- [Announcer] Funding for Election 2022 coverage is provided in part by AARP, a non-profit, non-partisan membership association, 83,000 Strong in North Dakota.

Find information on how to make your voice heard in the 2022 election at aarp.org/ndvotes.

And by the members of Prairie Public.

(soft majestic music) - Hello, I'm Matt Olien.

Welcome to Prairie Public and AARP North Dakota's coverage of Election 2022.

Tonight, the debate for North Dakota Attorney General.

My guests are incumbent Republican Drew Wrigley, the current Attorney General, and Democratic Challenger, Tim Lamb.

Each candidate will have a one-minute opening statement and one-minute closing statement.

In between, they will debate and discuss topics selected by myself and our co-sponsor, AARP North Dakota.

Based on a coin flip, Drew Wrigley, you go first on opening statements.

- Thank you Matt, and thanks to our sponsors this evening, AARP and Prairie Public.

It's a privilege to be with all of you this evening.

Tim, thanks for being here this evening as well.

As a fourth-generation North Dakotan raising a fifth, it is indeed a privilege to be standing before you here as the 30th Attorney General of North Dakota.

My commitment to our communities, to the people, and to the future of North Dakota is strong.

I started running for this post about a year ago, and then about a month into the campaign the unthinkable happened, and my predecessor Wayne Stenehjem died suddenly and unexpectedly.

I was appointed to serve as the 30th Attorney General of North Dakota, and it has been a privilege over these last eight months.

I look forward to this evening's debate, and talking about some of the issues that we've been working on there, but more importantly for all of you I hope, talking about the future and what I hope to bring to the Attorney General's office up ahead.

- Okay thank you, Tim Lamb, one-minute opening statement.

- Yeah, thanks Matt.

I'm Tim Lamb, I'm running for North Dakota Attorney General.

I practice in all the state and federal courts in the state.

I have a 20-year military background.

I'm a veteran, as a Major in the United States Army.

I served overseas, 15 years on the Grand Fork School Board.

I have a master's degree in business, and I'm a fifth-generation North Dakotan.

Very proud to be a fifth-generation North Dakotan.

My grandfather served under Governor Moses in 1940 as one of the first highway commissioners.

I'm married and I have two sons, and I'm honored and I am humbled to be here tonight, to be a candidate for North Dakota Attorney General.

- Great, let's get right to it.

Drew Wrigley, you mentioned your predecessor, Wayne Stenehjem, you know, unexpectedly passed away.

Some controversies around him are not going away, specifically the emails that were deleted by Liz Brocker shortly after his death, his longtime assistant.

Her cryptic explanation led some to believe there were some damaging or embarrassing things in these emails, we still don't know what they are.

I know a company has been hired, I believe, to look into this.

So my question is, I want both of your reactions to this email thing, how it was handled in the follow up, and should Liz Brocker ever be charged with a crime?

Tim Lamb, you start us out.

- Well look, it's a very, I call it the email scandal, I guess, but it's getting more controversial as we go along.

And look, well, we not only had the deletion of Drew's predecessor, all of his emails for 20 years as the Attorney General, we also three months later had all the emails of Drew's deputy deleted.

It begs a lot of questions.

I understand the state auditor is now involved.

They published about a 20-page report about issues with these deleted emails.

On previous occasions, Drew said that he's not going to investigate.

He thinks it's a nonissue.

Well, the state auditor begs differently, and I think a lot of voters out there, a lot of people are concerned.

What this really, I think, undermines our democratic principles.

You cannot have deleted emails, which are basically public open records, and they should never have been deleted in the first place.

I think it's historic in a sense, it's never been done before.

So what do we do about it?

We now, I think the IT department, I understand, is going to try to do a metadata research or reconstruction of those emails, which I think would be very good in trying to figure out why those emails were deleted.

You know, the longer we go, the more questions come up, and it really is a question of undermining our democracy when you start to delete public records that may have vital information about, who knows?

I mean, all you can do is speculate at this point.

- [Matt] I wanna get Drew Wrigley in for response, and then this will continue, I know it will.

So, Drew Wrigley.

- Thanks Matt, I'm glad we're starting off the debate with a question on which my opponent and I can agree.

I think pretty much universal agreement that the deletion of those emails, which you know, the record is established quite firmly, has nothing to do with my administration of the office.

It's troubling and there's no one more troubled than am I.

In the hours following Wayne's death it was ordered by the deputy at the time.

He's no longer the deputy, he was the deputy at the time.

He ordered Liz Brocker to delete that email account.

In the subsequent months, in subsequent weeks, I don't know how many weeks went by before Liz Brocker then deleted, after going through and sorting through all of Troy Seibel's emails, those were deleted, all unbeknownst to me.

When it was brought to my attention, it's important to to point out what happened in the wake of all of that.

This matter is in the public realm because I take my responsibility for transparency very seriously.

This matter is in the public realm because my staff, my administration of the office, divulged to the public that this had happened.

We were also the ones who divulged, and I'm sure we'll be talking a little bit about a building contract that was entered into, all the year before I had the privilege of becoming Attorney General.

When I declared my candidacy I pledged to be approachable, I pledged to be transparent, and I pledged to be accountable.

We've been all of those things and more in this matter.

It gets brought up whether this is a matter of criminal law or just a personnel matter internally.

Every day in the capital, just like in every business in America, emails are deleted as a matter of course.

Attorney General Stenehjem's, same with my email, these are public email accounts, and it was gone through every single day of his administration by Liz Brocker, and she would sort through and handle the emails and print things out and give them to people in the course of business.

I don't know why it was ordered that she delete those emails.

I do know I don't get any emails that aren't blind copied, carbon copied to all sorts of other people.

The same was true, I'm sure of Wayne.

There was no, we have no evidence at all that there's anything in those emails that would be particularly troubling, but it's troubling that they were deleted.

I would benefit probably most.

We've done everything possible.

We've consulted experts, we're hiring, I've asked IT to hire outside experts just to make sure, not because I don't trust them when they say it is irretrievable, but because we wanna make absolutely sure.

The public can be confident nothing has been found to be hidden in those emails.

Many other people have the exact same ones.

We complied with all open records requests.

This matter's in the public because we brought it there, and that's our pledge going forward.

We are always going to be transparent in our work.

We are always going to be approachable in our work.

We're gonna be responsive to media requests, public requests, and that's an important part of the work, and I think this underscores how seriously we take that.

- Okay, Tim Lamb, response.

- Yeah, I mean, this has been, Drew has been in office now for over six months.

I really haven't seen anything that he's done within the office to try to facilitate any type of investigation or resolution to this controversy.

What's happened is departments outside his office, in the auditor's office, in the IT department, they have come up and said, "Look, this is a serious problem and it deserves an independent investigation."

I asked for that at the get go, and as soon as this came up, I said, "We needed to have an independent investigation.

Let's get this thing put to rest."

It wasn't done and it still hasn't been done.

Drew has got to take responsibility for this.

It undermines our democratic principles, and I think the public should be outraged over it.

It doesn't, it is the first time it's ever happened, and nothing's been done about it.

And to say, "Well, emails are deleted every day," yeah of course, but not the entire batch of emails of two of his employees, of two employees of the Office of Attorney General.

And he has to take responsibility for that, and I don't think he has.

I will, if I'm elected, I will take responsibility.

- Okay, Drew Wrigley, response.

- It's important to underscore again that Wayne's emails were deleted before I got there.

Troy's were deleted without my knowledge.

The person who did that no longer works in the Attorney General's office after a 20-year career there.

I think it's remarkable actually, that Tim would say We've done nothing.

This is in the public realm because we put it there.

We put this out there to acknowledge to the people that this had happened.

We moved heaven and earth.

We provided every document we possibly could to investigators, people looking through this, IT people, technologically advanced people going around looking to get those emails back.

Everything that was possible, and we're still doing it.

I said we'll spare no expense.

If some outside entity can find them in any way, we will get them, that's our pledge.

But it's important, talk about a red herring.

This gets bandied about the idea that, "Well, we won't charge somebody."

No, I've been a prosecutor a long time.

I've charged everybody with everything from misdemeanors to capital murder.

I've charged everything in between, thousands of cases over my long career as a prosecutor.

We usually go on evidence, Tim should try that.

If he ever becomes a prosecutor, he should base his cases on evidence.

There is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

You don't have to just listen to me.

Jack McDonald, the foremost expert in the state probably on open records, who's played a hand in the passage of innumerable open records types of legislation, and open meetings, open records.

He said from the beginning, "Troubling, not illegal."

There's all sorts of talk about having a state's attorney look at it.

A state's attorney in Burley County looked at this.

She chuckled on the phone to me and said the same thing.

"Really unfortunate, obviously not illegal."

The foremost experts in the state that work with open records every day in our office from the beginning looked through it, evaluated it.

Everyone, myself included, troubled, but everyone recognizing there's nothing illegal.

So I'm not gonna do political theatrics and run over across the street and hand off a file and say, "Here, why don't we just keep this thing going on."

This is an important matter, that doesn't make it a criminal matter.

We've taken it seriously, we've put it in the public realm.

Our commitment is always to be transparent.

We've been that here and we've been thorough, and it continues on up ahead.

We've had no other open record request that we couldn't meet as a result of it, and we'll always meet those every time.

- So as a follow up then, and then we'll move on to the next topic.

Tim Lamb, if elected, would you pursue this further in charging Liz Brocker if indeed there was a crime committed, or if there hasn't been a crime committed, as Mr. Wrigley says?

- Right, I mean, I think the issue is here, the Attorney General's office isn't the prosecutor here.

What we do, or what I would do as the Attorney General is I would appoint a Special Assistant Attorney General to investigate this matter.

If it turns out that there was a law that was violated, then indeed that would be turned over to a district prosecutor to prosecute.

And I think that's important, and I think the reason why this came out obviously is because that there was a issue with the AG's office building in downtown Bismark and $1.8 million cost overrun, and so there was a request for open records as to what happened there.

And those emails that came out as a result of that open records request are very troubling.

They show that there may be corruption within the department of the Attorney General's office, and those emails, there was just a touch, just the tip of the iceberg of emails that came out.

What we haven't seen are all of Wayne's, the former Attorney General's emails.

And if we can get Troy Seibel's, the deputy emails, then we might have some evidence, some real evidence as to what happened here.

We don't have any evidence, so obviously you can say, "Hey there's nothing, there's no there there."

Well, there is something there, if you look into the evidence.

- So we are gonna get the building, the very next topic.

But last word on this topic, Drew Wrigley last word, and then we'll move on.

- I just have to say again, Tim's either leaving stuff out intentionally to mislead the audience, or he doesn't know much about this situation at all.

That building cost overrun happened a year before I took office.

It hadn't been spoken of publicly or brought to the legislature's attention by anybody until the day after the deputy at the time, he and I parted ways.

He left the Attorney General's office, and the next day the budget people came to me and said, "Drew, there's something you need to know.

We're in so much trouble."

I said, "How much trouble?"

And she didn't smile, and I said, "When are we in trouble?"

She said, "Next year, when the auditors come through."

And I looked at her, I said, "We're in trouble this year then."

So I said, "Bring me everything."

We brought that to the public's attention.

That's our responsibility.

The public didn't know anything about it.

It happened a year before.

Tim either doesn't know that, or he's just trying to mislead the audience.

We brought that forward.

That's a great- - No, I would object to that characterization.

- Okay.

- There's plenty that's been brought out on this issue.

- It's all been brought out because of us.

That's our pledge going forward.

That's the only important thing in this whole matter, and it's been investigated very, in tremendous detail by a number of people.

Tim doesn't like that nobody, none of the experts think it should be prosecuted, 'cause there's no crime been committed.

I've never charged a case when there wasn't a crime.

Outrage, and we are outraged, is not a crime.

- Okay, let's move to the next topic.

You have both talked about this building in Bismarck, and it's a building that Bismarck state representative Jason Doctor wanted to lease and purchase, and he approached the AG's office about this.

There were massive cost overruns not approved by the state legislature.

So I guess my debate topic or question, however you guys want to do this.

How does, if elected, each of you ensure this is not gonna happen again?

And two, you know, where does this go from here, if anywhere?

- That's the important question- - Drew, you're the first on this one, Drew Wrigley.

- Thanks Matt, that's the important question, making sure it doesn't happen again.

'Cause it happened a year before I took office as Attorney General, and I just told you, I was made aware of it when my then deputy and I parted ways.

When I was made aware of it, the next day, 24 hours later, after we had gathered every document possible in the office, everything, every scrap of paper, I said, "We're gonna call the auditor."

The auditor came down, he had a look on his face like he had never seen anything like this.

We divulged the entire thing.

I said, "Here it all is, here's all the documents.

Here's the billing, here's the name of the," I didn't know the name.

We hadn't dealt with the people who owned it.

We called all of them in.

We got to the bottom of it rapidly, getting all the information, had the meetings.

And the auditor then, and then I said, "The next thing we're gonna do is, we're gonna sit down with legislative leaders, not just Republicans, Republicans and Democrats," and I did that.

My new deputy, an outstanding lawyer, Claire Ness and I sat down with legislative leadership, Republicans and Democrats, and told them everything about the building.

Asked them, "What would you like us to do next?"

I don't know how to be more transparent than that, and accountable.

They said, "Can you go to the legislature tomorrow?

Is tomorrow too quick?

Can you, or won't have time to put together a presentation."

I said, "I don't need a presentation.

I'm gonna go in there, I'll tell them everything we know," and I did.

I talked to a legislative committee, bipartisan committee, down in the Senate chambers, and we went from there.

There have been, the auditor's been evaluating this matter with the full assistance of us.

And why wouldn't we?

We wanna get to the bottom of that more than anybody.

The most important thing that'll come out of this is that state government will recognize that just because someone is an office holder doesn't make them an office manager.

There needs to be a lot more transparency.

When they were going through this whole process about cost overruns, and whether it's a good idea to go to that building in the first place, those are all things that happened before I got there.

But because of what we did, because of how Claire Ness and I have handled this matter going throughout, the government's much more informed.

They're gonna have the information to make decisions going forward about how the government should enter into contracts, buy property, lease property.

They know that, I say this with all humility, they know that because Drew Wrigley was Attorney General and we turned that information over.

We made them aware of what they did not know, and they will be able to act because of what they now do know.

- Okay, Tim Lamb response.

- Yeah I mean, we're talking about a $1.8 million cost overrun.

Drew was in office for three months and he's saying, "Oh, I just discovered it three months after I was in office," and that's hard to believe.

That's a very hard pill to swallow.

Let's look at the emails.

Let's look at Tony's emails.

Well, they're gone.

There were deleted the day that he was terminated.

A lot of questions come up over this.

Now they had a legislative committee hearing on it, I grant you that.

But at that hearing from what I'm told, and then from all reports, there was a lot of dodging of the questions, and the questions weren't adequately answered.

The state auditor has come up with a lot more questions on why that money was spent before they got legislative approval.

So that's a major, major question.

And for somebody still not addressing it before the public, I would, if I was Attorney General, I would have a press conference.

I would call in the reporters, have them ask me what's going on, and I would be totally transparent with them, totally upfront, totally honest, and tell them, "Hey look, this is what's going on.

It happened before I got here, but I'm gonna tell you exactly what's going on was wrong, and it will hopefully it will not happen again."

But look, we've gotta take responsibility here.

Taking responsibility is not happening.

- [Matt] Drew Wrigley, response now.

- Tim, you haven't been following the story.

That last part was right on the money.

Those are all the things that we've done.

I haven't turned down a single interview, not one, I haven't turned down a single request from a legislative Republican or Democrat to meet and talk about this issue.

We've turned over all the documents to multiple news organizations from the very beginning.

No, that's a roadmap, that's what we've done.

I guess Tim wants me to say that something was my fault that happened a year before, and he's claiming that's what he would do as Attorney General.

That would be interesting.

What we're going to do is make the government accountable.

We come to these offices, these opportunities, the government's got to be accountable for what's taken place, and that only comes through transparency.

That's our commitment, that's the important part of this.

I've had people call into my office, that they're interested in this too, after they read some news coverage, I return personal calls from people.

We couldn't be more transparent.

I think it's important in this instance, but it's more important on the whole.

I oversee an office with 12 divisions.

We've got 250-some people employed in the Attorney General's office.

We touch on every aspect of public life in the government of North Dakota, and municipalities, communities all across this state.

And people have to understand that you've got a commitment, and that it's serious, and that you're going to do that.

Even when, by the way, no one's tapping me on the shoulder saying, "Hey, what about this building?"

I guess Tim would've, if he were in office, the first thing he would've done is gone look at the leases.

No three months, and then when the deputy left, the climate was right that the budget people came to me, the professional budget people, and they knew they could trust me.

And when I told them we were gonna let the auditors know right away and tell the legislature, it was like we lifted a thousand pounds off their shoulders.

We're proud of how that was handled, and the transparency speaks for itself.

The government's gonna be better because of it.

The next land transactions that take place in our government will be informed because of what we've done.

We're proud of what we've done.

- Your final response on this issue, Tim Lamb, and then we'll move on.

- Great, yeah I, you know really, if you take a look at this lease, it's from a legislator, why?

That answer, there's no, that question has not been answered yet.

You know, Drew has got a responsibility to answer to the public, and that that enforces the public trust.

If I'm elected, I'm going to keep the public informed.

If there is any shenanigans with a lease, it's gonna be looked at and reviewed.

And then if it's wrong, we're gonna correct it.

That's the way it should work.

Now, right now we're still left up in the air as to what happened, how this lease was put together in the first place.

If it was a sole source bid, that's illegal.

So what we need to do is take a look at this lease and figure out what is going on with it and let the public know what's going on with the public trust money.

These are questions that deserve answers, and then we haven't gotten them yet.

So look, if I'm elected, you can be assured that you're gonna get a straight answer, and I'm not gonna be afraid that if something's wrong, I'm gonna admit that it happened and we're gonna correct it.

That's the way I work.

- Yeah, let's move on, you want, go ahead.

- There was an important development that we should get into today.

Again Tim, I think- - Let's make these quick, and then we'll move on - Is maybe reading about half- - To the Dobbs decision.

- The articles or something.

Two people entered into this contract on behalf of the Attorney General's office, two.

If he had read the articles closely, all the document shows, two people were informed in January of 2021, Wayne Stenehjem, who's no longer with us.

Troy Seibel, who's no longer with the office, as soon as I started finding out about these things, and isn't talking, two people.

They didn't even inform the budget staff until June of 2021, again, a year before I got there.

And the budget staff, this is all documented in the emails in the office about when they were informed of this cost overrun.

So those two people are the two people who entered into that contract.

They didn't vet it through the normal channels in the office.

The professional staff there wasn't aware of it till six months after the fact that the cost overrun had been coming.

And as I said, one of the people entering into that agreement is no longer with us, and one apparently isn't talking.

Now just today Montana- - Now seriously- - Montana has- - Both those guys' emails are all gone.

- Montana has agreed, everybody knows that Tim, and I had nothing to do with it.

- Right, but that's mysterious, isn't it?

- Montana today, Montana today has agreed to take over the independent investigation, their DCI, Division of Criminal Investigation.

I spoke with the Attorney General today.

We, ever since the legislature asked us to get an outside independent look at the audit, which we've now done in just a little over a week.

And they'll be looking at the matter in its full color and glory, and I'm confident everything I've said here today will be borne out in the facts of the case.

- Last word Tim Lamb, then we are moving on to the Dobbs decision.

- Right, and you addressed this question Matt, with the fact that there was a legislator involved with this lease.

So that fact is out there and it hasn't been addressed, why we have a contract, a government contract with a legislator.

Was there some kind of good old boy thing going on here?

We need to know that.

And if there was this contract, this lease should be looked at, whether it's valid or not, and whether it there were some shenanigans involved with it.

That's what the public needs to know.

- Predates my administration and we agree on that.

I think it's a good way to end it.

- Lets go on to Dobbs, the Supreme Court decision which reversed Roe V Wade, sent the issue back to states.

North Dakota has a trigger law that if enacted, it's being stymied by the courts right now, would essentially ban most abortions in the state.

I want both of your reactions to the Dobbs decision, and if elected, what would you do with the trigger law, if the courts do kind of step in and allow that to happen?

Tim Lamb, you start first on this one.

- Yeah, thanks Matt.

Hey look, this is a serious issue.

We've had 50 years of the Roe decision.

Women have had the right to an abortion, and they still do.

But Drew, my opponent, is trying to fight that with one of the best judges in the state, Judge Romanick.

And I'll tell you, you know, it's a waste of time.

You know again, the trigger law may be put in force by the legislature when they get in session.

But look, for time being the judge has given them some time to adjust.

Now look, when I went to law school, I was told by my constitutional law instructor that Roe W Wade was set in law.

And if you looked at all or listened to the Justices that came up before the Judicial Committee during their Senate confirmation hearings, they all said Roe was settled, and it was not gonna be overturned.

Well, guess what happened?

Because of some appointees, now we have a six-three conservative Court.

Well, Roe gets overturned.

We have the Dobbs decision.

The Dobbs decision puts stare decisis, as we call it in legal terms, on its head.

It turns constitutional law upside down.

Women have a right to be outraged, not only liberals, but also conservatives.

Look, you had a right and they took it away.

So that's the problem here.

And women in general I think, what this is saying is women are second-class citizens.

Women don't have the same right anymore to decide.

Whether you need it or not, whether you need an abortion or not, I don't think that's the issue.

The issue is you had the right and now it's gone.

That is very troublesome, that's outrageous.

And as Attorney General, I'm gonna leave the trigger law alone.

I'm gonna leave that alone.

I'm gonna let the legislature deal with that.

But I can tell you, I do support women's rights.

- Drew Wrigley, response.

- My opponent has literally just told the listeners that he's going to disobey North Dakota law if he's Attorney General.

Not figuratively, he's literally said that.

The trigger law, it called on the Attorney General to do one thing, if the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe V Wade, to certify to the legislature that Roe V Wade had been overturned.

It was that simple.

It could have been written in crayon.

So that is what we did, obviously.

And if we didn't, if we weren't good readers and couldn't tell that Roe V Wade had obviously been over read, we could find the sentences where it said it is overturning Roe V Wade.

You have to have humility in this work.

That's not easy for a lawyer sometimes.

You have to have the humility to know you don't run the world.

You are subject to the laws of the land.

You are subject to the laws of the legislature.

The North Dakota legislature in a bipartisan bill signed into law by then Governor John Hoeven, back in, I think it was 2014 or 2007, it is back when Senator now Senator Hoeven was Governor.

It was signed, bipartisan, it was proposed to the legislature.

Bipartisan proposal signed into law, and it contained a trigger.

It said it had provisions for outlawing abortion in certain instances, and then said that it understood that the law of the land at the time was Roe V Wade.

But if it ever changed, the Attorney General, whoever that was going to be, was to certify, basically notify the legislature that that had happened.

Now that would be pretty funny reading of things on my part if I said, "You know what?

I think I'll decide what to do with that law."

No, that law was, that was decided by bipartisan representatives, elected by the people of North Dakota, signed into law by the Governor.

That is the law of North Dakota.

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe V Wade.

They turned this decision back to states and said, "States, this is a matter that isn't explicitly spoken to in the Constitution.

Your elected representatives and your Governors signing things into law, they will make the laws of your state in this realm."

That's what happened.

So all across the United States, abortion laws are taking effect because for the first time in yes, 50 years, the Supreme Court has said that is your responsibility.

They didn't tell them what they had to do with it.

Well, North Dakota had already spoken to it.

My job was to certify, and we did certify.

Judge Romanick, this talk about, he intervened and thought, "Well, we just need a little time to adjust."

That's not the way the law works.

He made some findings, part of which was overturned this afternoon by the North Dakota Supreme Court.

And he's been ordered now to make the findings that he refused to make when he made that order.

I know it's startling, right Tim?

That happened today, and so we'll have that in the weeks up ahead.

But what, people can count on this from me.

I will battle to ensure that we uphold the laws as passed by all the listeners, by the people that they represent, that they elect to represent them.

And that is what we're charged to do with, not this idea that Tim seems to have, if he's outraged about something, that can change the law.

That's not the way that it works.

And that's not the way I'll ever carry out my responsibilities.

I'm here to uphold the people's law in North Dakota.

- [Matt] Tim Lamb, response.

- Yeah, you know it's, we all understand.

I mean, it's a complicated rule that the legislature passed.

They say, "Hey look, if Roe V Wade gets overturned.

we're gonna trigger in abortion, make abortions illegal in the state."

Well, what Judge Romanick said, and when they brought this to the court and it was fraught, he said, "Well, look, give them some time.

Give them some time to make the transition over to Moorhead."

Well, Drew said, "No, we don't think that's right.

We're gonna fight that."

And Romanick said, "No, my rule stands."

Well, I think it's up to really the legislature.

And I guess I understand that North Dakota is gonna, you know, we're gonna eventually lose the right to an abortion.

I get that, and as Attorney General, I will enforce the laws of North Dakota.

But that is not something that I can enforce as the Attorney General.

I can take it to the court, and then I gotta listen to the court, and take their judgment and abide by it.

That's not what Drew did.

He went back and continued to fight this, against what is reasonable in my mind.

Now look, there's more issues that are gonna come out of this, and I'm more concerned about the choice that the doctor has when he's faced with an emergency that a pregnant woman might come into the office with.

And if we don't have abortion rights in our state, how does that affect the doctors?

And I'm really concerned about that, and how the Attorney General is gonna interpret a law that says doctors don't have the right to make that choice.

How is that gonna be interpreted?

- [Matt] Okay, Drew Wrigley, last word in this, and we do need to move on to our next topic.

- Well, I can speak to the issue of eight months of making very difficult decisions as Attorney General, and you're called upon to do that.

What you don't get to do is speak on both sides of the issues when you're making those decisions.

Tim's gonna uphold the law, and then he's gonna flout the law.

He says the judge is just trying to give people a little time to adjust, to move over to Moorhead.

He needs to read the opinion again, it says nothing of the sort.

That wouldn't be a legal opinion at all.

That would be coffee talk in a cafe someplace, this is law.

The law is duly passed by the state of North Dakota's legislature, signed into law, and as I said before, they could have written this provision in crayon.

Tim knows this, he's read it.

It says literally the Attorney General's job is to certify when and if Roe V Wade has been overturned.

Roe V Wade has been overturned, that's been certified.

And Judge Romanick today, was his his order that Tim is mischaracterizing.

But referencing, today has been turned over in part, and the Supreme Court instructed him, "No, you have to explain to us why you think you have any chance of prevailing on this up ahead."

That'll take place up ahead.

But what's important in all of this is the Attorney General has to understand and enforce the law of North Dakota as passed by someone else.

You have to have the humility to know that the people elect these folks to go to Bismark, make the laws, change the laws if they want to, but they've gotta be enforced.

That's my pledge.

That's what I've been doing for eight months as Attorney General.

It's what I pledge to do for the years up ahead if I'm elected.

- Okay, next topic.

Drew Wrigley, recently texts have come to light which seem to show you were in contact with Senator Cramer who forwarded some texts to Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's aide, about recounting certain states in the 2020 election.

Can you comment on this, your involvement in it, and then Tim Lamb, of course you're gonna wanna respond to this as well, your reaction to all this?

- Yes, you bet.

- [Matt] Drew, you start first on this one.

- I had the privilege of twice serving the state of North Dakota as the Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney, both under President Bush and then under President Trump.

Before every single election cycle, the Department of Justice sends out guidance to the US Attorneys, and you're asked to designate one or more Assistant US Attorneys to serve as election officials along with yourself, to notify state officials that you are there as a resource on federal law, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of different things, the carrying out of elections, the counting of ballots where federal elections are impacted.

We did that every single election when I was in office, so that's no different.

In this election, this was a highly contested election, sorta like 2000 was a highly contested election.

Things go to the courts, things go to recounts.

Those aren't, you don't get recounts because someone wants a recount.

You get a recount 'cause state law calls for it if it's so close.

In the initial couple of weeks following the election when things were still very much in flux, there were still recounts going on around the country.

There were news reports sailing all around that states were adjusting the tolerance on signature evaluations by the machines, the recount procedures were being changed, whatever.

Kevin Cramer, who's a close personal friend of mine for 25 years, in addition to being a friend in our public life as well, and I were conversing about the topic, and I'm gonna quote, Tim would leave this part out.

Anybody would, because it was a story for a couple days when it sounded like, "Oh my gosh, Kevin Cramer and Drew Wrigley were advising that the Trump administration on this."

By the way, I was a member of the administration.

Fully lawful, if I wanted to call the White House, I probably could have gotten in.

It would've been completely lawful for me to do so.

But I'm gonna say this, I'm gonna read, this is verbatim.

This is what the listeners need to know I suggested to Kevin Cramer.

In addition to saying that the Trump lawyers were clowns, they were making a mockery of things.

This is serious business.

And there are laws in place in every state.

North Dakota's no different.

And if those laws were being violated around the country, we have a right to have those laws followed.

So I'm gonna read you verbatim.

This is in, I'm in a book now so I guess I'm fancy.

This is what I said.

This is what I said to Kevin, and which he passed on to the White House.

"Demand statewide recounts of absentee mail-in ballots in line with preexisting state law.

With regard to signature comparisons, legislative leaders could pledge, would then pledge to abide by those results no matter what."

That is absolute straight line rule of law.

The thing was becoming a circus, and the allegations that election officials across the United States we're changing the rules, and my comments to Kevin, and we talked about it in private, and then they were passed along, and now they're in a book, were get these people to follow a rule of law and then stand down, whatever happens, happens.

That's the way elections are supposed to be run.

I stand by every syllable of that.

And there's a reason this story, whatever you wanna call it, went away.

As soon as that detailed information came out, people recognize I was completely within my rights.

And you know what?

I don't want an award for it, but the public should know that when I'm having private conversations with a longtime friend of mine, I'm saying the same thing I say in public.

Follow the rule of law, the chips fall where they may.

- Okay, Tim Lamb, response.

- Yeah, the reason this came out to the public light is because apparently this advice from Drew to Senator Cramer got to the Chief of Staff as a scheme, I guess, to undermine the election.

And you know for the life of me, I can't figure out as a United States Attorney, you overstep your boss, the Attorney General Barr, who already said at the time, "Look, I accept the results of the election, that it was a fair election and Biden won."

So now after that, we're trying to overturn or undermine that result.

And Drew, you know, I guess he thought it was within his duty to bring this to the attention of Senator Cramer that, "Hey, do something that's routine."

It's routine.

If you ever go to the county auditor's office after the election, they recount, they count.

I've been on the county canvasing boards where they recount, they take a look at all those ballots and they validate them.

Any ballot that has a question, you're sitting on the table, you look at the ballot and you count it, that's routine.

So to think, "Oh, this is all routine, it's just a friendly conversation."

No, the scheme was to try to get fake electors into Congress.

That was the scheme, and here's a way to do it.

That's outrageous, and as you know, again, we need to take responsibility for our actions.

If that is what was done, accept responsibility and accept the liability for that.

I don't know, the January 6th Committee is taking a look at this.

I don't know what they're gonna come up with, but I'm not sure it's gonna end right with that report that was made public a few weeks ago.

But you know, there are certain rules that you have to follow as US Attorney.

As an Army officer if I did that, I'd be court-martialed.

- [Matt] Drew Wrigley, do you wanna respond to this?

- Tim, you're a good man.

I've met you now three times total I think in my life, and I genuinely like you.

But I've noticed here tonight, you keep mischaracterizing.

I guess you maybe had an idea about what you wanted to say no matter what.

I know you're not gonna contest the verbatim account that I just read, where I urged Kevin to urge the White House to try to get these states to just follow the law as it existed prior to the election.

- That's a news account.

- It's not- - That's nothing- - Just don't interrupt me.

- That's not a legal account.

- Don't interrupt me right now, I didn't interrupt you.

It's not a news account.

- [Matt] You can have last word after- - It is the word, that's what was passed on from Kevin Cramer to the White House.

And I stand by every word of it where I said, "Follow the rule of law and the chips fall where they may.

Legislative readers could pledge to abide by the results no matter what."

That is squarely within my responsibilities.

And if Tim checked the dates on when people said, who said what when, Attorney General Barr made his public pronouncements after this conversation that I had with Kevin Cramer.

The important thing is I said in private what I said in public, and I say here today.

Follow, everybody says this.

You watch elections, follow the rule of law as passed by your legislature, chips fall where they may.

Don't be messing around with that stuff in the middle of an election.

And when you canvass and we go through, and we have recounts and they're close calls, rule of law will get us through all of these things.

When it's followed, the public can have faith.

That's the most important thing.

The public can have faith in that election.

If they followed what I said here, we would've gotten through that many, many weeks in advance.

But lo and behold, they didn't follow what the US Attorney in North Dakota said.

- Tim Lamb, last response.

I do wanna get to a couple more topics after that.

We got about 15 minutes left.

So Tim Lamb last response on this, and then we'll move on.

- Yeah, I'm not aware of any other US Attorney that went out of bounds- - This is what I hear.

- To try to consult with the Chief of Staff and undermine the results of a election.

I haven't heard of any other US Attorney that's done that.

And I really wonder what Bill Barr would say about this, honestly.

- I know what he'd say if he saw my quote, I know what he would say, I'm confident.

- I'm sure he'd investigate it and find out what the facts are, what the real facts are.

- I don't think he'd investigate a US Attorney saying, "We have to follow the rule of law and then accept the results, whatever they are."

We do that every day in this work.

- Yeah, we're- - Tim's never done this work- - We're talking about- - But if he does- - Elections, that's what- - He'll find that's what you have to do.

- That's what I'm after.

- You follow the rule of law- - I didn't know that- - Let the chips fall where they may.

- The US Attorney was involved in political- - I just explained that- - Results.

- Every, no not results, following the rule of law.

- You took a political side- - Every single election- - And that was wrong.

- They ask us to- - Admit it.

- They even instruct us to send out press releases, so that all the people in the state know that the US Attorney is a resource on these matters.

- You were involved- - Tim doesn't know- - On the national level though.

- I did 10 years.

- Not at the state level.

- I worked for that administration.

- That's the national, and you got involved at the national level.

- I talked to my Senator.

- That was wrong, admit it.

- And I'm proud of that.

Like I said, I had the right to, I could call, the US Attorneys can call the White House any day that they wish, I worked for that administration.

I was the highest-ranking Trump administration and Bush administration official in the state of North Dakota.

- Well, you got on, yeah.

- Carrying out my responsibilities for that election.

- You got on the radar of the Chief of Staff.

- As they are articulated.

- And hopefully you're, I don't know.

- [Matt] Last word Tim Lamb, and we are gonna move on.

- You're probably on the radar of the January 6th Committee.

- Last word.

- I don't know.

We'll find out.

- I'm in a book.

- Is that- - I know that, and I stand by every word that I said.

- Okay Tim, last word on this?

Okay, yeah.

- I just think, I just think again, you know, the common theme here is deny, deny, deny, 'cause he was an election denier.

And I guess- - That's slanderous.

- That's probably- - That's slanderous, Tim.

You know that's not true.

- At one time you denied the results of the election.

- Tim, that's slanderous.

- That's not- - That is absolute slander.

I never denied the election, not once, never.

- Well, if you challenged it- - Tim- - You undermined the results, that's denying it.

- You weren't with me on January 6th- - Not, yeah.

- When those things were happening.

You don't know anything about what you just said and you just slandered me, and I'd like an apology.

- Yeah, I tell you- - I think you owe an apology to the voters.

- You know you should, you should apologize- - You can't just say whatever you want.

- To the public for doing what you did.

- Tim, I- - I haven't heard it.

- You're not even able to contest what, I acknowledge what I did, I stand by every bit of it.

It's rule of law, and saying chips fault where they may, and now you've slandered me by saying something that is patently false.

I was never an election denier, never.

- [Matt] Now absolutely the last word.

- You throw around that word, slander.

- [Matt] A few second, and we're gonna move on.

- Like it's- - Not for a moment.

- Like it's candy.

- Like it's actual.

- You know, I don't know.

- Like it's actual.

- You know if it's actionable, let's hear it.

But you know, you're already on the books of saying what you did.

You haven't denied it.

- I just read it today.

- You haven't denied it.

You haven't denied saying what you- - Are you not gonna apply the law?

- Well, you know- - Do you not want the chips to fall where they may, where- - You don't apply the law to yourself.

There's somebody else- - I do it every time.

- That does that, like the January 6th Committee.

Maybe they'll find out something.

- Okay, we are gonna move on.

This was great though, great, great discussion.

I wanna get our AARP question in, our co-sponsor.

Tim Lamb, you start us off on this one.

Would you support the development of a program to provide restitution funds to fraud victims?

And if so, what kinda program would you propose creating and how would you administer it?

Tim Lamb, you start on this one.

- Yeah, I think, you know, fraud and scams are just getting outta hand.

And if I'm elected as Attorney General, look I, you know, the demographics are that we're getting more elderly people, and I really think that we oughta have an elder advocacy committee or maybe even department within the Attorney General's office to really focus on these issues with fraud and scams.

We ought to take a look at prescription drug costs, take a look at the public, make sure the public pension benefits are enforced, and obviously Medicare and Social Security benefits.

You know, those are huge things that we need to protect, and I'm in favor of that.

And obviously protecting services and support for independent living, as well as protecting affordable heat and electrical bills.

Look you know, as far as any restitution, I think that's pretty easy to do.

And what we need, what we would do if I'm elected, is I would have this department take a look at each one of these particular cases, and if there was a scam involved, then restitution is merited.

- Okay, Drew Wrigley response, then we're gonna move on to another topic.

We got about 10 minutes left, this is great.

- Yeah, appreciate this question.

One of our divisions is the CPAD, Consumer Protection Division, which is out there looking for fraud, detecting fraud, investigating, then prosecuting fraud cases.

The CPAD brings in a couple million dollars easily, every biennium.

We've got another, we've got a Medicaid fraud unit that's out.

In just the eight months since I've become Attorney General, they have reclaimed enough money out of Medicaid fraud prosecutions to pay for their entire budget for the two-year biennium.

We're strongly committed.

It's been a privilege, it's just been a privilege in my life to serve 17 years in law enforcement.

Five years at the front lines of one of America's most violent cities as an assistant district attorney, twice as a Presidentially-appointed United States Attorney.

We recognize the vulnerabilities of all citizens.

And when it comes to elder abuse, people out there trying to defraud our more elderly populations, we've been committed across that time period.

This is another thing that Tim and I, you know share, that idea that this is important.

It already is.

It's functioning very, very well in our office.

We remain committed to it.

Our upcoming budget, if anything, seeks to bolster both of those units.

We're adding people to the Medicaid fraud unit in the budget that we're proposing.

It's an ongoing commitment and we've had tremendous success and we're hoping for more.

- Okay, I wanna get one more topic in and Drew Wrigley, you'll start us off on this one.

Two recent shootings in Fargo and Mapleton have drawn interest.

Both instances, Drew Wrigley, you determined the shooting of Shane Netterville in Fargo and Anthony Martinez in Mapleton were justified by police.

I want you to talk both about how this process was reached, and if elected, how would you handle situations like this?

That question for both of you.

Drew Wrigley, you start out.

- If elected for a full term in this office, I will carry it out exactly the way we've carried it out here.

We were asked to evaluate these officer-involved shootings because of the fact that there was some concern with the state's attorneys that the state's attorney in question, Birch Burdick, that it may appear he was too close with the law enforcement entity involved, Fargo Police Department.

We took that responsibility on in our office.

We got the complete, all the police reports, all the information that we could.

The BCI who works at my direction, they conducted independent investigation, sit down, do interviews with the witnesses and with the officers themselves.

A very, very thorough evaluation of the forensic evidence and all the evidence in place.

We had video evidence in both of these incidences.

They were reviewed by frontline staff in my criminal prosecutions unit, and then myself and the Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness.

We evaluated the videotapes as well, went through it all, evaluated the materials that they produced and reached a conclusion.

I based that on my many, many years, almost two decades of evaluating evidence, evaluating crime scenes, evaluating testimony, and we went forward.

We found in each of those incidences, all of the officers involved, their conduct was not only brave and courageous, and it was, it was also justified.

It was also lawful in every respect.

And those unfortunate incidents, these are difficult on the officers and their families as well.

They're terrifying for the families of the victims or the families of the deceased.

It's terrible for them.

I met with them personally, by the way.

There's no protocol for this.

I met with the family members before we announced our decision publicly.

I met with them sitting just like this across the table, showed them the video if they wanted to see it, and answered any of the questions that they had, because I'm an approachable, I'm a transparent, and I'm an accountable official, I took that seriously.

And then we went out and we stood for as long as the media wanted to ask us questions, as many questions as they had, as many follow up questions, because the public needs to understand, why did I make these decisions?

On what did I base that decision?

And that when those officers are going back out onto the street, they're going out there with a clean bill of professional health.

Their conduct in each of those incidents, it was courageous, it was professional, it was justified, and it was lawful.

So that's my pledge is to do that every time.

I said we will always stand before the media and answer these questions, and so the public has a sense, and boy, judging by the number of people I've been stopped by in the weeks since, the public understood what happened in those cases and they support it.

- Okay, Tim Lamb, response.

- Yeah you know, I haven't had the privilege or the advantage as Drew has had in this instance.

He's looked at, I'm sure the body cameras, and he's looked at all the evidence, and being able to come up and reach a conclusion.

I haven't had that benefit.

So all I would say is look, as the Attorney General, if I'm elected, I'm gonna work with all the law enforcement agencies, and I'm really gonna be concerned about how the training is going.

We need to train to these instances.

You know, the police officer, they have a tough, you know the law enforcement, they have a tough, tough, tough job.

And look, I want to support, and I totally support law enforcement, and I will do that by looking at the training package.

In the military, my 20 years in the military, one of the biggest things that we did, and why we have the best military in the world is training.

We really worked on training, and that's what I would do as the Attorney General, and reinforce training with all law enforcement, from your police department to your sheriff's department, to the highway patrol.

All of these departments who do the enforcement of our laws.

I would work with them, make sure that their training is second to none.

And that we bring in some outside experts.

Take a look at these particular instances, and maybe we coulda done a better job, I don't know.

But in instances, in this particular case, I would support what law enforcement did.

- Believe it or not, we have to get to closing statements.

This went very fast, great debate.

Tim Lamb, you go first on your one-minute closing statement.

- Yeah, thank you Matt.

I wanna thank AARP as well and Prairie Public for bringing this debate to the voters.

Look, we had a good debate tonight, and Drew and I, we differ on just about everything.

You understand, you saw it, and I know a lot of people have already voted, but there's a real, real difference between Drew and I.

You witnessed a lot of those differences tonight.

It's our approach, we have a different approach.

I will be open and honest with you and give you the straight scoop, whether it's good or bad.

If it's bad, I'll admit it.

Look, I urge you to get out and vote, and encourage your friends and your family to vote as well.

If elected, I will give you my best.

I have a unique set of skills that I'll bring.

I have 20 years in the military.

- And that's one, that's one minute.

So Drew Wrigley, now your one-minute closing statement.

- Thank you Matt, and thanks, I'm gonna join Tim in thanking Prairie Public and AARP, and I wanna thank Tim again for being here tonight as well.

I've enjoyed the debate very much and this opportunity.

I want to say to your listeners, thanks for tuning in and thanks for engaging in this.

This has been a year-long discussion, but before that, many people have seen me in my work as United States Attorney, and some of my work as Lieutenant Governor, and I've worked assiduously across time to be the most accessible, transparent official in government.

Media all have my phone number.

I give my number out to people, and they wanna reach out to me, I sit down and I'll meet with them and talk.

That's gonna be my approach.

It has been across these years.

They don't have to guess at it.

We've got a plan for dealing with violent crime, which is up over 11% in the state.

My opponent said in a previous debate that he didn't see anything troubling in the crime stats.

Violent crime up 11%, including robberies, that's troubling.

We've got a plan to deal with that.

Poor sentencing on child pornography cases, and people resisting arrest and fleeing from officers.

But I'm not just a knuckle-dragger.

I mean, I'm not just gonna throw the book at everybody.

- That's one minute.

We do need to wrap it up.

- We've got a plan for mental health also.

- Everybody gets a, no everybody gets a one-minute closing, and you both got- - Thanks for having us, Matt.

We appreciate it.

- We do need to wrap it up.

We do need to wrap it up.

- [Tim] I just wanna urge people to vote, and I appreciate your vote.

- So thank you again.

- Thanks.

- Drew Wrigley, Tim Lamb- - Thank you.

- For participating in this very entertaining and informative debate.

My thanks also to AARP North Dakota, our co-sponsor.

Election day is November 8th.

Early voting starts soon, so get out and vote.

I'm Matt Olien for Prairie Public, so long.

(gentle thoughtful music) - [Announcer] Funding for Election 2022 coverage is provided in part by AARP, a non-profit, non-partisan membership association, 83,000 strong in North Dakota.

Find information on how to make your voice heard in the 2022 election at aarp.org/ndvotes.

And by the members of Prairie Public.