WELCOME TO THE IDAHO DEBATES.

TONIGHT, A LOOK AT THE 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.

HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE IDAHO DEBATES, AT THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION STUDIOS IN BOISE.

THIS IS ONE OF FOUR DEBATES WE'RE HOSTING BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 8TH GENERAL ELECTION.

TONIGHT, THE CANDIDATES 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 OVERSEES DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL, WHO PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO IDAHO STATE AGENCIES.

I WANT TO WELCOME THE CANDIDATES RAUL LABRADOR AND TOM ARKOOSH.

TOM ARKOOSH HAS PRIMARILY WORKED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, THOUGH HE ALSO HAS EXPERIENCE AS A COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND IN THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

HE SPECIALIZES IN WATER LAW, CIVIL LITIGATION, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

CONGRESSMAN RAUL LABRADOR SPECIALIZES IN IMMIGRATION LAW AND SITS ON THE SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH.

HE WAS IN THE IDAHO STATEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

I ALSO WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR PANEL OF REPORTERS WHO WILL ASK THE CANDIDATES QUESTIONS: KELCIE MOSELEY MORRIS OF THE IDAHO CAPITAL SUN AND JAKE GARCIA OF IDAHO NEWS 6.

I'M MELISSA DAVLIN, HOST OF IDAHO REPORTS HERE ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION.

I'M MODERATING TONIGHT'S DEBATE.

HELPING US KEEP TIME IS MACEE UTECHT, VOLUNTEER TIMEKEEPER FROM THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND.

EACH CANDIDATE WILL BE GIVEN 90 SECONDS FOR OPENING COMMENTS AND 60 SECONDS FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS.

CANDIDATES ALSO HAVE 90 SECONDS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND 60 SECONDS FOR REBUTTALS.

I'LL ALLOW SOME BACK AND FORTH IF I THINK THE CONVERSATION IS PRODUCTIVE AND EDUCATIONAL FOR VOTERS, WHILE TRYING TO MAKE SURE EACH CANDIDATE GETS ABOUT EQUAL TIME.

WE FLIPPED A COIN TO SEE WHO WOULD GO FIRST.

AND MR. ARKOOSH, YOU HAVE THAT HONOR.

>> Tom Arkoosh: GOOD EVENING.

I'M A FOURTH GENERATION IDAHOAN RUNNING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I WANT TO THANK IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION AND YOUR VIEWERS FOR MAKING THIS HAPPEN THIS EVENING.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS THE LARGEST LAW OFFICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

ITS MISSION IS THE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF LAW TO THINGS THAT MATTER TO ITS CLIENTS, YOU, THE IDAHOANS.

THE GUIDEBOOKS ARE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND OUR STATE STATUTES OF COURSE.

I PROMISE TO ABIDE BY THOSE GUIDEBOOKS.

I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW IN IDAHO FOR OVER 44 YEARS.

I'VE BEEN PRACTICING EVERY KIND OF LAW.

I DO NOT NEED ON THE JOB TRAINING.

MY OPPONENT ON THE OTHER HAND, EXCUSE ME, MY OPPONENT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS CONVINCED HIMSELF THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS IN FACT A POLITICAL OFFICE.

HE PROMISES TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOMS, WHAT FREEDOMS MIGHT THOSE BE?

IT'S THE FREEDOM TO DENY WOMEN HEALTH AND ARREST THEIR DOCTORS, IT'S THE FREEDOM TO DEFUND OUR SCHOOLS, IT'S THE FREEDOM TO BAN OUR BOOKS AND CLOSE DOWN OUR LIBRARIES.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WANT TO RUN A LAW OFFICE AND I THINK MY OPPONENT WANTS TO RUN A CULTURAL WAR ROOM.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR.

>> Raul Labrador: THANK YOU.

I'M A FORMER CONGRESSMAN, A FORMER LEGISLATOR, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY I'M A FATHER, A HUSBAND, A GRANDFATHER, AND A PRETTY LUCKY SON OF A WONDERFUL MOTHER.

I'M RUNNING TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL BECAUSE I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DESERVES A STRONG, AGGRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO NEED SOMEBODY WHO WILL DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR FREEDOMS, AND THEIR LIBERTIES.

THE GREATEST FIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION, FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY ARE HAPPENING IN THE COURTS.

AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO LOOK FORWARD TO HOW WE CAN FIGHT THOSE FIGHTS.

WE SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING TO THE PAST AND HOW WE HAVE LOST MANY OF THOSE FIGHTS AND HOW WE HAVE MISSED FIGHTING THOSE FIGHTS.

I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE, WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO WORK WITH THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS TO WORK WITHIN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

WHEN YOU'RE WORKING WITHIN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, YOU'RE WORKING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOU'RE WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO POSITIONS BY ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.

YOU CAN'T JUST GET ON THE JOB TRAINING AND DECIDE THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN A LAWYER FOR A LONG TIME AND YOU'VE NEVER REALLY WORKED WITH THESE AGENCIES IN THE WAY THAT YOU NEED TO DO, THAT YOU'RE NOW GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE GOOD LEGAL ADVICE TO THEM.

I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS OPPORTUNITY AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO BEING YOUR NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OUR FIRST QUESTION COMES FROM JAKE GARCIA FOR MR. ARKOOSH.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, YOU'VE NEVER HELD PUBLIC OFFICE, BUT IF ELECTED YOU'LL BE TASKED WITH DEFENDING LEGISLATORS AND THE GOVERNOR, SOME OF WHOM YOU MAY DISAGREE FUNDAMENTALLY.

HOW DO YOU GET PAST THAT AND EXPLAIN YOUR LEGAL OPINION TO PEOPLE THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH?

>> Tom Arkoosh: WELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THESE TOOLS; ON THE ONE END HE WRITES OPINIONS, ON THE OTHER SIDE THE ULTIMATE TOOL IS LITIGATION.

IN THE MIDDLE IS DISCUSSION.

AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT THAN THE OPERATION OF ANY LAW OFFICE.

WHEN YOU HAVE A CLIENT AND INITIALLY YOU GIVE THEM AN OPINION, AND BEFORE YOU TAKE THEM INTO LITIGATION, YOU SIT DOWN AND VISIT WITH THEM.

I'VE HAD 44 YEARS OF DOING THAT.

I HAVE NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT A FRIVOLOUS DEFENSE OR A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.

I THINK A LOT OF WHAT MIGHT BE GOING ON IS WE NEVER GET TO THE MIDDLE.

THE OPINION IS WRITTEN AND THE STATE GOES STRAIGHT TO LITIGATION.

IT IS MY HOPE IF THAT JOB IS CONDUCTED CORRECTLY, IF THAT JOB IS CONDUCTED BY SOMEBODY WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF 44 YEARS COUNSELING CLIENTS, WE WILL COME TO THE MIDDLE AND TALK IT THROUGH BEFORE WE GET TO THE EXTREME OF LITIGATION.

THIS STATE HAS TOO QUICKLY GONE TO LITIGATION AND IT'S COST US A LOT OF MONEY.

I HOPE TO SEE THAT END IN THE FUTURE.

HOWEVER IF YOU'RE AN AGGRESSIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND YOU WANT TO GET TO THE COURTS AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A FIGHT WITH EVERYBODY YOU CAN FIND, YOU MIGHT VOTE FOR THE OTHER FELLOW.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO WORK OUT YOUR PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE AND COME TOGETHER AS A STATE AND FOCUS ON POTHOLES, PERHAPS I'M YOUR MAN.

>> MR. LABRADOR, FOR YOU, YOU'VE CRITICIZED THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NOT MORE STRONGLY DEFENDING SOME LAWS.

BUT THE AG DOES NOT MAKE LAWS, THEY JUST WORK WITHIN THE LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN TO DEFEND THE STATE.

WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN ASKED TO DEFEND A LAW THAT YOU AS AN ATTORNEY KNOW WON'T HOLD UP IN COURT?

>> Raul Labrador: THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

THE OATH OF OFFICE SAYS I SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF IDAHO AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

MY OPPONENT, THE FIRST THING HE ANNOUNCED WAS THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO DEFEND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO DEFEND THE LAWS WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

HE'S ALREADY LOST THE TRUST OF THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY SAID, HE'S ALREADY INDICATED TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT HE'S GOING TO PUT HIS POLITICAL POSITIONS AHEAD OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

ALL OF THE LAWS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO IS THE DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES THAT DECIDE WHAT THOSE LAWS ARE.

I DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT THOSE LAWS ARE.

IN FACT I MAY DISAGREE WITH THE LEGISLATURE IN SOME CASES.

BUT MY JOB IS TO GIVE THEM THE BEST LEGAL ADVICE POSSIBLE AND TO HELP THEM DRAFT THE LEGISLATION IN A WAY THAT I CAN DEFEND IN THE COURT.

EVEN LAWRENCE WATSON WHO I WAS SOMETIMES IN DISAGREEMENT WITH NEVER FAILED TO DEFEND THE STATE IN THE COURTS.

HE HAS SAID THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO DEFEND THE LAW, THAT HE'S GOING TO MAKE DEALS WITH THE DOJ, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

AND HE HAS SAID THAT IF HE DISAGREES WITH THE LAW, HE WILL NOT AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND IT.

I WILL AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND WHATEVER THE LEGISLATURE DOES.

BUT WHAT I HOPE TO DO IS TO GUIDE THEM IN DRAFTING THE LEGISLATION SO WE DON'T LOSE AS OFTEN AS WE HAVE BEEN LOSING IN THE PAST.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>> Tom Arkoosh: I DO MOMENTARILY.

THERE ARE LAWS AND THEN THERE ARE LAWS.

IN MY OPENING STATEMENT I POINTED OUT THE GUIDEBOOKS INCLUDED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

AND THAT IS WHERE THE RUB HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

I'VE NOT LOST THE TRUST OF THE LEGISLATURE.

I MIGHT HAVE LOST THE TRUST OF SOME CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS THAT HE'S PROMISED TO PARTNER WITH AND EXCLUDE EVERYBODY ELSE.

BUT I THINK MODERATE LEGISLATORS WILL COME WITH ME TO THE MIDDLE AND TALK.

THANK YOU.

>> Raul Labrador: IT'S AMAZING TO ME THAT HE ANNOUNCES THAT HE'S GOING TO JUST IGNORE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES.

HE SAYS HERE JUST NOW THERE ARE LAWS AND THERE ARE LAWS.

SO APPARENTLY HE, THE ONE PERSON, UNDERSTANDS BETTER THAN THE 70 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE 35 MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

ONLY HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE IN IDAHO AND HE WILL GET TO DECIDE.

THIS IS WHY HE'S ILL EQUIPPED AND POORLY QUALIFIED TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

HE WANTS TO SUPPLANT HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION, HIS OWN PERSONAL BIASES FOR THE DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

AND IT'S JUST REALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME THAT ANYBODY THINKS THAT THEY ARE SMARTER THAN THE LEGISLATURE AND IT'S THEIR JOB TO TELL THE LEGISLATURE WHEN THEY'RE RIGHT AND THEY'RE WRONG TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IDAHO.

>> WE'LL GET MORE INTO THAT CONVERSATION SOON.

THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM KELCIE.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, IF ELECTED, YOU WILL BE TASKED WITH REPRESENTING THE STATE IN AT LEAST THREE PENDING LAWSUITS REGARDING ANTI-ABORTION LEGISLATION THAT PASSED THE LEGISLATURE.

DO YOU SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION AND IF NOT, HOW WOULD YOU EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT STATE LEGISLATURE'S INTERESTS?

>> Tom Arkoosh: THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A NON-HEALTH RELATED ABORTION IS CURRENTLY BEFORE OUR SUPREME COURT, AND I BELIEVE THE ARGUMENTS WILL BE HEARD LATER THIS WEEK.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS TO SUPPORT THEIR DECISION REGARDING WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO.

THE DIFFICULTY IS THE WOMAN THAT IS IN TROUBLE, THE WOMAN THAT HAS HER HEALTH JEOPARDIZED, OUR CURRENT LEGISLATION SAYS UNLESS IT'S RAPE OR INCEST OR TO SAVE THE WOMAN'S LIFE, YOU CAN'T HAVE HELP.

RAPE AND INCEST, I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THE QUESTION OF WHEN YOU'RE SAVING A WOMAN'S LIFE ACCORDING TO EVERY DOCTOR I'VE TALKED TO INVOLVES A TIPPING POINT.

AND THAT TIPPING POINT IS TOO VAGUE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE.

NOW WE'VE BEEN BAILED OUT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWSUIT SAYS IF YOU TAKE MEDICARE MONEY, YOU HAVE TO TREAT A WOMAN WHO'S HEALTH IS IN JEOPARDY, NOT JUST WAIT UNTIL SHE'S GOING TO DIE.

AND THE JUDGE BAILED US OUT.

HE IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION ON THE HEALTHCARE PART OF OUR LEGISLATION.

THE DIFFICULTY IS NOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DOUBLED DOWN AFTER THEY'VE BEEN BAILED OUT.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT IN TALA LAW CONTROLS.

AND FRANKLY IT'S NOT ONLY COMMON SENSE IT'S COMMON DECENCY NOT TO LEAVE THESE PEOPLE IN TROUBLE.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR YOU CRITICIZED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR REQUESTING THAT INJUNCTION REFERENCED OVER THE ABORTION BAN.

A FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTED THAT ARTIAL INJUNCTION CITING THE SAFETY OF A PREGNANT WOMAN IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.

AT WHAT POINT DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE WITH A LAW WRITTEN BY STATE LEGISLATORS?

>> Raul Labrador: THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

FEDERAL STATUTES PRECEDE OVER STATE STATUTES.

BUT WHAT HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HERE IS THERE'S TWO FEDERAL DECISIONS RIGHT NOW THAT WERE DECIDED ON THIS ISSUE.

IN THE STATE OF IDAHO JUDGE WINDMILL DECIDED THAT IN TALA PREVENTED US FROM ENFORCING THE LAW IN THE STATE.

IN TEXAS, THERE'S A FEDERAL JUDGE THAT SAID IN TALA DOESN'T APPLY TO ABORTION LAWS THAT IT WAS AN OVERREACH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

BECAUSE WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THEY'RE BASING IT ON A MEMO THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WAS WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A CONFLICT IN THE LAW.

THERE'S A TEXAS FEDERAL CASE THAT SAYS THAT IN TALA DOESN'T APPLY TO THESE CASES.

OUR JUDGE WINDMILL DECIDED THAT IT DOES APPLY TO THESE ABORTION CASES.

THE REALITY IS THAT OUR LAW IS REALLY CLEAR.

OUR LAW SAYS THAT IF A WOMAN'S LIFE IS IN JEOPARDY, THAT THE ABORTION CAN BE PROVIDED.

AND IN THE CASES, CASE AFTER CASE AFTER CASE THAT DOCTORS KEEP BRINGING FORWARD, IN THOSE CASES THE WOMAN'S LIFE WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY.

SO OUR LAW WOULD ALLOW THE ABORTION.

IN FACT IN THE CASE OF AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY, IT'S NOT EVEN AN ABORTION.

BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AN UNVIABLE OR NONVIABLE FETUS SO AN ABORTION DOESN'T EVEN COME INTO PLACE WHEN THERE'S AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY.

HE DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

HE SEEMS TO ONLY BE DOING THE TALKING POINTS THAT JIM JONES AND OTHER PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN TO HIM.

BUT HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO DEFEND THE LAW OF IDAHO INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO CAVE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

>> IT GOES BACK TO WHEN YOU BELIEVE IT'S ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE?

>> I THINK MOST OF THE TIME IT'S UNACCEPTABLE UNLESS WE'RE CLEARLY VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW.

AND IN THIS CASE WE'RE NOT CLEARLY VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW AND WE'RE GOING TO WIN.

OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO WIN WITH JUDGE WINDMILL, BUT WE'RE GOING TO WIN ON APPEAL AND IN THE SUPREME COURT.

>> BRIEFLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> Tom Arkoosh: COUNCIL SHOULD KNOW THAT PREGNANCY IS DEFINED IN OUR LAW AS A FERTILIZED EGG SO AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IS A PROBLEM.

THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT MADE IN COURT THAT JUDGE WINDMILL REJECTED ENTIRELY.

TEXAS LAW THAT IT PROVIDED FOR - AN ABORTION IF THE WOMAN'S HEALTH WAS IN JEOPARDY.

OURS DOES NOT READ THAT.

THEIRS READ VERY CLOSE TO THE FEDERAL LAW.

YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT THE STATUTE ACTUALLY MENTIONS ABORTION, THE FEDERAL STATUTE.

THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM JAKE.

>> THIS IS FOR BOTH OF YOU, BUT I'LL START WITH MR. ARKOOSH.

IDAHO MADE NATIONAL NEWS LAST WEEK WHEN THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO ISSUED A MEMO ADVISING STAFF MEMBERS TO AVOID PROMOTING ABORTION AND TO REMAIN NEUTRAL WHEN THE SUBJECT COMES UP IN A CLASSROOM SETTING.

THIS IS AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION ACT THAT WAS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR.

BUT CRITICS HAVE QUESTIONED WHETHER THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OR ACADEMIC FREEDOMS.

WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION?

>> Raul Labrador: PART OF THESE ABORTION LAWS SAYS IT IS A FELONY, IT'S ACTUALY A FELONY TO GIVE NOTICE OF MATERIALS REGARDING ABORTION.

SO THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO HAS RESPONDED TO THAT DELIBERATE CHILLING EFFECT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

AND I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THESE CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS.

THAT ISN'T THE ONLY CHILLING EFFECT.

LAST YEAR THERE WAS A STATUTE TO BAN BOOKS AND ARREST PEOPLE WHO ONLY CATALOGED THE BOOKS, DIDN'T EVEN WRITE THEM.

THAT'S A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

I'M AFRAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STATUTE THAT COMES UP AND TELLS US THAT A PREGNANT WOMAN CAN'T TRAVEL.

THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE PLATFORM OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SAID THEY DON'T WANT ANY INTERFERENCE UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE TRANSPORT OF AMMUNITION.

I THINK THAT I WAS JUST CRITICIZED BY MY OPPONENT FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LAW.

I DON'T THINK HE UNDERSTANDS THE HIERARCHY HERE.

ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS RESULT FROM A DELIBERATE EFFORT TO CONFRONT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

AND EVERYTHING COMES UNDER THE 10th AMENDMENT ACCORDING TO THESE CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS.

THAT IS TO SAY IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE ADDRESSED AND ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE A PROBLEM.

AND THERE NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSION BEFORE THIS LITIGATION, THANK YOU.

>> WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT LAW WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEMO OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO?

>> Raul Labrador: SO I HAVEN'T READ THE MEMO, BUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM JUST REPORTS IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY SAID SOMETHING REALLY CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF ADVOCATING FOR ABORTIONS, EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIVERSITY COULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR ABORTION.

BUT IF YOU WERE JUST GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POLICY OF ABORTION, THAT THAT WOULD BE FINE.

THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE IMPLICATED.

SO IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCUSSING IN THE CLASSROOM WHICH THERE'S FULL ACADEMIC FREEDOM FOR, OR ADVOCATING FOR ABORTION AND OTHER THINGS.

THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING WHICH I HAVEN'T READ THE MEMO BUT I READ IN THE REPORTS THAT TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CONTRACEPTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT BASED ON THE LAW AS I UNDERSTAND IT ON THE LAW THAT JUST PASSED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

THAT'S ACTUALLY BASED ON A LAW THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 40 YEARS.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TALK TO A LEGISLATURE ABOUT AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY CLARIFY.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION COMES FROM KELCIE.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE WORKING UNDER THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, BUT LESS EXPERIENCE WORKING IN IDAHO'S DISTRICT COURTROOMS.

WHY SHOULD IDAHOANS TRUST THAT YOU'RE PREPARED TO TAKE ON THE TYPES OF CASES THAT THE AG'S OFFICE SEES.

>> Tom Arkoosh: I'VE APPEARED IN 104 ACTIONS ON OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.

I'VE APPEARED ON MAYBE 3 OR 4 TIMES MORE IN OUR STATE SYSTEM.

I HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN THAT 104 CASES IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IN THE STATE SYSTEM.

SO YOU MIGHT HAVE THOSE NUMBERS A BIT REVERSED.

WHY SHOULD THEY TRUST ME?

WELL I RUN A SUCCESSFUL LAW OFFICE AND I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A JOB AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT LOOKING FOR THE PAY CUT THAT WOULD COME WITH THIS JOB.

SO I THINK THAT THEY CAN TRUST ME GIVEN MY 44 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE I WANT YOU TO KNOW, I NOT ONLY HAVE A RESPECTABLE EXPERTISE, I'M NOT THE BEST EXPERT IN IDAHO AND I CAN NAME THOSE MEN.

BUT I HAVE A VERY RESPECTABLE EXPERTISE IN WATER LAW.

BUT I HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, AND THAT'S WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD FOR MOST OF OUR BUSINESSES.

THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO BUILD OR NOT BUILD.

AND I HAVE LITIGATED IN NUMERABLE STATE AGENCY CASES AND APPEARED BEFORE INNUMERABLE STATE AGENCIES IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

AND I TRULY DO UNDERSTAND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW A BURDEN.

IT'S GOT TO PUSH THE BUSINESS PROCESSES FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, WHILE YOU HAVE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE AND LOBBYING EXPERIENCE, YOU HAVEN'T WORKED IN RECENT MAGISTRATE COURTROOMS IN IDAHO IN QUITE SOME TIME.

WHY SHOULD IDAHOANS TRUST THAT CASES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEES EVERY YEAR?

>> Raul Labrador: AS THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, DAVID LEROY SAID I'M PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO RUN FOR THIS OFFICE.

I DID FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND CRIMINAL LAW IN THE STATE COURTS.

I ALSO HAVE EXPERIENCE AS A LEGISLATOR, I HAVE EXPERIENCE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN SO MANY DIFFERENT AREAS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THIS POSITION.

MY OPPONENT AND HIS FRIENDS KEEP ATTACKING ME BECAUSE I SAID AT ONE POINT THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL POSITION.

IT IS A POLITICAL POSITION.

I THOUGHT I WAS SAYING THAT THE SKY WAS BLUE.

THAT'S ALL I THOUGHT I WAS SAYING THAT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT YOU GET ELECTED, THAT YOU GO TO THE VOTERS, THAT YOU ASK THE VOTERS TO GIVE YOU THEIR SUPPORT, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE POLITICAL PROCESS WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND ELECTED OFFICIALS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A SIMPLE ANSWER.

SOMEHOW THAT HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED BY MY OPPONENT AND HIS FRIENDS AS SAYING THAT I WANT TO PUT POLITICS ABOVE THE LAW.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ONCE.

IN FACT I INVITE YOU TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ONCE.

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT ARE MY OPPONENT'S FRIENDS AND HIS SUPPORTERS.

BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN ATTACK ME IS BY LYING ABOUT MY RECORD, BY EXAGGERATING THE THINGS THAT I HAVE DONE.

MY RECORD IS REALLY CLEAR, I AM A STRONG, CONSERVATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE VALUES OF IDAHO.

I AM A STRONG, CONSERVATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

I WILL DEFEND THEM IN THE COURTS, I WILL DEFEND THEM IF I WIN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AND THAT'S WHY I OVERWHELMINGLY WON IN THE PRIMARY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO WERE LOOKING FOR IN THAT OFFICE.

>> HOW HAS YOUR EXPERIENCE LENDED TO THAT OFFICE?

>> I HAVE TRIAL EXPERIENCE, I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE STAFF IN GOVERNMENT THAT I HAVE BEEN, I HAD 14 PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR ME IN THE CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE.

I ALSO HAD A LAW FIRM FOR TEN YEARS WHERE I HAD THREE ATTORNEYS WORKING FOR ME AND 5 OR 6 PARALEGALS.

SO I HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.

I HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT PRACTICE.

I EVEN OWN A PRIVATE BUSINESS UNRELATED TO THE LAW.

THERE'S NOBODY IN THIS RACE THAT HAS THE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE EXCITED ABOUT MY CANDIDACY.

>> MOVING TO EDUCATION.

MR. ARKOOSH, THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION SAYS IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A GENERAL UNIFORM AND THOROUGH SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THERE ARE LEGISLATORS PUSHING TO ALLOW PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS, DO YOU BELIEVE THOSE ARE TOO USUAL?

>> Tom Arkoosh: NO, AND THE REASON IS THIS, JUST VERY RECENTLY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE VOUCHERS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS OR MONEY TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS, YOU HAVE TO GIVE VOUCHERS OR MONEY TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

AND THE BLAIN AMENDMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS WE CAN'T DO THAT.

SO RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE THAT IS A DEAD ISSUE AND IT SHOULD BE A DEAD ISSUE.

THE ISSUE IN EDUCATION TODAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN EDUCATION TODAY IS FUNDING AS YOU KNOW.

THE EQUAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY CASES STARTING IN 1990 RESULTED IN AN OPINION BY OUR SUPREME COURT IN 1998 THAT ITS THE STATE'S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE FOR FACILITIES.

AND IN 2005 OUR SUPREME COURT FOUND WE WEREN'T DOING THAT.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE HEAD ON AT SOME POINT.

THE OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOUND THAT WE'RE SHORT $850 MILLION TO MAKE 77 OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE FACILITIES THAT WERE JUST GOOD.

AND SOMEHOW THE LEGISLATURE AND THE EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM HAVE SWEPT THAT UNDER THE RUG.

IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU.

>> SO ASSUMING THE LEGISLATURE PASSES A PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS BILL NEXT YEAR, HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH THAT WHEN LEGAL CHALLENGES ARISE TO IT?

>> Tom Arkoosh: THE SAME WAY.

I WOULD WRITE AN OPINION AND THEN I WOULD TRY TO TALK.

YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSES THIS STUFF DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S THE TOTAL END OF THE ROAD BEFORE WE HAVE TO GO LITIGATE.

AND SOMETHING I NEED TO POINT OUT TO COUNSEL ABOUT THIS LITIGATION QUESTION, A LAWYER TAKES AN OATH NOT TO DO FRIVOLOUS STUFF.

AND IN COURT THERE'S A RULE THAT YOU CAN'T DO FRIVOLOUS STUFF.

SO THERE'S A WAY AROUND IT FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

FOR THE PENDING CASE RIGHT NOW ON ABORTION, THERE ARE FOLKS THAT ARE INDEED CONTENT TO REPRESENT THE LEGISLATURE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THINKS IT'S FRIVOLOUS CAN PROVIDE A DEFENSE FOR THE PEOPLE.

THANK YOU.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

IF THOSE PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS, ARE THEY CONSTITUTIONAL?

>> Raul Labrador: NUMBER ONE, WHEN I'VE TALKED TO THE LEGISLATURE, THEY'RE NOT DOING PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS AS YOU CALL THEM, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS MONEY FOLLOWS THE CHILD.

WHEN MONEY FOLLOWS THE CHILD, THE PARENT GETS TO DECIDE WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THAT MONEY WHETHER IT GOES TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL OR A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL, WHETHER IT GOES TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY SAID THAT ANY MONEY THAT IS GIVEN TO A PARENT OR TO AN INSTITUTION, IF IT'S GIVEN TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR AN INSTITUTION, THAT MONEY CAN THEN BE USED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AS LONG AS IT'S BEING USED BY THE PARENT.

THE BLAIN AMENDMENT I THINK IS GOING TO BE FOUND TO NOT APPLY.

IN FACT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE STATE OF IDAHO JUST ISSUED AN OPINION THIS LAST YEAR THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR AT LEAST WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS TRYING TO DO WHICH WAS TO HAVE MONEY FOLLOW THE CHILD.

SO HE'S IN DISAGREEMENT EVEN WITH THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ON THIS ISSUE.

AND I WILL STRONGLY DEFEND IT, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY DRAFT IT IN A WAY THAT COMPORTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

I THINK THIS IS THE KEY TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US.

HE'S GOING TO STAND UP AND TELL THE LEGISLATORS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MY JOB TO WORK WITH THE LEGISLATORS IS TO HELP THEM DRAFT IT IN A WAY THAT CAN BE DEFENDED IN THE COURTS.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILE FRIVOLOUS SUITS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILE ANY LAWSUITS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOSE.

IN FACT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SAVE MONEY IN THE STATE OF IDAHO BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO TRUST THEIR ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEY'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT I WILL HELP THEM DRAFT LEGISLATION IN A WAY THAT COMPORTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND WITH THE STATUTES OF OUR COUNTRY AND OUR STATE AND THEY WILL LISTEN TO ME WHEN I TELL THEM THAT I SHOULDN'T DO SOMETHING.

WITH HIM THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO HIM BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY SAID 2 OR 3 OCCASIONS THAT WHEN HE DISAGREES WITH THEM, HE'S NOT GOING TO DEFEND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, I'LL GIVE YOU 30 SECONDS TO RESPOND.

>> Tom Arkoosh: I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP MY OATH, AND THE TOP TIER OF THE OATH IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOW HAS THAT WORKED OUT SO FAR WHEN THE LEGISLATURE DECIDES TO PASS A BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND THEN SPEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE FUND TO DEFEND IT.

IT JUST COSTS US MONEY.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION COMES FROM JAKE GARCIA.

>> THIS IS FOR BOTH CANDIDATES.

MR. ARKOOSH, I'LL BEGIN WITH YOU.

THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A BILL THIS YEAR MAKING IT EASIER TO OBTAIN CHEMICALS USED IN EXECUTION BY LETHAL INJECTION.

AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IT WOULD BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST AND OBTAIN A DEATH WARRANT FOR THE PERSON ON DEATH ROW.

WOULD YOU BE AN ADVOCATE FOR DEATH ROW AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE PROCESS?

>> Tom Arkoosh: WELL THIS IS A POLICY QUESTION SQUARELY IN THE HANDS OF THE LEGISLATURE.

I DO NOT SEE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM LIKE THE THINGS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

THAT'S A SIMPLE POLICY QUESTION JUST LIKE THE DETERMINATION THAT'S GOING TO COME DOWN ABOUT NONMEDICAL CARE ABORTIONS.

IT'S THE LAW AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, ITS DUTY IS TO DEFEND THE LAW UNTIL THE LAW OFFENDS EITHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

THAT'S ONE THING COUNSEL WANTS TO PASS OVER COMPLETELY THAT THERE MAY BE MORE INVOLVED THAN THE IDAHO SENATE.

I THINK THE ACLU IS HOPING HE'S GOING TO GET ELECTED SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE MORE LITIGATION.

THANK YOU.

>> Raul Labrador: THEY HAVEN'T ENDORSED ME YET.

>> SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

>> Raul Labrador: I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE AN ADVOCATE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

I THINK MY JOB IS TO FULFILL THE DUTIES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS THE LEGISLATURE PASSED IT.

>> WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE PROCESS?

>> Raul Labrador: I THINK TRANSPARENCY IS ALWAYS GOOD.

>> Tom Arkoosh: AND I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, DO YOU ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

>> Tom Arkoosh: YES.

>> THERE ARE MANY IDAHOANS WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AND HOW WOULD YOU WORK TO ASSURE THEM THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE SECURE?

>> Tom Arkoosh: THIS REFLECTS UPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY OPPONENT AND ME.

HE TOLD MARK MEADOWS THAT DAY THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED TO CERTIFY THAT ELECTION.

THERE HAVE BEEN 60 NATIONAL AND FEDERAL LAWSUITS, EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FACTS CONTRARY TO THE FACT THAT THE ELECTION WAS VALID.

WHAT MY OPPONENT PROPOSED TO LAWRENCE WATSON AND HIGHLY CRITICIZED HIM FOR WAS TO JOIN ATTORNEY GENERAL PAXTON'S LAWSUIT FROM TEXAS WHERE HE SUED OTHER STATES AND TRIED TO GET THEM TO DECERTIFY THEIR OWN ELECTORS.

IT TOOK THE SUPREME COURT FOUR DAYS TO GET RID OF THAT LAWSUIT.

AND THE REASON WAS THAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID ONE STATE DOESN'T HAVE STANDING TO TELL ANOTHER STATE WHAT TO DO.

TWO JUSTICES DISAGREED WITH THAT, BUT THEY SAID WE WOULDN'T GIVE YOU THE RELIEF ANYWAY.

AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT ARE THOSE RULES THAT I TALKED ABOUT.

ATTORNEY GENERAL PAXTON SUPPORTED BY MY OPPONENT IS NOW IN FRONT OF THE TEXAS BAR ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR NOT HAVING THE FACTS AND NOT HAVING THE LAW AND FILING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.

THANK YOU.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

DO YOU ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE 2020 ELECTION?

>> Raul Labrador: I DO, HOWEVER I THINK THE ELECTION WAS PROBLEMATIC.

AND I THINK THERE'S CLEARLY EVIDENCE THAT THE MEDIA LIED ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.

WE HAD A BUNCH OF DEMOCRATS WHO WERE CRYING ABOUT RUSSIA FOR FOUR YEARS AND LYING ABOUT PROVIDING DISINFORMATION ABOUT RUSSIA.

WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN TWITTER AND FACEBOOK CLAIM AND ADMIT THAT THEY HID INFORMATION ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.

THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF THAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

AND WHAT I SAY IS THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN, BUT IT WAS STOLEN IN PLAIN SIGHT.

I DON'T THINK SOME OF THE WILDER CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN BORNE OUT TO BE TRUE.

BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS IN THE ELECTION PROCESS AND THAT WE AS THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS IN IDAHO.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS THERE WAS A PROBLEM IN THE ELECTION PROCESS IS BECAUSE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND OTHER PEOPLE WERE TELLING THEIR GOVERNORS THAT THEY COULD CHANGE ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS REALLY CLEAR.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT ONLY THE LEGISLATURE CAN CHANGE ELECTION LAWS AT ANY TIME.

MY OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF IDAHO THAT HE COULD CHANGE ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC.

I THINK THAT ADVICE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IF I WERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM THAT HE NEEDED TO CALL THE LEGISLATURE INTO SESSION IF HE WAS GOING TO TRY TO CHANGE THE ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC.

THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT LAWSUIT WASN'T ADEQUATE.

THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO STANDING.

BUT THE ISSUE THAT WAS BEING RAISED, WHETHER OTHER STATES CAN CHANGE ELECTION LAWS WITHOUT THE USE OF A LEGISLATURE IS ACTUALLY BEING LITIGATED IN THE SUPREME COURT THIS YEAR.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHETHER LEGISLATURES OR ATTORNEYS GENERAL OR GOVERNORS OR OTHER JUSTICES CAN CHANGE ELECTION LAWS.

AND IT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

>> ON THE SUBJECT OF THAT TEXT TO MARK MEADOWS, YOU TALKED ABOUT JANUARY 6TH THAT DAY.

HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH LOOKING BACK NOW?

>> Raul Labrador: I THINK IT WAS A SAD DAY IN HISTORY.

MOST PEOPLE LIKE MY OPPONENT KEEP CONCENTRATING ON WHAT I SAID.

I DIDN'T SAY I WOULD HAVE, I SAID I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE VOTED TO DECERTIFY OR TO NOT CERTIFY.

BUT I WANTED SOMEBODY TO STAND UP AND CALL THE PEOPLE BACK.

I THINK THERE WAS SOME THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING THAT DAY THAT WERE SAD FOR OUR NATION AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.

I'M FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT WHETHER IT'S CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE VIOLATING THE LAW OR WHETHER IT'S LIBERALS THAT ARE VIOLATING THE LAW.

IF YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO JANUARY 6TH, IF YOU SAW THE ANTIFA THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN PORTLAND, IF YOU LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN SEATTLE, IF YOU SEE THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. JUST PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WHERE PEOPLE WERE VIOLATING THE LAW.

AND I WISH THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD GO AFTER ALL OF THOSE THINGS, NOT JUST ONE GROUP.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM JAKE GARCIA.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT WATER RIGHTS.

THEY ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO IDAHOANS IN AGRICULTURE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HANDLES EXTENSIVE LITIGATION ON THIS COMPLICATED SECTION OF LAW.

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY FROM THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION?

MR. ARKOOSH.

>> Tom Arkoosh: THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB.

I WAS INVOLVED IN THE WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HIS STAFF WERE EXCELLENT.

I HAVE NO CRITICISM OF THEM.

THE DIFFICULTY I DO HAVE IS MY OPPONENT HAS ANNOUNCED AFTER HIS WATER LAW EXPERIENCE, THAT IS ONE DAY ON THE WATER LAW TOUR, RATHER THAN MORE THAN A DECADE IN THE COURTS, IS THAT HE WOULD SIT DOWN WITH OTHER STATES AND NEGOTIATE THE APPORTIONMENT OF OUR WATER.

AND I HAVE TO SAY THIS, THAT'S THE WORST THING WE CAN DO IS INVITE DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER STATES.

THERE'S AN OLD POKER SAYING, IF YOU SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE AND YOU CAN'T SEE THE MARK, IT'S YOU.

AND SO I DO NOT WANT TO TRY TO INVITE OTHER STATES INTO THE SNAKE RIVER BASIN OR THE BOISE BASIN.

I HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH WATER LAW AND I THINK NOW BECAUSE WE'RE IN A DROUGHT, WE DON'T NEED A GREENHORN STEPPING IN.

I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY.

I THINK THE JUNIOR USERS AND THE SENIOR USERS NEED TO GET TOGETHER AND THEY NEED TO SEE THAT AS OUR PROBLEM, NOT THEIR PROBLEM AND PUT TOGETHER A LONG TERM, CONSISTENT, WELL FUNDED 30 YEAR PLAN TO CHANGE OUR WATER BUDGET IN A REALISTIC WAY.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. LABRADOR, SAME QUESTION.

>> Raul Labrador: I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WHAT HE SAID IS TOTALLY FALSE.

HE KEEPS SAYING THIS DIFFERENT PLACES.

WHAT I SAID ON THE FACEBOOK POST IS I HAD A GREAT TIME MEETING WITH THE WATER USERS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON THE ISSUES AND I WILL WORK WITH ANYBODY ON THE ISSUE.

HE KEEPS ADDING, EVERY SINGLE TIME I HEAR HIM TALK ABOUT IT, HE ADDS A NEW LINE THAT I HAVE NEVER SAID.

BUT THE REALITY, I THINK THE MEDIA REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THIS.

HE JUST SAID THAT HE HAD SPENT TEN YEARS IN WATER ADJUDICATION.

IN HIS ANNOUNCEMENT I THINK JIM JONES SAID THAT HE WORKED EXTENSIVELY IN LITIGATIONS AROUND THE SNAKE RIVER BASIN ADJUDICATION.

I THINK HE HAS TOLD THE PRESS THAT HE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN THE SNAKE RIVER BASIN ADJUDICATION.

I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF AN EXPERT, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I'M GOING TO HIRE EXPERTS TO WORK ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO, IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO THE FARMERS.

AND I WILL HAVE THE BEST LAWYERS.

I WON'T DO WHAT HE WILL DO AND CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT AND WHAT THE WATER USERS IN IDAHO ARE TIRED OF PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THEIR CONCERNS AND ARE NOT WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM.

BUT WHAT HE SAID IS I WORKED ON THE LITIGATION FROM 1992 TO ITS CONCLUSION.

I KNOW TOM, BUT THERE'S NO CONCEPTION OF EXTENSIVE WORK OR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD APPLY TO TOM AND THE ADJUDICATION.

HE KEEPS TOUTING THIS ADJUDICATION PROCESS.

WE HAVE LOOKED ONLINE, AND AT BEST HE PLAYED AN INSIGNIFICANT ROLE IN SOME OF THE SMALL CASES.

HE'S NOT AN EXPERT ON WATER LAW AS HE KEEPS GOING AROUND THE STATE SAYING THAT HE IS.

>> MR. ARKOOSH.

>> Tom Arkoosh: NICE TRY, COUNSEL.

YOU WILL SEE MY NAME ON THE CASES THAT ARE THE CURRENT LAW IN IDAHO ON WATER LAW.

LAWRENCE DID IN FACT PLAY A VERY SMALL ROLE.

I REPRESENTED THE AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.

ONE OF THE LARGEST USERS OF WATER IN THE MAGIC VALLEY FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCESS UP THROUGH ABOUT 12 YEARS.

COUNSEL IS JUST WRONG.

AND HE'S ALSO WRONG ABOUT HIS STATEMENT HE SAID THAT HE WOULD DEFEND OUR WATER THROUGH SENSIBLE POLICIES WITH OUR SISTER STATES.

NO.

>> Raul Labrador: THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID.

I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO SAY THAT HE HAS A TENDENCY TO EXAGGERATE AND MISCONSTRUE WHAT I SAY.

IF YOU DO THAT IN THE COURT, THEY CALL YOU OUT.

APPARENTLY IN POLITICS IT'S OKAY TO DO IT.

BUT I'M PRETTY PRECISE IN THE WORDS THAT I SAY.

AND I NEVER SAID THAT I WAS GOING TO SIT DOWN AND DO ADJUDICATION AND NEGOTIATION.

I SAID I'M GOING TO WORK WITH OUR SISTER STATES IF NECESSARY.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG, I GET ACCUSED OF BEING A LONE WOLF WHO'S NOT WILLING TO SIT DOWN WITH PEOPLE.

AND THEN WHEN I SAY THAT I'M GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH PEOPLE THEN PEOPLE WILL MISCONSTRUE WHAT I SAY.

I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO WILL SEE RIGHT THROUGH THAT.

>> WE DO HAVE TO MOVE ON, THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM KELCIE.

HAS SPOKEN ABOUT TURNOVER RATE - IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DUE TO THE LOW SALARIES THAT THEIR DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL MAKE.

FROM MID-MAY TO MID-SEPTEMBER THE OFFICE REPORTED SIX STAFF DEPARTURES.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO RETAIN STAFF AND ADVOCATE FOR SALARY INCREASES?

>> Tom Arkoosh: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS I UNDERSTAND IT ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE LAWYERS THAT ARE THERE FOR CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.

AND I AGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION, IT'S HARD TO KEEP THOSE PEOPLE THERE GIVEN THE SALARY LEVEL.

SO THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD LAWYERS, DEDICATED LAWYERS, AND LOYAL LAWYERS.

THE FIRST THING THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO TELL THEM IS THAT IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR AGENDA, THEY'RE FIRED.

THAT IS WHAT MY OPPONENT HAS SAID WOULD HAPPEN TO ANYBODY IN HIS OFFICE THAT DISAGREED WITH HIS THINKING.

NOW, IT'S GOING TO BE THE GUY IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

I'VE RUN LAW OFFICES FOR 44 YEARS.

IT'S GOING TO BE THE SMART GUY IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM THAT'S NOT GOING TO RAISE HIS HAND BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO LOSE HIS JOB.

AND BECAUSE HE DIDN'T RAISE HIS HAND AND POINT OUT THE FALLACIES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER FATEFULLY EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT.

YOU CAN'T RUN A LAW OFFICE THAT WAY.

THESE PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONALS AND THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO TO KEEP THEM IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY IS TREAT THEM LIKE PROFESSIONALS AND I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN GIVEN MY OPPONENT'S POINT OF VIEW ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM.

>> Raul Labrador: THERE HE GOES AGAIN.

DISAGREEING WITH THE AGENDA IS NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE LEGAL ANALYSIS.

ANYBODY THAT HAS WORKED WITH ME KNOWS THAT I BRING PEOPLE INTO THE ROOM AND I WANT DIFFERENT OPINIONS TO BE EXPRESSED.

I WANT DIFFERENT OPINIONS TO BE BORNE OUT.

WHEN I HAVE MY EXECUTIVE TEAM, WHEN I WAS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE, I ALWAYS HIRED PEOPLE WHO HAD DIFFERENT OPINIONS, WHO HAD DIFFERENT METHODS OF DELIVERING THEIR OPINIONS, BECAUSE I WANTED THERE TO BE A TEAM OF RIVALS WHO WAS WORKING TOGETHER AND BRINGING FORTH THE BEST IDEAS.

WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT ANY GOOD LEADER WOULD SAY.

ONCE A DECISION IS MADE AFTER WE'VE HASHED OUT ALL OF THE ISSUES.

IF THEY CAN'T FOLLOW THE DECISION THAT IS MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THEY SHOULDN'T BE WORKING AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THAT'S GOOD LEADERSHIP.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS.

ANY GOOD LEADER WOULD TELL YOU THAT YOU WANT THE BEST PEOPLE AROUND YOU AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT.

I WANT THE BEST LAWYERS AROUND ME WHO ARE GOING TO GIVE ME THEIR OPINIONS, WHO ARE GOING TO GIVE ME THEIR IDEAS SO I CAN MAKE THE BEST, MOST INFORMED DECISION.

AND IF ONCE I MAKE THE BEST, MOTION INFORMED DECISION, IF SOMEBODY ON THAT TEAM CANNOT ABIDE BY THE DECISION THAT I MAKE, THEY SHOULDN'T BE WORKING IN MY OFFICE AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

>> WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

THE NEXT QUESTION COMES FROM JAKE GARCIA.

>> THIS IS FOR BOTH OF YOU, BUT MR. ARKOOSH, I'LL START WITH YOU.

>> Tom Arkoosh: I ALWAYS GET TO GO FIRST.

>> AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED THAT AFTER ROE V. WADE WAS OVERTURNED THE COURT'S DECISION ON LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE REEVALUATED.

IF THAT HAPPENS, AND IDAHO BANS SAME SEX MARRIAGE, WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO MARRIAGES THAT HAVE BEEN LEGAL SINCE 2016?

>> Tom Arkoosh: I THINK THEY'LL HAVE TO STAY LEGAL.

THAT'S A BRIDGE THAT WILL BE CROSSED AFTER IT'S THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED.

AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IF THAT COMES BACK TO US HAS TOLD US WHAT TO DO.

I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

THAT'S AN OPINION I JUST CAN'T THROW OFF THE CUFF.

IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL THAT WOULD BE UNJUST TO OPINE ON.

I CAN TELL YOU THIS, IN THE MURRAY V. HOKOTELO CASE WHICH WAS PRIOR TO ROE V. WADE AND IT'S STATE LAW, THEY SAID THAT THERE'S A RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT RELATIONSHIP IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

SO WHEN THE SUPREME COURT GETS DONE, IF IT COMES BACK TO US AND THE SUPREME COURT GETS DONE WITH THAT CAN OF WORMS, I WILL ENFORCE WHAT THEY SAY TO DO.

>> MR. LABRADOR, SAME QUESTION.

>> Raul Labrador: I THINK YOU MISSTATED WHAT CLARENCE THOMAS SAID.

I THINK HE STATED HE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

BUT IF YOU READ ANY OF HIS WRITINGS HE MAY ACTUALLY FIND IT UNDER ANOTHER PART OF THE CONSTITUTION SO THAT'S WHAT THE LEGAL DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.

I DON'T THINK THAT HE EVER SAID THAT HE WOULD THROW OUT -- >> HE INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE REVIEWED AGAIN.

>> Raul Labrador: HE JUST INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE REVIEWED.

BUT WHAT MOST LEGAL SCHOLARS, EVEN CONSERVATIVE LEGAL SCHOLARS BELIEVE THAT MEANS HE'S GOING TO LOOK FOR SOME OTHER DOCTRINE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT AS MY OPPONENT JUST SAID, THIS IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL.

AND THE REALITY IS THAT I HAVE TALKED TO JUST ABOUT EVERY LEGISLATOR OVER THE PAST YEAR WHEN I'VE BEEN RUNNING FOR THIS OFFICE.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A SINGLE LEGISLATOR TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

YOU GUYS IN THE MEDIA LOVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS TOP OF MIND FOR ANY OF THE LEGISLATORS THAT ARE ACTUALLY CURRENTLY SERVING THE LEGISLATURE.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE TO CONSUMER PROTECTION WITH A QUESTION FOR YOU.

NOT EVERYTHING IN THE JOB INVOLVES ACTIVE LITIGATION.

YOU GOT CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES LIKE COMBATING SCAMS AND OTHER FRAUD.

HOW WILL YOU ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IF ELECTED?

>> Raul Labrador: I'M ACTUALLY REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ASPECT OF THIS JOB.

AS YOU KNOW, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS A CONSTITUENT SERVICES OFFICE.

THE CONSTITUENT SERVICES OFFICE IS THE ONE THAT INTERACTS WITH THE PUBLIC, SO IT'S THE NONPOLITICAL PART OF BEING A CONGRESSMAN.

AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I ENJOYED THE MOST IS WHEN I WAS HELPING INDIVIDUALS IN IDAHO WHO HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHO HAD PROBLEMS WHETHER IT WAS WITH THE VA, WITH MILITARY SERVICES, WITH BENEFITS THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO.

EVEN BENEFITS THAT I DISAGREED WITH POLITICALLY IN SOME AREAS, THE JOB OF MY CONSTITUENT SERVICES OFFICE WAS TO HELP THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS OF IDAHO TO GET THOSE BENEFITS IF THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THEM.

I THINK I HAVE THE BEST CONSTITUENT SERVICES OFFICE IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF IDAHO.

I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE DID.

WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS LETTERS SAYING THAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY ASKED OTHER CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES FOR HELP AND THAT OURS WAS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY HELPED THEM.

SO I SEE CONSUMER PROTECTION AS A CONSTITUENT SERVICE TYPE OF SERVICE WHERE YOU CAN HELP THE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE IN IDAHO WHEN THEY HAVE ISSUES IN CONSUMER PROTECTION AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO VERY, VERY WELL.

BECAUSE I ALREADY HAVE THAT EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE AS A FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

I'M GOING TO SWITCH A LITTLE BIT THE EMPHASIS, THE CURRENT CONSUMER PROTECTION OFFICE SPENDS A LOT OF TIME DOING THESE NATIONAL CASES THAT DON'T REALLY HELP INDIVIDUALS IN IDAHO.

THEY DON'T REALLY RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY BACK.

I WANT TO HELP MORE INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE WORK THAT CAN BE DONE IN THAT OFFICE.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, SAME QUESTION.

>> Tom Arkoosh: WELL I THINK LAWRENCE WATSON HAS ONE OF THE BEST CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

I DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT HE HAS NOT BROUGHT BACK MONEY TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

HE HAS BROUGHT BACK LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT LEGACY IF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING IT FOR HIM ARE STILL THERE.

I THINK GIVEN THE ATTRITION IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE, THEY MAY NOT WELL BE THERE, AND THAT DIVISION AGAIN WILL HAVE TO BE RECONSTITUTED.

BUT THAT HAS BEEN PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST GRACEFUL THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED TO PEOPLE OUT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE NEARING THE END OF THE SHOW AND GETTING CLOSE TO CLOSING REMARKS SO KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

>> THIS YEAR WE'VE SEEN A FORMER LAWMAKER CONVICTED OF RAPE AND SEVERAL HIGH RANKING OFFICERS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS INVESTIGATED.

THE AG'S OFFICE IS OFTEN TASKED WITH INVESTIGATING PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINTS AND RECOMMENDING IF CHARGES SHOULD BE FILED.

IF ELECTED, HOW TRANSPARENT WOULD YOU BE IN THESE TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS?

MR. LABRADOR.

>> Raul Labrador: I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL CAN DO.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TRANSPARENT IN EVERYTHING THAT I DO.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO AND THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS ENSHRINED IN THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.

THE REASON PEOPLE HATE POLITICIANS IS BECAUSE THEY SAY ONE THING TO GET ELECTED AND THEY DO SOMETHING ELSE.

THEY GET IN OFFICE AND THEY ABUSE THEIR POWER.

I'VE HAD A LOT OF ACCUSATIONS IN MY LIFE OF BEING TOO CONSERVATIVE AND TOO MANY THINGS.

BUT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN FOR MY INTEGRITY AND FOR THE THINGS THAT I DO.

I THINK EVERY ELECTED OFFICIL SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER ACCOUNT AND I THINK THAT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE PROSECUTE WHATEVER CRIMES ARE COMMITTED IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

>> MR. ARKOOSH, SAME QUESTION.

>> Tom Arkoosh: I BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN PROCESS THE WORK.

I MEAN I'VE BEEN A PROSECUTOR AND YOU CAN'T PUT YOUR CASE FILE OUT TO THE DEFENSE COUNSEL, OKAY.

BUT I AGREE WITH COUNSEL.

WHEN THOSE KIND OF THINGS HAPPEN AND THEY'RE A STATEWIDE PROBLEM, YOU NEED TO TELL THE PUBLIC EVERYTHING YOU CAN.

SO FAR AS IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THE WORK.

THE TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THE STATE ARE I BELIEVE FENTANYL AND I SEE NOTHING TO HIDE ABOUT THE FENTANYL PROBLEM.

FOR THAT MATTER THE MORE INFORMATION WE HAVE, THE BETTER WE ARE.

AND I THINK THAT THESE HOMEGROWN MILITIAS ARE PROBABLY OUR SECOND BIGGEST PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THAT MY OPPONENT MAY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOME OF THOSE FOLKS.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT IT'S GOING TO CREATE A CONFLICT AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE TRANSPARENT.

THANK YOU.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR, I'LL GIVE YOU 30 SECONDS TO RESPOND TO THAT.

>> Raul Labrador: IT WAS A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT SO I WON'T RESPOND TO IT.

>> NEXT QUESTION FROM KELCIE.

>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU AS WELL.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE PUBLIC COUNSEL PAID FOR -- >> IS IT FAIR, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

>> IS IT NECESSARY?

>> Raul Labrador: THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO I BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN COUNSEL, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE PRIVATE COUNSEL.

I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE TO HIRE THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE STATE ATTORNEYS WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE WASTING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T TRUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

SO THEY GO OUT AND HIRE A PRIVATE LAW FIRM.

SOME OF THEM ARE JIM JONES' FRIENDS AND THAT'S WHY HE'S NOT HAPPY THAT I'M RUNNING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING A TON OF MONEY REPRESENTING THE STATE WHEN IT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE EITHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OR IT SHOULD BE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE LEGISLATURE.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PAYING $400 OR $500 AN HOUR FOR AN ATTORNEY WHEN WE CAN GET SOME GOOD QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS TO WORK FOR THE LEGISLATURE.

I'M HOPING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HANDLES ALL OF THOSE LAWSUITS.

AND WHAT I WANT TO DO IS I WANT TO BRING UP THE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

I WANT TO HAVE A SUITE OF ATTORNEYS THAT ARE THE BEST ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO THAT CAN TAKE ON THE CIVIL LITIGATION SO NO ONE FEELS THAT THEY HAVE TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

THE LEGISLATURE FEELS THAT THE ATTORNEY IS NOT REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS.

YOU HAVE SOME OUTSIDE AGENCIES THAT FEEL THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS NOT REPRESENTING THEIR INTEREST.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST LAWYERS AND WHEN WE HAVE THE BEST LAWYERS, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO SAVE MONEY FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO.

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF LAWYERS WHO ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH A POLITICAL POSITION WHEN IT COMES TO LITIGATION.

ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE AS MANY LAWYERS WHO WANT TO WORK FOR THAT TYPE -- >> Raul Labrador: I HAVE AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES RIGHT NOW.

I HAVE SO MANY ATTORNEYS CONTACTING ME THAT THEY WANT TO COME WORK FOR ME OFFICE.

NOT EVERY DECISION IS POLITICAL.

YOU GUYS NEED TO GET YOUR DEFINITIONS RIGHT.

AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS A DISSERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

POLITICAL MEANS THAT IT PARTICIPATES IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO WORK IN AN OFFICE THAT PARTICIPATES IN THE POLITICAL OFFICE, YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN A JOB IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

YOU KEEP MISCONSTRUING WHAT IT IS, MY OPPONENT KEEPS MISCONSTRUING WHAT IT IS.

IT'S JUST MAKING SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH ELECTED OFFICIAL.

THAT'S ALL POLITICAL MEANS.

STOP DOING THAT, AND YOU NEED TO STOP DOING THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I'M GOING TO PUT POLITICS ABOVE THE LAW.

YOU JUST IMPLIED IT, AND I WISH YOU WOULD STOP IT.

>> MR. ARKOOSH.

>> Tom Arkoosh: IT'S TOUGH WHEN THE WORDS ARE ON PAPER.

I THINK -- >> Raul Labrador: GET A DICTIONARY.

IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE WHAT POLITICAL MEANS AND WHAT THE POLITICAL PROCESS MEANS.

>> Tom Arkoosh: I READ YOUR WORDS.

>> Raul Labrador: WHAT WERE MY WORDS?

>> Tom Arkoosh: DON'T SPEAK OVER ME, PLEASE.

THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE PROCESS WITH VERY SIMPLE RULES.

IF YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THESE RULES, DON'T EXPECT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO TO VOTE FOR YOU FOR A CHIEF OFFICE.

BEFORE THEY DO LITIGATION, I THINK CONSTITUTIONALLY THE PERSON HAS TO BE DEPUTIZED AS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OR BE SOMEBODY FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

NOW WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO HIRE COUNSEL AND BE COUNSELED RATHER THAN REPRESENTED IN COURT I THINK IS FINE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY DO.

>> BRIEFLY AND I'LL GIVE YOU 30 SECONDS FOR THIS, HOW WOULD YOU RECRUIT AND RETAIN PRIVATE ATTORNEYS TO COME WORK IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR?

>> Tom Arkoosh: ECONOMICS ISN'T GOING TO HELP US.

I CONCUR WITH THE PREMISE OF THAT.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INSPIRE THEM AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE TRULY HAVE A SPIRIT IN THEIR HEARTS, A SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

THANK YOU.

>> Raul Labrador: I ALREADY HAVE THAT.

I ALREADY HAVE A GROUP OF LAWYERS THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME THAT WORK FOR LARGE LAW FIRMS THAT WANT TO WORK IN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT WILL REPRESENT WELL THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

I WILL CONTINUE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT WORDS DID I SAY THAT ARE BEING MISCONSTRUED?

BECAUSE HE KEEPS USING THESE WORDS THAT I HAVE NEVER USED AND I HAVE NEVER SAID -- I KNOW THAT HE LOVES TO SAY THAT.

BUT HE DOES THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THAT'S WHY THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ARE NOT GOING TO TRUST HIM.

>> IT'S TIME FOR CLOSING REMARKS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

AND MR. ARKOOSH, YOU'RE UP FIRST.

>> Tom Arkoosh: WHEN I WAS A YOUNG LAWYER IN IDAHO, THERE WAS A GUY ON MY LEFT NAMED LOUIS GARANO WHICH WAS AN OLD ATTORNEY THERE.

AND THE GUY ON MY RIGHT, I'VE GOT MY RIGHT AND LEFT MIXED UP, WAS BRAD LITTLE'S DAD, SENATOR DAVE LITTLE.

AND HE WAS A CONSERVATIVE FELLOW AND LOUIS WAS A DEMOCRAT AND THEY WOULD WRECK MY LUNCH EVERY DAY.

I'D SIT IN THE MIDDLE AND EVERY WEDNESDAY THEY'D GO LIKE THIS AND IT BOTHERED ME UNTIL I STARTED LISTENING.

AND HERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD KNOWN EACH OTHER THEIR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL CAREERS.

LOUIS WAS SENATOR LITTLE'S ATTORNEY.

AND THEY LIKED EACH OTHER.

SO WHAT WAS THIS ALL ABOUT?

WELL WHEN I LISTENED, I LEARNED THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

THEY WERE LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS.

THEY WERE TALKING OUT THE PROBLEM.

AND THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE OTHER FOLKS MEANT.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THANK YOU.

>> CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR.

>> Raul Labrador: THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS, AND THANK YOU TO THE AUDIENCE FOR LISTENING TO THIS DEBATE.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ARE LOOKING FOR A STRONG, AGGRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WILL DEFEND THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

NOT A PERSON WHO'S GOING TO MAKE DEALS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

NOT A PERSON WHO'S GOING TO LET THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION RUN RIGHT OVER THE STATE OF IDAHO AS IT'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND OUR FREEDOM AND OUR LIBERTIES.

I'M THE PERSON THAT IS BEST QUALIFIED TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MY OPPONENT DECIDED VERY LATE IN THE GAME THAT FIRST HE WAS AN INDEPENDENT, THEN HE WAS A REPUBLICAN SO HE COULD VOTE AGAINST ME, THEN HE RAN AS A DEMOCRAT TO RUN AGAINST ME.

I THINK THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS RACE WHO IS A POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST IS MY OPPONENT.

HE HAS DECIDED THAT HE'S GOING TO -- I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN IN THE STATE OF IDAHO WHERE SOMEBODY HAS DONE SOMETHING SO CRAVENLY POLITICAL.

AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO ARE GOING TO SEE THROUGH THIS.

I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAVE TO REPRESENT YOU AND I THANK YOU FOR THE YEARS OF SERVICE THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME AND I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING YOUR NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU TO BOTH OF THE CANDIDATES TONIGHT AND OUR REPORTERS FOR THEIR QUESTIONS.

AND OUR VIEWERS AT HOME FOR WATCHING.

THE GENERAL ELECTION IS NOVEMBER 8TH.

IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, YOU CAN REGISTER AT THE POLLS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO voteidaho.gov.

THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND WE'LL SEE YOU AT THE POLLS.

>> THE IDAHO DEBATES IS ORGANIZED BY THESE PARTNERS: FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION ENDOWMENT, AND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.