WORK WITH WHOEVER THE GOVERNOR IS AND I HAVE TO HAVE A CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNOR.

WHEN I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY I GOT A CALL FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TELLING ME THEY WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE ELECTIONS FROM MAY TILL AUGUST.

THEY HAD GOTTEN REALLY BAD LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ADVICE SAYING THAT WAS POSSIBLE UNDER EMERGENCY RECORDERS.

I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THE DATES OF THE ELECTION.

THEY TOLD ME THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD THEM THEY COULD DO IT.

I ASKED THEM TO GIVE ME A SECOND AND CALLED LAWYERS WHO WERE ELECTION LAW LAWYERS TO CONFIRM BAD LEGAL ADVICE.

THEY ALL CONFIRMED IT WAS BAD LEGAL ADVICE AND WE COULD SUE.

I TOLD THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE I WOULD SUE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IF THEY CHANGE THE ELECTION.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I SAY IT PUBLICLY.

I DIDN'T HAVE TO GRANDSTAND AND GO ON FOX NEWS AS I KEEP GETTING ACCUSED OF.

I SAID, LOOK, YOU ARE GETTING BAD LEGAL ADVICE.

THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS GIVEN YOU BAD LEGAL ADVICE ON THE ELECTIONS IN THE PAST.

IT WOULD BEHOOVE YOU TO DO WHAT THE STATE OF IDAHO DOES.

THEY HUNG UP, CALLED ME BACK AND SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO MOVE IT.

THAT IS HOW YOU WORK WITH A GOVERNOR, PUSH BACK, TELL THEM WHAT THE LAW IS AND HOPE THEY TAKE THE RIGHT LEGAL ADVICE.

THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO DEMAND, YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WILL STAND UP FROM ANY OVERREACH FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICES.

>> Morgan: SAME QUESTION MR. MACOMEER, IF GOVERNOR LITTLE IS RE-ELECTED, WOULD YOU WORK WITH HIM?

> YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH ALL THE STATE OFFICES.

UNDER TITLE 59, IS THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

SO IN THIS CASE WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE GOVERNOR AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN MARCH 2020 DECIDED TO GET RID OF POLLING PLACES AND GO TO MAIL-IN VOTING ACROSS THE STATE USING THE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROCESS, OKAY, THIS VIOLATED ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHICH SAYS THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES SET THOSE RULES.

THEY DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE RULES.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTUALLY HELPED THEM BREAK THOSE RULES AND IN MY OPINION, THIS IS ONE REASON WHY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN TEXAS VS. PENNSYLVANIA BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.

DIDN'T YOU DO THIS IN IDAHO THAT PENNSYLVANIA AND WISCONSIN AND THE OTHER FOUR STATES ARE DOING.

THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE BEEN YES.

>> Melissa: WOULD YOU YOU LIKE 60 SECONDS TO RESPOND?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

MY COLLEAGUE HAS NO CLUE WHY WE DIDN'T GET INTO TEXAS VS. PENNSYLVANIA.

THAT CASE VIOLATED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VERY CLEARLY ANNOUNCED BY ALL NINE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHO SAID TEXAS COULDN'T SUE PENNSYLVANIA.

AS TO THE LEGAL ADVICE, THESE TWO GENTLEMEN DO NOT KNOW THE LEGAL ADVICE WE GAVE THE GOVERNOR.

WE DO NOT UNDERMINE OR USURP THE GOVERNOR'S CHOICES.

YOU GIVE THEM ADVICE, THEY MAKE THEIR CHOICE.

THEN YOU REPRESENT THEM IN COURT WHEN THEY GET SUED.

>> HE KEEPS SAYING HIS CLIENT IS THE GOVERNOR.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

THE GOVERNOR IS -- HAS HIS OWN ATTORNEY.

THE CLIENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE STATE OF IDAHO.

THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

AND YOUR JOB IS TO STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

HE ALSO KEEPS SAYING HE DIDN'T JOIN THE ELECTION INTEGRITY LAWSUIT BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

THAT IS HOGWASH.

THE REALITY IS HE DIDN'T JOIN THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE HE HAD GIVEN SIMILAR ADVICE TO THE GOVERNOR HE COULD CHANGE ELECTION LAW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC.

NUMBER TWO, HE SAYS THIS EVERYWHERE HE GOES, THE SUPREME COURT AGREED 9-0.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID.

NOT THAT IT WASN'T CONSTITUTIONAL.

TWO OF THE JUSTICES SAY THERE WAS STANDING.

WHEN HE SAYS 9-0, THAT IS HOGWASH.

IT WAS 7-2 WHERE THEY SAID THEY HAD STANDING AND THEY DECIDED THEY WERE NOT GOING TO HEAR THE CASE.

THE MERITS OF THE CASE WERE NEVER DECIDED.

FOR HIM TO SAY THE SUPREME COURT SAID IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

NOTHING IN THE SUPREME COURT DECISION SAYS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THEY MADE A DECISION ABOUT THE STANDING OF THE PEOPLE WHO FILED THE LAWSUIT.

>> Melissa: THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE STATES RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FEDS.

KEITH RIDLER, DIRECTED AT MR. MACOMEER.

>> Keith: MR. WASDEN OR MR. MACOMEER.

>> Melissa: MR. WASDEN, IF YOU LIKE.

>> Keith: YOU HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED AS BEING TOO PASSIVE WITH IDAHO SOVEREIGNTY.

SHOULD YOU BE MORE ASSERTIVE?

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE WITH THE REPRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNOR.

WHEN THE GOVERNOR ASKS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE HIS LAWYER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS HIS LAWYER.

TO ACT ANY OTHER WAY IS PRECISELY TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

THAT IS MY DUTY AND MY RESPONSIBILITY.

WITH REGARD TO PASSIVENESS, WE FILE LAWSUITS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHEN WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION.

THAT IS THE FACTS AND THE LAW.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LAW THAT IS BROKEN.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE FACTS THAT CARRY A MATTER FORWARD.

YOU DON'T JOIN LAWSUITS SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GAIN POLITICAL POPULARITY OR HAVE YOUR FACE ON FOX NEWS.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION TO BRING.

WE JOIN WHEN WE HAVE AN ACTION.

I SUED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER VACCINE MAN DATES.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE FACTS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE LAW.

YOU DON'T JUST JOIN BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY POPULAR.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THAT IS WHAT WE DO.

>> Keith: MR. MACOMEER, THE QUESTION I ASKED ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN.

HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND IDAHO'S SOVEREIGNTY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE WAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS DONE IT?

>> FIRST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE NEEDS A STRIKE FORCE OF ATTORNEYS WHO CAN RESPOND RAPIDLY TO STATE AND FEDERAL CASES WHERE IDAHO'S SOVEREIGNTY NEEDS TO BE UPHELD.

THAT IS ONE THING I WILL CREATE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THE MARCH -- IN MARCH 2020, OR I'M SORRY, MARCH 2021, JOE BIDEN SAID THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL AND GAS LEASES IN IDAHO.

SHUT THEM DOWN, OKAY?

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE STATE OF IDAHO DID NOT JUMP IN AND SAY, HEY, IDAHO DESERVES TO GET ACCESS TO ITS NATURAL RESOURCES.

3.5 MILLION ACRES OF ENDOWMENT LAND GIVEN TO THE STATE OF IDAHO.

63% OF IDAHO IS FEDERAL LANDS.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.

GETTING IN TO DO THE MINING, THE FORESTRY TO GET THE COBALT OUT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE CONGO WHERE THEY USE SLAVE LABOR, THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE DEFENDED.

SOMEBODY HAS TO AGGRESSIVELY DO IT.

YOU SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A LAWSUIT, YOU HAVE TO INITIATE IT, JOIN IT, SOMEHOW GET INVOLVED AND DO IT AGGRESSIVELY SO IDAHO STATE SOVEREIGNTY COMES FIRST.

IDAHO SOVEREIGNTY SHOULD BE FIRST IN THESE LAWSUITS.

YESTERDAY 16 ATTORNEY GENERALS WANTED BIDEN TO PRESUME CONSTRUCTION OF THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE.

GAS PRICES IN IDAHO, THEY HAVE DOUBLED DURING MY CAMPAIGN.

OVER FOUR BUCKS A GALLON FOR GAS.

IDAHOANS ARE SUFFERING.

WE NEED THAT PIPELINE.

GUEST WHICH ATTORNEY GENERAL HASN'T JOINED THAT SUIT?

IDAHO'S.

>> Keith: CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND IDAHO'S SOVEREIGNTY DIFFERENT THAN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?

>> I WOULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE.

THE GREATEST BATTLES FOR THE STATE OF OUR NATION ARE HAPPENING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES.

AND OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL SITS BACK OR ABSENT OR LATE TO EVERY SINGLE OR MOST FIGHTS THAT WE ARE HAVING IN THE UNITED STATES.

THERE IS A FAMILY IN NORTH IDAHO THAT HAS BEEN FIGHTING THE EPA FOR 10 YEARS.

THAT FAMILY IN NORTH IDAHO HAS BEEN FIGHTS AND FIGHTING BECAUSE THE EPA IS TRYING TO TELL THEM HOW TO REGULATE THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY CLAIM THEY ARE GOING TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT.

21 REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL HAVE JOINED THIS FAMILY IN THEIR FIGHT.

I JOINED THE FAMILY IN THE FIGHT WHEN I WAS IN CONGRESS AND FILED AN AMICAS BRIEF FOR THE FAMILY.

THEIR OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL DECIDED NOT TO JOIN THE FAMILY IN THE FIGHT.

THEY HAVE GONE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TWICE AND HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTED OR HELPED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THIS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENCROACHING ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE OF IDAHO AND HE REFUSES TO LIFT A HAND IN CASES LIKE THAT.

I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO NEEDS TO BE A LOT MORE AGGRESSIVE AND ENSURE WE ARE PROTECTING -- WE HAVE SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ARE MUCH MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THEY USED TO BE.

HE HAS A MINDSET FROM 30 YEARS AGO WHEN HE STARTED IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THE REALITY IS IT IS GOOD GROUND TO START FILING LAWSUITS IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

THEY REFUSE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID IT IS THE SUPREME COURT AND NINTH CIRCUIT FROM 30 YEARS AGO.

>> HOGWASH.

WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO FILE LAWSUITS.

WE DO IT ALL THE TIME.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OIL THAT BIDEN APPROACHED THERE.

THE ANSWER IS WE DON'T HAVE ANY OIL WELLS IN IDAHO.

THEY DON'T EXIST.

WE DO HAVE A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF GAS WELLS.

THE STATES WHO JOINED IN THAT LAWSUIT HAVE MAJOR DEPOSITS OF OIL AND GAS.

THAT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF WHAT WE DID.

THE LETTER OF YESTERDAY WAS NOT A LAWSUIT.

IT WAS A LETTER.

WITH REGARD TO THE EPA AND WHETHER WE JOIN THE FAMILY.

RECOGNIZE THAT PROBLEM AROSE WHEN A CERTAIN PERSON HERE WAS IN CONGRESS.

THAT PERSON SAYS, WELL, I JOINED A BRIEF.

THAT IS NOT WHAT CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIX THE STATUTE.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

AND THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

FILING A BRIEF FROM CONGRESS IS NOT WHAT CONGRESS IS ABOUT.

WHAT HAVE WE DONE?

I FOUGHT THE OBAMA -- RULES, I SUPPORTED THE TRUMP -- RULES AND, IN FACT, WERE ON THE LATEST WITH THE FAMILY UP NORTH.

>> SO AFTER 10 YEARS THEY ARE ON WITH THE FAMILY BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR SIX MONTHS.

AGAIN, HE IS ABSENT OR LATE TO EVERY MAJOR FIGHT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE DID IN CONGRESS.

IN CONGRESS I TRIED TO CHANGE THE LAW.

WE COULDN'T CHANGE IT.

THE EPA LAWS ARE HARD TO CHANGE, BUT WE DID TRY.

HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY JOIN THE FAMILY WHERE HE COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THAT FAMILY IN IDAHO AND HE REFUSED TO DO IT.

HE SAID A MONTH AGO WHEN WE WERE ON A FORUM IN IDAHO FALLS THAT HE IS GOING TO JOIN THEM NOW.

IT IS A LITTLE TOO LATE AFTER 10 YEARS THIS FAMILY HAS BEEN FIGHTING THE EPA.

I THINK NOW THE FAMILY HAS BEEN -- THEY ALREADY WON AT THE SUPREME COURT ONE TIME AND THEY ARE HOPEFULLY GOING TO WIN THE SECOND TIME.

WHAT WE NEED IS AN AGGRESSIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DOESN'T WAIT UNTIL HE IS GOING FOR RE-ELECTION FOR HIS SIXTH TIME, BUT HE IS DOING IT FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT 10 YEARS AGO.

>> IN MY VIEW, AN AGGRESSIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD GO AFTER THAT OIL AND GAS LEASE DECISION FROM JOE BIDEN.

BECAUSE IDAHO NEEDS ACCESS TO ITS NATURAL RESOURCES.

WE HAVE BEEN CUT OFF AT THE KNEES.

WHERE IS OUR LOGGING?

WHERE IS OUR MINING?

WHERE IS OUR OIL AND GAS RESOURCES?

WE KNOW HOW TO DO THIS CLEANLY.

WE KNOW HOW TO DO ALL OF THESE THINGS AND KEEP THE ENVIRONMENT IN VERY GOOD SHAPE.

EVERY CHANCE YOU GET, YOU HAVE TO GET OUT THERE AND MAKE THAT LAWSUIT, MAKE THE CASE.

YOU SHOULDN'T SAY, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE SO MANY OF THOSE SO FORGET ABOUT IT.

NO.

THEY HAVE TO NOTE EVERY WAKING MOMENT OF THE DAY IDAHO WANTS ACCESS TO ITS NATURAL RESOURCES AND WE'RE COMING TO GET THEM.

>> Melissa: THE NEXT QUESTION -- >> I NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT, THAT IS A SERIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT.

WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO ENDOWMENT LANDS.

>> WHAT ABOUT FEDERAL LANDS.

>> Melissa: WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

NEXT QUESTION FROM JIMMY DAWSON FOR CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR.

>> CONGRESSMAN, YOU MANAGED YOUR OWN PRIVATE PRACTICE.

THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SUBSTANTIAL WITH 120 LAWYERS AND OTHER SUPPORT STAFF AS WELL.

DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO MANAGE THAT LARGE OF A WORK FORCE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WHEN EWAS IN CONGRESS WE HAD 15 EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED FOR US IN FOUR DIFFERENT OFFICES IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IN MERIDIAN, IN LEWISTON AND COEUR d'ALENE.

I CONSTANTLY HIRED AND FIRED EMPLOYS.

I RAN MY OWN LAW FIRM.

I HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DOING THAT.

I HAVE PLENTY OF EXPERIENCE.

I THINK ANYBODY WHO GETS TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST TIME THEY MANAGE 120 DEPUTY AGs.

I THINK I WILL DO A GOOD JOB.

I'M EXCITING ABOUT DOING IT.

I'M EXCITED ABOUT REVOLUTIONIZING AND MODERNIZING THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT LIVING IN THE PAST.

WE NEED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE LANDSCAPE IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE STATE OF IDAHO IS DIFFERENT.

THAT THERE'S BIG BATTLES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES.

BIG BATTLES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE COURTS.

AND WE NEED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT UNDERSTANDS, THAT CAN ATTRACT PEOPLE.

I ALREADY HAVE YOUNG LAWYERS THAT ARE WORKING IN PRIVATE PRACTICE THAT WANT TO WORK IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR AN AGGRESSIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THESE ARE TOP LAWYERS IN THE UNITED STATES THAT WORK FOR LARGE LAW FIRMS, BUT THEY WOULD RATHER WORK IN PUBLIC SERVICE BECAUSE THEY WOULD WANT TO -- THEY WANT TO DO THE SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

SO I THINK I CAN DO A VERY GOOD JOB AS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY.

>> AND GENERAL WASDEN, YOUR OWN OFFICE IN FRONT OF LAWMAKERS EARLIER THIS YEAR MENTIONED YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE ATTRACTING AND RETAINING THOSE YOUNG LAWYERS.

TURNOVER IS 20%.

WHY DO YOU KEEP LOSING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERALS?

>> MONEY.

WE ARE LIMITED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MAKE $20,000 MORE, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PARK THEIR CAR IN A DIFFERENT PARKING SPOT AND WALK INTO A DIFFERENT BUILDING.

JFAC, THE LEGISLATURE HIRED AN ATTORNEY PAYING THEM $20,000 MORE THAN THE LEGISLATURE WILL LET US PAY THEM.

IT HAS TO DO WITH MONEY.

WE ARE IN AN INCREASING LEGAL MARKET AND WE HAVE TO HAVE MONEY TO MEET THAT.

THE LEGISLATURE SAW THAT AND GAVE US ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO HIRE THOSE VERY PEOPLE.

>> DO YOU THINK YOU COULD DO BETTER TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN, CREATIVE CREDITS OR BONUSES AND YOU CAN DO WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL LET YOU DO?

>> WE ACTUALLY DO THAT ALREADY.

WE GET OUR BONUSES EARLIER, OUR INCREASES EARLIER BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE MANAGE OUR BUDGET.

WE ARE VERY, VERY EFFECTIVE ABOUT THAT.

YOU TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS IN MY OFFICE AND YOU WILL FIND OUT THEY ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE.

WHAT I CREATE FOR THEM IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE LAW.

WE WIN FAR MORE THAN WE LOSE.

WE WORK HARD AND GIVE GOOD ADVICE TO OUR CLIENTS.

THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY WE RUN THINGS.

>> IT IS A HUGE MISTAKE TO THINK LAWYERS ARE SO CRAVEN THEY ONLY CHASE DOLLARS AN CENTS.

IF YOU HAVE TOP FLIGHT LEADERSHIP WHO UNDERSTANDS THE HIERARCHIES OF LAW, IDAHO IS A COMMON LAW STATE.

YOU CAN SET DIRECTION WITH A GROUP AND YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE COMING TO WORK FOR YOU MAKING LESS MONEY AND BE HAPPY AS A CLAM BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC, TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST FEDERAL POWER, TO HELP US GET ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS.

TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR IDAHO.

AND, YOU KNOW, IDAHOANS HAVE BEEN HURT BY COVID LOCKDOWNS.

THERE WAS A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT OF THE WORKING MAN, THE ACE HARDWARE HAD TO CLOSE AND HOME DEPOT STAYED OPEN.

THOUSANDS OF BUSINESSES WERE SHUTTERED.

PEOPLE ARE READY TO WORK.

CREATE THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE OFFICE AND PEOPLE WILL WANT TO WORK THERE.

>> Melissa: NEXT QUESTION IS FROM KEITH RIDLER.

>> Keith: THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS A SEAT ON THE LAND BOARD THAT OVERSEES 3,900 SQUARE MILES OF ENDOWMENT LAND.

THE STATE REQUIRES IT TO MAXIMIZE THE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL RETURNS ON THOSE LANDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OTHER PUBLIC BENEFICIARIES, CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, HOW DO YOU SEE THE STATE DOING THAT GOING FORWARD?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THE VISION.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONLY LOOKS AT THINGS IN SHORT INCREMENTS AND MAKES DECISIONS BASED ON HOW IT IS AFFECTING SOMEBODY IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

WE NEED TO MAXIMIZE THE PROFITS FROM STATE LAND TO HAVE MORE MONEY FOR EDUCATION AND WE NEED TO MAYBE RECONSIDER THE WAY THAT WE ARE DOING THINGS ON THE LAND BOARD.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE MANY ISSUES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE STATE.

SHOULD WE ATTRACT MORE MINING?

SHOULD WE ATTRACT MORE TIMBER HARVESTING?

WHAT CAN WE DO IN OTHER AREAS?

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN BE LOOKING AT AND WORKING WITH THE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE THE LAND BOARD.

IT IS THE ONE AREA THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T WORK BY HIMSELF AS THE LEADER.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS TO WORK WITH THE OTHER FOUR MEMBERS OF THE LAND BOARD AND CONVINCE THEM THERE ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE WAYS TO USE OUR RESOURCES AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES AND THAT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ARE RECEIVING EQUITABLE REVENUES FROM THOSE RESOURCES.

>> MR. MACOMEER.

>> YES.

THIS IS A GREAT QUESTION.

BECAUSE THE IDAHO LAND BOARD NOW MANAGES 2.5 MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN IDAHO.

THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN CUT DECISIONS, INDIVIDUAL CUTS TO TAKE TIM TIMBER.

THERE WAS A REPORT THAT CAME OUT I BELIEVE 2016 THAT SAYS THE IDAHO LAND BOARD OUGHT TO BE CONCENTRATING MORE ON POLICY AND NOT SO MANY INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FIELD.

THERE'S TWO OTHER THINGS I WANT TO MENTION.

ONE IS IN MY VIEW, THERE IS AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ON THE LAND BOARD AND ALSO GIVING THE LAND BOARD ADVICE.

NOW, SOMETIMES THIS HAPPENS IN A CORPORATE SETTING, BUT FOR A PUBLIC TRUST, FOR THE IDAHO LAND BOARD, I DON'T THINK IT IS PROPER.

SO IN MY VIEW, THE LAND BOARD SHOULD GET OTHER COUNSEL.

WHETHER IT IS OUTSIDE COUNSEL BECAUSE THE AG IS A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD.

THE THIRD THING IS IN TERMS OF MAXIMIZING REVENUE, THAT IS WHAT THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.

IDAHO HAS THE IDAHO PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT.

THIS DRIVES INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

IT TELLS YOU HOW TO BE A GOOD FIDUCIARY FOR THE ASSETS YOU CONTROL.

NOT ONLY THE LAND BOARD, THE PENITENTIARY FUND, VARIOUS CHARITIES.

WE ARE LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL OF SOMETHING CALLED ESG, WHERE THIS ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND THE GOVERNANCE THING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IS BEING ASKED TO TAKE PLACE TO HELP RUN IDAHO DECISIONS.

I THINK THE PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT IS WHERE WE SHOULD STAY.

I HOPE ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND STATE TREASURER STICKS TO IT.

>> Keith: ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN, YOUR RESPONSE.

>> WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT.

THE LAND BOARD COMES IN TWO SEGMENTS TO EARN THE MONEY TODAY BECAUSE WE OWE A DUTY TO THAT THIRD GREATER TODAY, BUT ALSO THE LONG TERM.

WE OWE A DUTY TO THAT THIRD GRADER IN FIVE, 10, 15, 20, 100 AND 200 YEARS FROM NOW.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM BOTH OF THOSE PERSPECTIVES.

WE DON'T JUST LOOK AT FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS.

IT IS THE LONG TERM.

THAT IS, WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS ON CUT DECISIONS.

THE ONLY DECISIONS WE MAKE REGARDING SPECIFIC CUTS WHEN THERE IS A CLEAR CUT BECAUSE OF THE VERY PUBLIC NATURE OF THE CLEAR CUT.

THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND THE EXPERTS WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

THE FUNCTION THAT WE HAVE AND QUITE FRANKLY WE CHANGED FROM MORE RESTRICTIVE DECISION MAKING TO A MORE BROAD-BASED POLICY DECISION MAKING.

THE LAND BOARD MEETING WAS EARLIER TODAY.

THE ANSWER IS THAT AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I'M JUST ONE OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD.

MY DUTY IS TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM LONG-TERM FINANCIAL RETURN.

BY CONSTITUTION, I SERVE ON THAT BOARD.

BY STATUTE, I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THAT BOARD.

SO WE'VE HAD 130 YEARS WHERE THAT HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM.

THE ANSWER IS, I HAVE THE SAME DUTY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS HAS AND THE ATTORNEYS HAVE, THAT IS TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM LONG-TERM FINANCIAL RETURN.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DONE AND I'VE CHANGED -- I PERSONALLY HAVE CHANGED THE CONVERSATION FROM WHAT IT USED TO BE, POLITICAL, TO THE VERY SPECIFIC DUTY WE HAVE TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM LONG-TERM FINANCIAL RETURN.

>> Melissa: AND THAT IS ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR QUESTIONS.

TIME FLIES WHEN YOU ARE HAVING FUN.

MR. MACOMEER, YOU ARE UP FIRST.

60 SECONDS FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. DAVLIN AND THANK YOU IDAHO PUBLIC TV FOR THIS SPIRITED DEBATE.

I WANT TO LEAVE THE VIEWERS TONIGHT WITH ONE THOUGHT AND THAT IS THIS.

I DON'T NEED THIS JOB.

I GOT OUT OF THE COURTROOM AND INTO THIS RACE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IDAHO'S REPUBLIC IS IN TROUBLE.

THERE ARE ALL MEANS OF FORCES ENTERING IDAHO INTENT ON UNDERMINING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, OUR CHURCHES, AND EVEN OUR FAMILIES.

IN MY VIEW, THE MOST DISTURBING THING THAT WE DIDN'T RAISE TONIGHT WAS THE SEXUALIZATION OF OUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL CURRICULUM.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCCUPIES A UNIQUE POSITION TO STOP THIS DISTURBING TREND RIGHT IN ITS TRACKS.

AS YOUR NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL I COMMIT TO DOING WHATEVER IT TAKES TO REIN IN THE ESTABLISHMENTS AND GET OUR SCHOOLS BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES OF EDUCATION.

IDAHO NEEDS A PROVEN FIGHTER IN THE AG'S OFFICE.

THE CHOICE ON MAY 17 IS SIMPLE.

VOTE MACOMEER TO STRENGTHEN STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND VOTE MACOMEER TO UPHOLD IDAHO VALUES, VOTE MACOMEER OR SUFFER THE CORRUPT BOISE ELITE FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.

>> Melissa: CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, YOUR CLOSING REMARKS.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TONIGHT AND THANKS TO THE AUDIENCE FOR LISTENING TO THIS SPIRITED DEBATE.

THE REALITY IS IDAHO NEEDS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAS BEEN THERE 20 YEARS AS INCUMBENT AND 30 YEARS AS A BUREAUCRAT.

I BELIEVE THE JOB OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO, TO STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS, FOR YOUR VALUES, FOR THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT YOU FROM ENCROACHMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND FROM OVERREACH FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE BEEN A FIGHTER.

I HAVE BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR EIGHT YEARS FIGHTING FOR YOU.

I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE FIGHTING FOR YOU.

I BELIEVE A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH IS WHAT WE NEED.

THE GREATEST FIGHTS FOR THE SOUL OF OUR NATION ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

THERE ARE THREE CHOICES IN THIS RACE.

WE HAVE DONE SOME POLLING AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CONSERVATIVE THAT CAN DEFEAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS BEATING HIM RIGHT NOW.

THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE, BUT THE REALITY IS ONLY ONE CONSERVATIVE CAN WIN.

I NEED YOUR SUPPORT, I NEED YOUR HELP.

I HOPE YOU CAN TRUST ME WITH THIS JOB AND VOTE FOR LABADOR FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> Melissa: ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN.

>> YOU CAN CHOOSE THE IDAHO WAY OR THE DC.

BELTWAY, THAT FOLLOWS THE LAW OR ONE THAT THINKS HE IS A POLICYMAKER.

I'M NOT RUNNING FOR CONGRESS OR AG TO USE AS A STEPPINGSTONE TO BEING GOVERNOR.

I'M NOT TRYING TO GET ON FOX NEWS.

I CALL LEGAL BALLS AND STRIKES FAIRLY.

I DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME THROWING A CURVE BALL.

I DON'T SHAVE THE TRUTH TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS.

EITHER IT MEETS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER OR IT DOESN'T.

MY DUTY IS TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO KNOW RATHER THAN WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

I PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM INTERNET SEXUAL PREDATORS AND SENIORS FROM SCAM ARTISTS.

I HAVE BEEN ENS ENDORSED BY FORMER AG'S ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAYS PUT YOUR FEET IN PLACE AND STAND FIRM.

I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.

>> Melissa: THAT IS ALL THE TIME.

THANK YOU FOR THE CANDIDATES.

THANK YOU TO THE REPORTERS FOR GREAT QUESTIONS AND THE VOLUNTEER TIME KEEPER FROM THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.

THE PRIMARY IS MAY 17.

IN ORDER TO VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY YOU MUST BE REGISTERED AS A REPUBLICAN.

IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY YOU CAN REGISTER TO VOTE AT THE POLLS THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> THE IDAHO DEBATES IS ORGANIZED BY THESE PARTNERS:FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION ENDOWMENT AND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC Broadcasting