Incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert debates Democrat Eileen Laubacher in Colorado

[12:55] Congressional District is the reddest Republican territory in the state, stretching from Dougco [12:59] in Loveland, east to the state line. Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has represented [13:04] that district for two years after she moved clear across Colorado following a near loss [13:09] in her original should-have-been-safe Republican district. Getting attention has always been easy [13:14] for Boebert. Getting things done in Congress has been harder, though finally having Republicans in [13:19] charge has let Boebert add more than rhetoric to her record, and she stood up to President Trump [13:24] in some very public ways. Democrats spend piles of money in unsuccessful attempts to beat Boebert [13:30] every two years. This year, retired Navy Rear Admiral Eileen Laubacher is the well-financed Democratic [13:36] challenger, running on a moderate message of restraining spending and balancing the budget, [13:41] promising to dispense with the drama that has defined Boebert's time in the political spotlight. [13:46] This is their only scheduled debate. Live from Nine News, this is Next Presents, The Race for Congress. [13:53] Thank you for being here. I'm Kyle Clark. Welcome to the candidates, Republican Congresswoman [13:59] Lauren Boebert and her Democratic challenger Eileen Laubacher. Thank you for your willingness [14:04] to take unscripted direct questions so that voters can be better informed. As with all of our debates, [14:10] the only time that we will refer to the candidates with their titles is now, [14:14] Congresswoman Boebert and retired Rear Admiral Eileen Laubacher. Voters in the fourth will determine [14:20] who deserves the title Congresswoman come next year. The candidates tonight will have one minute [14:24] to answer most questions. There's a countdown clock that is visible to them. If you don't need the [14:29] full minute to answer, don't worry about it. You will get plenty of time to talk here tonight. [14:34] Respectful exchanges between the candidates are always welcome because voters deserve to hear [14:38] where you disagree. Don't feel like you have to wait for me to invite you to join the conversation [14:41] if you hear something with which you disagree. I'll occasionally ask you a short answer question [14:46] and ask you to respond briefly. The questions have been prepared by nine news journalists. We should [14:51] say they have not been shared with anyone else in advance. Ms. Laubacher will have the final closing [14:56] statement. So Ms. Boebert will have the first opening statement. You have one minute. Thank you so much, [15:03] Kyle. And thank you so much to the voters of Colorado. You know me. I'm a mom. I'm a granny. And I [15:11] represent you. I serve you. I fight for you each and every day. I deliver results. And some may say [15:17] that I get loud. But when I get loud, that means that Lamar is heard. Burlington is heard. Holyoke [15:25] is heard. And results are delivered on your behalf. I want to thank you once again for welcoming me to the [15:31] 4th District. I'm the only candidate you'll hear from tonight who has actually made a home for myself [15:37] in the 4th District alongside of you where my children had a wonderful fresh start, have been integrated [15:43] into our community schools. And we aren't multi-millionaires who are banking on military [15:49] industrial complex stocks and hoping to benefit from all of the military budgets that are passed. [15:58] I deliver for our farmers and ranchers and producers. And I will continue fighting for you. And I look [16:02] forward to this debate. Ms. Boebert, thank you. Ms. Laubacher, your opening statement. [16:06] Thank you, Kyle. Thank you so much for having us here tonight. So my name is Eileen Laubacher. I did serve [16:11] for 34 years in the military, active in reserve. And I've always felt called to serve our country. [16:17] I felt called when I went to Afghanistan in 2009. And when I retired in 2024, looking forward to [16:23] spending time with my five beautiful children and my three wonderful grandchildren and my beloved [16:27] husband, I felt called again to try to make a difference in this time. I felt that in Washington, [16:32] there was just too much chaos. Too many people who don't seem to understand the job, understand that [16:37] this job is not actually about the person who holds the office, but the people they represent. [16:41] I have spent this, these last year traveling over every inch of this district. I've traveled over [16:47] 40,000 miles. I've done over a hundred meet and greets, talking to people everywhere. And more [16:52] importantly, listening, listening to doctors and nurses and CEOs of hospitals and firefighters and [16:57] police officers and small business owners and teachers. That's what I believe the job is about. [17:02] It is about understanding that this is supposed to be about them and not about you. I'm here to [17:07] serve again. Thank you very much. Ms. Laubacher, you have called Ms. Boebert an embarrassment. [17:14] You have said that she is not a patriot. You have gone so far as to suggest that she is a domestic [17:19] threat to America. It's certainly one thing to disagree with her policy views or even to question [17:24] her behavior. It's a different thing to question her patriotism and suggest that she's a threat to [17:28] America. Why do you say that about her? I think that what happened on January 6th speaks for itself. [17:33] But I also think that this job is about understanding when it's time to stand up for the people of [17:38] Colorado and when it's time to stand up for the Constitution. And to me, that's what the job is [17:42] about. What is the threat that you believe Ms. Boebert poses to America? I believe on January 6th, [17:48] Ms. Boebert posed a threat to America. She says that the election wasn't a valid one. I think that's a [17:53] real problem for me. So it was her speech on that day, the fact that she did not vote to certify the [17:59] election results. Yes. Okay. Ms. Boebert, do you care to respond to her characterization about [18:03] your patriotism? The previous five Republican presidents were challenged for the Electoral [18:08] College results. And I have not heard Ms. Laubacher criticize any of the Democrats that challenged [18:14] those Electoral College results. I stand by my speech and by my votes that day. And I stand by the [18:21] voters here in the district. That's why I'm bringing millions of dollars for water and infrastructure. [18:26] I'm bringing emergency response payments to our sugar beet farmers and getting them the results [18:33] that they have long waited for. So there's nothing in question about my patriotism, my service to my [18:39] country. I too have sworn an oath to my country and I take that very seriously. So certainly there's a [18:45] big gulf between random Democrats or even prominent Democrats questioning election results and then a [18:50] concerted effort by a Republican president you supported to retain power after he lost an election. [18:57] I think I heard you say that you stand by the fact that you attempted to help him retain power [19:02] after he lost an election. I think we saw a lot of illegitimacies in that election. Election laws were [19:09] broken. Hundreds of thousands of ballots were sent out illegally against the state constitution, against the [19:15] federal constitution. And so there were questions about the certification of that election. But here [19:21] we are in 2026 President Trump is president once again. I have continued my service for Colorado [19:28] representing 53 of our 64 counties. I travel hundreds of thousands of miles throughout the years [19:35] and I meet and listen with my people and deliver for them. Ms. Bober, your opponent has also made some [19:41] of your questionable personal conduct and some of your outbursts of focus of this race. You [19:46] acknowledge as much in your opening about the idea that you get loud sometimes about things. [19:50] I will say as a journalist who has covered your entire political career, [19:54] it seems like there has been a lot less of that in the last two years. Is that a choice on your part? [19:59] Is that a reaction to negative feedback that you got from voters? Is it simply the fact that [20:04] Republicans now run a lot of things in Washington? Has your behavior changed and why? When I first arrived [20:11] to Washington D.C. I didn't expect to be there and have a lot of these policy discussions each and [20:18] every day. But I learned the job. It was more than just defending constitutional rights and getting loud [20:23] and being angry. I went there to provide solutions and that's exactly what I've done. And part of that [20:28] is working across the aisle. I have built coalitions with our Colorado congressional delegation, [20:35] with our United States senators, both Hickenlooper and Bennett. I have formed relationships with even [20:40] Governor Polis on issues. And we work together in bipartisan and bicameral ways to deliver for [20:46] Colorado. I think it's great to have an approach to learn how to disagree better. And that's exactly [20:53] what I've done. And that is why we have got so much done for Colorado. I was just recently in [20:58] Senator Bennett's office talking about the Water Resources Development Act and getting the Arkansas [21:03] Valley Conduit language in the Senate version so we can keep that promise to 50,000 water users in [21:09] southeast Colorado. Ms. Lockbrocker, do you care to respond? Again, this idea of a lot of your focus has [21:15] been on get the drama out of the job. But do you think that she's toned it down in the last two years? [21:21] I think that it seems to me that there is a cloud of chaos that frequently surrounds her. But more [21:29] importantly than that is the fact that I think that she's failing to deliver for the people of Colorado. [21:33] Because people that I talk to talk all the time about the costs, excessive costs that are making [21:38] life so very difficult. And she's voting for things that continue to push those forward. Tariffs more than [21:43] eight times, the Iran war. These are real problems for people in Colorado. You've said that you've [21:47] supported tariffs. And you even agreed with President Trump's tariffs in his first administration. [21:52] I've heard you go back and forth saying tariffs are good, tariffs are bad, they're a tool. [21:56] I don't know. It really depends on who you're talking to. Actually, I would say that's not true. [22:00] Tariffs are a tool and can be used effectively. But what is happening right now is not being used as a [22:05] tool. I believe they are an effective tool. Well, that's not what farmers and ranchers feel. [22:10] That's not what people, when I'm talking, when I'm in Lamar talking to farmers and they're [22:13] telling me that they're concerned about a bowl that cost seven dollars three years ago. [22:17] We're sad that you deceived them in thinking they were going to [22:20] a community barbecue when it was a meet and greet for your campaign. And when they showed up, [22:24] they were very surprised to see you. I'm sorry that you're deceiving our farmers and ranchers [22:28] and tricking them to come to your events. I am 100 percent. [22:30] That's a shocking thing for you to say, Congresswoman. That is not something that I would ever do. [22:34] That's what I heard from my farmers and ranchers that I represent. [22:36] I was there with the farmers and ranchers, with whom I had great conversations and all kinds of [22:41] interesting discussions about the policies that they're really concerned about, [22:44] many of which are what we're talking about right now. [22:46] Many of which I'm going to deliver. [22:48] Talking about the Iran war, which is continuing, and you voted for five times, [22:52] which is making gas prices more expensive, diesel prices more expensive, [22:56] the tariffs, which are making every aspect of their jobs more expensive. [22:59] A farmer at the very round table was talking to me about a bolt that he had to buy for it to [23:05] connect his tractor to his combine. It used to cost him seven dollars three years ago, [23:10] and now it cost him 28 dollars and 20 cents. That's a real concern for people who are really [23:14] trying to get food on our tables, and we should be supporting them. And the tariffs that you are [23:20] supporting are not used like a scalpel, are not used in a way that is effective in making a difference. [23:26] It is hurting people all over the state. [23:28] Ms. Laubacher, thank you. We will return to tariffs. [23:30] We will return to the war in Iran. [23:33] Welcome your disagreement to the extent that you can. Please try not to talk over each other, [23:36] because it can be a little bit tough for folks at home to sort that out. [23:38] Ms. Bovert, this Republican Congress is strikingly unproductive, passing fewer than half the laws [23:45] of the last Congress on track for the fewest in decades. One of the few things that this Republican [23:51] Congress did accomplish, though, was passing the first federal housing reform in 30 years, [23:56] a bill aimed at making homeownership more affordable. Every Democrat and every other Republican in [24:00] Colorado's delegation voted for that bill. You did not. Affordability is obviously a top concern. [24:05] You were the lone no vote in the delegation. Why? [24:08] Yes, so in this bill, I did vote for our House version of the bill, and I do agree that hedge funds [24:14] should not be buying up our single-payer homes. This was great in concept, but when we got the Elizabeth [24:20] Warren Senate version back and there was a central bank digital currency system language that was [24:28] attached to that, I could not support this bill. We have to have anti-CBDC language signed into law [24:36] and codified so we are not living under a further surveillance state, unfortunately, like my opponent [24:41] would like to have, who supports flock surveillance and has worked for foreign registered Saudi agents [24:49] who also promote AI surveillance for Israel. So with this, I absolutely applaud the base of the bill. [25:01] The House version was better. I could not support the Senate version, and also it's not going to help [25:06] us with a supply if we can't even get a mortgage. That's why I've introduced legislation so you can [25:11] actually take your rent payments and apply them to your credit score so people can get approved for [25:17] that mortgage. It's not just about supply, it's about how to actually get approved. So there's [25:21] a bit to unpack there. You're concerned with the housing reform bill that was supported by every [25:26] member of the U.S. House except for you and 12 other Republicans. Your concern was the central bank [25:31] digital currency. That is correct. Because there were restrictions on that in the bill, but there was [25:36] not an outright ban on it. Correct. And you're concerned with the idea of digital money is privacy related. [25:42] Yes, this is privacy related. It is not good for our lenders. And that was enough to toss out the [25:47] housing bill in your mind. It was that dangerous. Yes, it should have never been attached to it, [25:51] and our House version did not have that. Okay. So, yes. You also said that your opponent worked for [25:57] registered foreign agents. Can you explain what that's about? Yes. Well, as soon as there was the [26:03] implosion of the Gaza Pier, she retired from the military, went to K2 and a military consultant firm, [26:10] and they were quickly awarded nearly $1 billion in contracts after she spent some time in Hawaii with [26:17] them. And then she went to West Exec. And that's a subsidiary of Taneo. And this is a FARA, [26:25] Saudi registered agent. And I think it's very concerning to ever consider that we could trust [26:32] again Eileen Laubacher with our sensitive national security issues after she has worked directly for [26:39] a firm owned by Saudi agents. Ms. Laubacher. So, first of all, K2, the company that I worked for, [26:46] is a startup that is in Hawaii that worked to do the Maui rebuilding after the fires there. [26:52] I did a little bit of consulting work for them, and I did about $1,500 worth of consulting for [26:58] West Exec. That never worked out between us. And those were the only two things that I did after [27:04] I retired from the military. What specifically did you consult on? Projects where? For West Exec? [27:10] No specific projects. I went to three meetings and they said that they would see if there was anything [27:15] anything that worked for my background and it never did. And then I left the firm. And K2, [27:20] the other company, what work did you do for them? So for K2, it's a startup. So you do work just to help [27:26] them begin. They were good people who cared about Maui and cared about Hawaii. And I lived in Hawaii as a [27:34] military kid and they were doing good work after the Maui wildfires to help to clean up the sites that [27:41] were there. And it was a really important rebuilding effort. Ms. Bober, do you have any evidence that [27:45] she did anything to benefit the Saudis? Working for the company, I think that that's a big problem to [27:50] actually work for a company that is a subsidiary of Taneo that is owned by the Saudis. Yes, [27:56] this is also connected with Doug Band and Epstein enablers. I mean, this goes pretty deep. [28:02] Well, we'll have the opportunity to talk about the Epstein files as well. There's one more thing [28:05] that I wanted to unpack from your answer there where you said that your opponent supports Flock [28:08] surveillance. You're obviously running a bill that would dismantle Flock surveillance around the [28:13] country. Ms. Laubacher, a short answer from you. What role do you believe the federal government [28:17] should have around Flock and other surveillance video camera companies? So I think Flock cameras are like [28:23] many things have tremendous potential, but also tremendous danger. And I do not support them [28:27] being used and I am not. You did and you deleted your tweet saying that you did. You had a tweet [28:32] supporting Flock surveillance in Castle Rock, Colorado, and you deleted that tweet when you [28:37] decided to run for Congress. The so, so that I do not support Flock cameras anymore. Is that a [28:45] position that you've changed your mind on? No, it is not a position that I've changed my mind on. If there [28:49] was a tweet that was put out that supported it, that was not something that I ever approved of. [28:55] And I do not believe that we should have Flock cameras used in Douglas County, Colorado. Now, [29:01] I would say I've heard from many military leaders and anything that happens under their command, [29:06] they take responsibility for just like the implosion of the Gaza Pier. I have not heard her take [29:11] responsibility for that. And now she's not even taking responsibility for tweets that were posted [29:16] on her account, Facebook posts, saying that she supports Flock cameras. She's already passing [29:22] the buck to someone who is underneath her instead of taking a stand. What specifically are you [29:26] alleging about the Gaza Pier? When she was a member of the senior director on the National Security [29:31] Council, she started as a oceanographer for weather services and she had a direct oversight over the [29:40] Gaza Pier and making this be a success. And of course it was not. And at least three people died, [29:48] more than 60 were injured. Sergeant Stanley was killed, a U.S. military personnel. And right after [29:56] the Gaza Pier imploded, my opponent retired from the military and went to work for these military [30:03] contractors, told everyone that she wanted to go home and spend time with her kids. But instead, [30:08] she was securing billion-dollar contracts for K-2 and then decided to run for Congress. [30:14] Thank you very much. Ms. Laubacher, if you'd like a short response, then we're going to move on to [30:17] another topic. Yes. So to be clear, when I worked at the White House, I was the senior director for [30:22] South Asia. That has literally nothing to do with the Gaza Pier. I had nothing to do with the Gaza Pier. [30:27] That I had nothing to do with Gaza policy. I worked for South Asia. So if I could inform you, [30:33] South Asia is India and the surrounding countries, none of which are anywhere near Gaza. You were [30:39] advising Joe Biden, correct? I was not on the Gaza Pier. Okay. So it is... [30:43] I feel like we've established the geography. Thank you. [30:45] We're going to move on to the Iran War. Ms. Boebert, let's talk about the cost of President Trump's [30:50] war on Iran. 21 U.S. service members killed, more than 800 wounded, almost $50 billion in war [30:56] fighting expenses, estimates that Americans have paid double that amount in terms of more expensive gas [31:01] and diesel. Has President Trump's war on Iran been worth the cost? [31:05] Ms. Boebert, I never wanted us to be in war, at war in Iran. This has been detrimental on many levels. [31:13] I also will stand by and say that President Trump is the commander-in-chief and he is not the first [31:19] president to use force through his powers as commander-in-chief. Bill Clinton has done this in [31:26] Kosovo, Obama in Libya, Obama sending more than 30,000 troops with boots on the ground. We do not [31:33] have boots on the ground. I do agree that this is expensive and I hear from Republicans, unaffiliated [31:38] and Democrats, that they want this to come to an end and so do I. I also have voted against symbolic... [31:46] Could I ask you, what are you doing to stop it? We are having conversations with the Department of War [31:52] and with the President and his administration on a regular basis about how to come to an end with this. [31:58] A symbolic procedural vote put on by progressive Democrats is not going to be the answer and to [32:05] give Iran a clear end date so then they could do something afterwards. This was never about regime [32:11] change, as my opponent thinks. This was about ensuring Iran never had a nuclear weapon and I [32:18] support that and I support those efforts and I hope that we come to a resolve very soon. [32:22] Ms. Bower, thank you. For the record, the President gave shifting rationale for the war. [32:26] At one point it was regime change, another point it was the bomb and there were others in the mix. [32:31] Ms. Laubacher, President Trump says that the war on Iran is necessary to prevent that regime from [32:35] acquiring a nuclear weapon. How would you seek to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if not through [32:41] the means the President is employing? The President said that all of the nuclear ability of Iran to [32:46] develop a nuclear weapon was obliterated back in the summer of 2025. Therefore, it doesn't [32:51] seem to me that the Iranians could be weeks or days away from a nuclear bomb. While I agree that they [32:57] should not have a nuclear bomb, when negotiations are on the table, you do not start war. And to be [33:02] clear, it is Congress who has the responsibility to declare war. And so saying that it is purely [33:08] ceremonial for Congress to be voting on whether or not war should continue is simply a lack of [33:15] understanding of one's job. Your job is to vote whether or not you think the war should continue. [33:21] And Ms. Boebert has voted now, I believe, five times to keep this war going. And so you can say [33:26] all day long that you don't want there to be war and you want it to draw to a close, but you're not using [33:30] your voice to raise the voices of the people that you describe in Congressional District 4 [33:35] who are opposed to this war. Your job is to be their voice in Congress, their voice to the President, [33:41] saying we do not want this war and you are failing to do that. [33:45] Did President Biden successfully constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions? [33:50] So I think that President Biden was working on, look, I don't cover Iran when I was the [33:55] Senior Director for South Asia, but from an outsider perspective, I would say that I think [34:00] that there could have been more done to put pressure on Iran to go back to the negotiating table and make [34:05] sure that we kept them from getting a nuclear bomb. And I think that that was very important. [34:09] And it was a missed opportunity. It's been mismanaged. But there is a reason that for 40 [34:13] plus years now we have not gone to war with Iran. And that is because whenever we run an exercise, [34:19] and in the military we've run hundreds of exercises to see what Iran would look like, [34:23] this is what happens. The Straits of Hormuz close. There are unintended consequences. [34:28] War is very serious. The fact that 150 schoolgirls were killed is serious. [34:32] I've also heard my opponent agree on a podcast that war is good for business. Laugh and say, [34:39] right, to a man saying war is good for business because American companies make money. [34:44] War is the most awful thing that can happen, and I would just tell you. [34:49] And you did not say it was awful. You laughed and chuckled and said, right. And I've also heard [34:53] her on the Jeff Hunt radio show saying that Afghanistan, the Afghanistan war was worth it. [34:59] I believe only one of us have been to war. If you believe no war is worth it, [35:04] then you should be voting against this war. And believe you me, no one knows more than I the cost [35:10] of war. I have lost friends, many friends to wars. No part of me is okay with war when negotiations are [35:19] on the table for you to actually stop this and actually prevent Iran from having a nuclear [35:25] weapon. I've never heard criticisms from Joe Biden and his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, [35:31] killing American citizens, leaving $86 billion of our military equipment behind. [35:36] I have not heard you criticize even the war in Ukraine. In fact, you want to fund it further. [35:44] We are not fighting in the war in Ukraine. Number one. Number two, [35:47] the withdrawal from Afghanistan was the withdrawal from Afghanistan was horrible and horrific. [35:53] I was the senior defense attache to New Delhi, India at the time. And what happened was terrible [35:58] and a tragedy. I want to be clear. War is the worst thing that can happen. And we do not go to war [36:04] when negotiations are on the table and negotiations on the table were negotiations were on the table [36:10] with this administration. And that is what we should have been doing. And we should have given those [36:14] serious efforts that takes time to negotiate with a government like Iran. And instead of that, [36:20] we go to war and we accidentally kill 150 school girls. And we have service members who have died [36:25] and service members who have potentially life changing injuries, which I think the Department [36:30] of Defense is not being forthcoming about. A short answer from each of you on this. President Trump [36:35] just announced a deal on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring more Russian [36:39] diesel into the world market in order to bring down prices here at home ahead of the election. [36:44] Do you support the deal with Putin for Russian diesel, Ms. Laubacher? [36:47] No, I do not. Ms. Bovert? Yes, I do. [36:50] All right. Could you explain why? And then we'll go over here. [36:51] Yes. So I've personally been sanctioned by Russia, so I'm no fan of Putin. But I do believe that [36:58] the president is using all of his capabilities to lower the prices of diesel and fuel in this time [37:04] where Americans are demanding it. Thank you. Ms. Laubacher, why do you oppose the deal with Putin? [37:08] Because I think that we could do some things just as easily with Canada with regard to that and not [37:12] support Putin and the war that he's waging against Ukraine. Thank you. Ms. Laubacher, [37:17] you have an ad running right now that says that you are done with the extremists in both parties. [37:22] Yes. Who are the extremists in your Democratic Party? Please name them and explain how you'll stand [37:26] up to them. I think what's extreme is you want me to name specific people? Yes, specific people. I [37:32] don't think that's really necessary, Kyle. I think it's more important to talk about the things [37:35] that they want to do and the things that I want to do. What I want to do is find ways to work in [37:40] a bipartisan way to include voting on important bipartisan housing legislation, which I would have [37:45] absolutely done. But I think it's also important to find ways to find middle ground with people. [37:50] I believe that we have way more in common across the aisle than we do that separates us. But I believe [37:55] that the loudest voices on both sides are the ones that are making the most noise and people think that [37:59] that that is what we should be listening to. And I do not think so. How are voters to believe that [38:04] you will stand up to people who you will not even name? Because I think, because I think that if I [38:11] name three and forget two, like that's not going to help anyone. Also, I think it's important to [38:16] understand that I think what we need to do is, is stand up for things that are right. So for instance, [38:22] I'm extremely critical of the Democratic Party. I'm extremely critical of President Biden's open [38:26] border policy. As an intelligence officer, I think that was a terrible policy and not something we [38:30] should ever have. The United States needs secure borders. That's important to me. I believe in, [38:35] I think we'll probably get to this, Kyle, but I used to be a Republican who believed in strong [38:39] national defense and a balanced budget. And I don't think the Republican Party believes that anymore. [38:44] We'll get there. Yes. Ms. Bober, you recently filed your financial disclosure that listed no assets [38:50] and a bit of debt, which is unusual for a member of Congress, but not all that unusual for an average [38:53] American. And I'll take you to your word that the financial disclosure is accurate. Here's my [38:57] question. At a time when a lot of Coloradans in the fourth congressional district are struggling [39:02] financially, including yourself, apparently, are you comfortable with President Trump and his family [39:06] enriching themselves by more than a billion dollars, mostly from crypto? And if you aren't comfortable [39:12] with the president and his family getting rich off his presidency, what can you do about it? [39:16] Ms. First of all, I think the headline says, Lauren Boebert is broke. And yes, [39:20] you know, divorce is hard and I've rent my home like many Americans do. And unfortunately, I think [39:27] that the disclosure we need to be looking at as Coloradans in the fourth district is my opponent's [39:33] financial disclosure disclosure. I do not trade stocks. I am for banning trading stocks for members of [39:41] Congress. And any military budget that would be passed if Eileen Laubacher were in Congress would [39:47] directly financially benefit her household. They are multimillionaires from military industrial [39:53] complex complex stocks. Her husband works for Lockheed Martin. He doesn't need to disclose that [40:00] amount, but the stocks do need to be disclosed. They are multimillionaires with multiple homes in [40:06] Colorado. And even her out of district home in Jefferson County was just recently used [40:11] the mailing address to donate to other Democrats. And I think it's unfortunate that she can't even [40:17] name Mila Kiros as one of the extreme Democrats that while she was rising up to power in Colorado, [40:25] Eileen Laubacher identified with her and the DSA candidates and said, that's the party for me. [40:30] That is where I find my values. Ms. Boebert, thank you. I'm going to ask Ms. [40:34] Laubacher about her financial situation in just a minute. But just to be clear, [40:38] you're talking about entanglements that her husband had. Your former husband worked in the oil and gas [40:42] industry. You never took votes to benefit his business, did you? No, I did not. He actually [40:46] lost his job because of my job. But you think that she would take votes to benefit her husband? [40:51] Well, when you are trading stocks, when you are trading stocks for the military industrial complex [40:56] and you are getting rich when those bills are passed and when those contracts are made, [41:01] then yes, that would directly benefit her family and her household who's already multimillionaires [41:06] with multiple homes in Colorado, while many folks can't afford to buy one home. [41:11] And again, my question was actually whether you're comfortable with the Trump family enriching [41:14] themselves off the presidency. And I didn't hear an answer to that. [41:17] President Trump was a billionaire before he came to office. He lost a lot of money being [41:22] president and he stepped up to serve once again. In his first term. He's done quite well in this [41:26] second one. He's done well. And you know, if there's anything illegal, then he'll have to answer to [41:30] that. I've never been one to cover up for any wrongdoings on either side of the aisle. And I have no [41:35] problem standing up to even my own party. Ms. Laubacher, would you like to make a short [41:39] response to how you would handle your family's finances if elected to Congress? Sure. So, [41:44] the money that we're talking about is my husband's 401k. Chris has worked for Lockheed Martin for 36 [41:48] years now. And that's the money that he's put away in every paycheck since he started working there. [41:53] We would absolutely make sure that we put all, but we never move that money because we don't know [41:58] what we're doing financially. We just put it in the same four funds every year. And we would absolutely put [42:04] it into a blind trust to make sure that we were not trade, that that money was not getting traded [42:09] while we were there. Ban on everybody in Congress? Oh, 100%. 100%. Yes. And I don't believe they [42:16] should be lobbyists once they leave either. Okay. Ms. Bover, President Trump is going to need [42:20] Republican control of Congress to continue to implement his agenda for the final two years [42:24] in office. How do you believe that the first two years of this Trump administration [42:29] have benefited specifically the Coloradans in the fourth? I've certainly brought back victories for [42:34] farmers and ranchers. I have been named as one of the conferees for the farm bill that I hope that we [42:43] pass before this Congress is out of session. And that makes me one of the final voices. I have [42:50] designated millet as a specialty crop, fought for clean drinking water in Southeast Colorado, [42:57] my CREP Improvement Act for conservation projects with our farmers and ranchers. Returned [43:03] payments to our sugar beet farmers that we're waiting for since 2020 for those payments. We have [43:09] brought the USDA, we are bringing the USDA hub to the Colorado State University in Fort Collins, [43:16] which is a massive benefit to our district. So there have been many successes, 11 million dollars for [43:24] roads and water projects that are already in use. We are also on track to have 15 million dollars more [43:32] brought back to the district for roads and water projects. Ms. Boeber, thank you very much. Ms. [43:38] Laubager, if Democrats take control of Congress, in addition to a whole panoply of Democratic priorities, [43:43] there will also be calls to investigate President Trump and his family and his cabinet and other [43:48] members of his administration, likely even calls for impeachment. If Democrats take the House and [43:52] potentially the Senate, what if anything should they do to hold Trump and members of his [43:56] administration accountable for what they see as wrongdoing or potentially crimes? [44:00] Ms. So I think that what people of the Colorado's fourth congressional district expect is for us to [44:06] actually deliver for them. Deliver for them on costs and on housing and all of the things that [44:10] are making their lives so very difficult. Healthcare, rural hospitals, those are the things that I'm most [44:15] concerned about. I do not want us to waste two more years trying to impeach the president. I do not [44:20] think that that is a good use of our time. I think it is important for people to be held responsible for [44:25] the things that they do that are unlawful and unethical and I hope that that happens. But I think that what we really need to do [44:31] is to be a more effective Congress than we see right now. That's only passed 46 pieces of legislation [44:36] in the last year and a half. And I think that's pretty appalling. I think that we need to do more. [44:41] I want to get to Congress and get on the Agriculture Committee and pass a farm bill because that's what our farmers [44:46] need. We haven't had one for eight years. Not the entire time that Congresswoman Boebert has been in [44:51] Congress have we had a farm bill that matters for people and we need that. People are suffering. Rural hospitals are in jeopardy and [44:58] and we're not coming up with solutions for them. Ms. Laubacher, thank you. Ms. Boebert, a short answer [45:02] here please. You introduced articles of impeachment against President Biden for violating his oath by [45:07] failing to secure the southern border. Using the same standard, do you believe President Trump has [45:11] ever violated his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States? [45:14] I believe that Joe Biden absolutely did when he opened up our southern borders. [45:19] Indeed. Would you believe that President Trump has ever violated that same? [45:22] I do not. I think that President Trump has secured our country. [45:25] Ms. Laubacher, do you believe that President Trump has ever violated his oath to preserve, [45:28] protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution? I think that we are in a dangerous time and I [45:35] think that it is possible that he has violated that oath, but I think that we should not be spending time [45:41] trying to impeach the president when that is not what the people of this district need or deserve. [45:46] Ms. Laubacher, as you mentioned earlier, you were a long-time Republican and then you were very [45:51] briefly an unaffiliated voter and then a Democrat kind of a span of a couple of months in 2024. [45:56] Could you tell us about why you first became and then stayed a Republican all of those years and [46:01] then why you became a Democrat? [46:02] Ms. Laubacher, Sure. So when we moved here in 1998 when I got off active duty for the first time, [46:07] I believed in a strong defense and a balanced budget and I believed that [46:12] and individual liberties and I thought that that's what the Republican Party stood for. [46:16] I liked people like Senator John McCain when he was running against George W. Bush. [46:20] I feel that we have gone from that party to a party that's nearly unrecognizable that just added [46:28] five trillion dollars to the deficit in the last budget bill and that to me is and is and frankly [46:34] doing harm to our military, both putting us into unnecessary wars and more than that kicking out [46:40] leaders for giving best military advice, which is what we're supposed to do in the military. [46:46] And that concerns me about what that means for the future of our country. And so I believe in [46:52] personal liberties and I believe in people's rights to live the life that they choose. And to me, [46:56] that is all found in the Democratic Party and not in the Republican Party anymore. [47:00] What was the tipping point for you? Because certainly there were a lot of Republicans that [47:04] that were not comfortable with Donald Trump in 2016 or after four years were not comfortable in 2020. [47:09] There were people who saw January 6th, 2021 and said, I'm not going to associate with the Republican [47:13] Party. But you were down with all that and we got all the way to 2024 and then you became a Democrat. [47:18] What was the tipping point 2024? So I think like many people, Kyle, I don't feel like I ever I ever felt [47:24] like being being one person, you know, being registered a Republican or registered a Democrat. [47:30] It doesn't define me as an individual. I've always voted for a person, not party. [47:34] I've always thought about. Then why did you switch parties to run for Congress? [47:38] So I've always thought about who is the right. Well, that's a completely different thing, [47:41] isn't it, Congresswoman Boebert? You represent a party. That doesn't mean that I agree with [47:45] every person in the Democratic Party. But it mattered enough to change [47:47] your party affiliation. It did matter to me. So when I changed party affiliation to unaffiliated [47:52] when I was an admiral on active duty and I felt that I shouldn't be, it just didn't seem right to [47:57] me to sit in either party. I felt like it, you know, as military people were nonpartisan. When we moved here [48:02] in 98. How long were you an unaffiliated voter for? Um, a year. Yeah, like less than a year. [48:08] Less than a year. And then you and then you became a Democrat. Yeah. [48:12] Did you change your party to run for Congress? So when I, I changed my party because my view [48:20] of what the parties represented changed. And it changed around 2024. When the DSA candidates [48:25] were all taking center seat. So from my perspective, I believe that like most people, [48:30] Democrats, I've never felt like I fit into either party a hundred percent. And there has been never, [48:35] you know, I'm, I'm 58 years old and I voted for 40 years and I've never thought to myself [48:41] that one person that I voted for, I agreed with every single thing that they said. I just don't [48:45] think that that's the way most of us work. And I'm sure, I'm sure some folks would agree with you on [48:49] that. I also think it's a fair question for voters to ask of whether you have gone through a significant [48:52] transformation simply in order to run for Congress. So I'd also, when did you move into the district? [48:57] We moved, we moved into the district in 2024. So my youngest son graduated from high school. [49:02] Okay. And once he retired, we downsized into the house that we're living in now. [49:07] And that's that, which is, which is right size for myself and my husband. When all the kids come [49:11] home for Thanksgiving, it gets a little bit crowded, but it's the right size for us. [49:15] And you sold the big house. So we have not sold the big house yet. That's a little hard to do. [49:19] Your political contributions still show up from your house in Littleton, which is not in the district. [49:24] As of two months ago, there were political donations that show up under your name from [49:29] an address outside the district, but you don't live at that house. [49:31] We do not. We're renting that house out. [49:33] Okay. Yes. [49:35] What would you say to voters who might be uneasy with the fact that you changed [49:38] both your political party and your address and then launched a run for Congress? [49:44] So I think, I think I would talk to them about why I changed my political party and who I am [49:50] and what I, and what are the things that I believe in. And I believe in passing bipartisan legislation. [49:57] And I believe in doing things that are right for the district and not for a party or for an individual. [50:01] I believe that most Americans, when I served in the military for such a long time, I joined the Navy [50:07] way before people were thanking me for, for my service. But I, I served my country, right? Not a party, [50:15] not a person. I worked under presidents of both parties, from Reagan, all the way to President [50:19] Biden. And, and I think that like most people, I don't think that political party is a defining [50:27] characteristic of who we are. We moved because it was the right time for us to move from our family [50:33] home down to a house that suits myself and my husband. But to be clear, we moved 10 miles. So [50:40] the neighborhood where we live now is where our doctors are and always have been. This is where my [50:44] kids played soccer. This is a big part of our life. This is not a huge move for our family. [50:49] Ms. Laubacher, thank you. Ms. Boeber, you voted to support President Trump's tariffs on Canada, [50:55] key trading partner for Coloradans. Republican Congressman Jeff Hurd of Colorado voted against [50:59] those Canada tariffs. He said that they're hurting farmers and ag producers and manufacturers here. [51:03] And he also pointed out that Congress holds the tariff power under the constitution, not the president. [51:07] Why do you believe that President Trump's tariffs on Canada are one constitutional and two worth the [51:13] harms to Coloradans? I think President Trump is using our, our tariffs as, as a tool. Even the founding [51:19] of our country, we didn't have a federal income tax. We had tariffs that funded the federal government, [51:27] and it would be great to get back to abolishing that federal income tax and only charging other [51:33] countries for our goods and services. President Trump knows the art of the deal. And it's interesting [51:39] that you mentioned, now, I am the most senior Republican in the congressional delegation. [51:45] And I work with my colleagues, of course, on the Republican and the Democrat side. And I've [51:50] worked with my freshman colleagues a lot. And I also work with our senators. So that bipartisan work [51:56] that we, we have, we learned to disagree better. When my senators come to me, they know that I'm not [52:01] going to compromise my principles. And they know that I may not agree with them all the time. [52:05] And they also know they can call Congressman Jeff Hurd if they're not going to get a yes from me. [52:11] So there are things that we differ on. And that's okay. It's okay to have disagreements, [52:16] and it's okay to represent your district with the promises that you've made to them. [52:20] I'd like to ask each of you a short answer on tariffs. And then, Ms. Laubacher, you'll have a [52:24] longer period of time to talk about tariffs and your philosophy on them. President Trump is allowing four [52:28] times as much Argentinian beef into U.S. markets in order to bring down prices. A short answer to [52:33] each of you first, Ms. Bovert, first. Do you think that the price benefit for consumers outweighs [52:38] the harm to ranchers on the eastern plains? I do not. I came out and I was critical of this decision. [52:43] It was very disappointing. When I had farmers getting off of their combine from their not-so-bumper [52:48] crop from our drought that we are in, saying that they were relying on the sale of their beef, [52:54] and now this was going to harm them, I worked immediately to try to find a way to reverse this. [53:00] In the Farm Bill, I have the Prime Act, which helps our farmers and ranchers. [53:05] Thank you for that. I want to make sure we can touch a couple of other things. Ms. Laubacher, [53:08] the idea of allowing in a lot more Argentinian beef to lower prices, in favor or opposed? [53:11] No, I'm opposed. Okay. On tariffs more broadly, you've called for an end to the tariffs that are [53:16] driving up prices for Kyle Rodden's. Do you mean just President Trump's tariffs, or would you also roll [53:20] back all of President Biden's tariffs on, say, Chinese semiconductors and other electronics and [53:26] so forth? Yeah. So this is exactly the problem that we're having, right, is we're talking about [53:30] tariffs and tariffs, right? So there are different kinds of tariffs that are effective, pushing back [53:36] on China to ensure that our semiconductor industry has the opportunity to grow. But the tariffs that [53:43] we're seeing right now, for example, the ones with Canada, those are not being paid by foreign [53:48] governments. Those are being paid by Americans, by American small businesses, by American consumers. [53:53] That's who this is hurting. One of my children has been saving up all of her birthday money for a [53:59] while now to buy a horse for her American Girl doll. And she was getting ready to order it, and then she [54:06] found out how much it would cost now with tariffs, and it almost doubles the price. That's who's paying. [54:11] People like my seven-year-old granddaughter who can't buy the horse that she wants for her doll. [54:16] These tariffs are not something that is hurting the countries that they're being imposed upon. It's [54:22] hurting our consumers. And that's where we have to take a stand, and that's where Congress is supposed [54:27] to be looking after consumers and deciding which tariffs are something that benefit our industries [54:33] and our growth and our economic strength and resilience, and which are actually just hurting [54:37] people here. Ms. Laubacher, thank you. Now a moment for each of you to ask a question of one [54:41] another. Ms. Bober, your question for Ms. Laubacher first, please. I would like to know [54:49] exactly why you thought it was okay to work with a Saudi foreign registered agent. I think that this [54:55] is a problem, and we would not be able to trust you with sensitive security issues if you would even go [55:00] there for a moment of time and think that this was okay, especially with the Epstein connections that [55:07] are there. I hear you pretend to be strong about victims and Epstein and the files, but you were [55:14] directly working with a firm for a firm that has dug banned and sultans who were praised for torture [55:22] videos from Epstein. So how can we trust you with national security matters going forward? [55:28] Ms. So to be clear, I work for WestExec for all of three months. I never worked with or for any Saudi [55:34] interests or companies, and no part of me would do anything of that nature. I think that in your [55:43] discussion earlier about my employment with K2, I think it's a lack of understanding of what the [55:49] company K2 is doing and the good that they're doing in Maui. Ms. Laubacher, thank you. Your [55:54] question for Ms. Bober. Ms. Bober, I think the question that I'd want to ask you is this. [55:59] Ms. Bober, why can you explain to veterans like me, exposed to toxic burn pits and my fellow VFW [56:07] members who were exposed to Agent Orange, why you decided to vote twice against the PACT Act and have [56:14] voted against so many bills that benefit veterans? Ms. Well, see, the way that Congress works, a lot of [56:20] times things are put into big, massive, omnibus bills that are multi-thousand pages and spend trillions [56:26] of dollars and often we don't even have more than 72 hours to read them. I work to reform those issues [56:31] in Congress and when it comes to the PACT Act, we didn't want more backlog and just a redirecting [56:37] gimmick with these payment schemes. We wanted to deliver actual results and so I have worked [56:43] to reduce the backlog. I've worked on suicide prevention. I have worked to redirect funds so our [56:48] veterans could have prosthetics and even, unfortunately, burial services. I have delivered in my district [56:57] to four of our veterans purple hearts, one of whom received a double purple heart and a double bronze [57:05] star and unfortunately, because of backlog and bureaucracy, he was not alive to receive those [57:12] himself. His daughters came and received that for him on his behalf. So I am working to deliver for [57:18] our veterans to get rid of the backlog in our VAs. There are many ways to deliver for our veterans and [57:26] I think our veterans so much for our service. This is a tired attack ad that came from campaigns ago and [57:33] you think that it has an effect and I deliver for my veterans. I speak to them each and every day and [57:38] they thank me for my service as I am thanking them for their service as they stood up selflessly to serve [57:44] our country. It is not enough to say you support veterans when you vote against bills for veteran [57:48] sexual assault survivors, veteran maternal care. I absolutely vote to support my veterans and I [57:55] vote to get rid of the bureaucracy and get funds redirected directly to them. Thank you both. I want to touch [57:59] on a couple of other topics in our 10 minutes remaining. Ms. Boebert, you voted for the Republican budget [58:04] bill that, among other things, is projected to cut more than $900 billion from Medicaid over the next [58:08] 10 years. It does offer a far smaller $50 billion fund to help prop up rural hospitals. What are [58:14] health care providers in your district telling you about the impact of the cuts that you voted for? [58:18] Yes, so I have actually received awards for my representation from our rural health care [58:23] providers over the years and I've spent my years meeting with them, talking with them, [58:29] even working to get critical access designations for some of these hospitals. And throughout Colorado's [58:36] 4th District, I've spent years visiting with them and talking to them as well. What they are seeing is [58:41] the 2% cuts that Colorado made that is negatively impacting them. They are grateful that I voted for [58:48] the Rural Hospital Transportation Program that provides more than $50 billion to rural health [58:55] care hospitals. And just in year one alone, Colorado hospitals will receive $200 million. That money is already [59:03] out the door and they are so grateful for that. And my opponent has said that it wasn't worth it because [59:09] they are going to close anyway. I want our rural hospitals to have a fighting chance. I would never vote [59:15] against funding for them to be able to sustain themselves because they're going to close anyway. [59:21] Ms. Boebert, thank you. Would you like to respond to what she said? [59:24] Ms. Boebert, absolutely. I've never said that they're going to close anyway. What I have said [59:27] is what I've heard from the CEOs of rural hospitals, which is this. If things don't [59:31] dramatically change in five years, they have told me that there will be no rural hospitals on the [59:36] eastern plains. We must do more to support our rural hospitals. Taking away $150 billion and giving them [59:42] the potential for $50 billion. [59:44] Ms. Boebert, Medicare spending is up. [59:45] Ms. Boebert, is not going to do the work. [59:48] Ms. Boebert, we have not made the cut. [59:48] Ms. Boebert, no Democrats are lying about the big beautiful bill and the cuts are actually there. [59:53] Ms. Boebert, I believe this is my question. [59:56] I have been to all 14 rural hospitals in this district. Most of them have told me that they [1:00:01] have never seen you. [1:00:02] Ms. That is not true. [1:00:03] Well, that is what they are telling me. And I would tell you this. When they tell me about the [1:00:07] rural healthcare transformation program, they tell me about the challenges that they have and the [1:00:12] problems that they have. It looks like they have access to $200 million, but they cannot use it on [1:00:18] anything to supplant something that they are already doing. Everything has to be innovative [1:00:24] and new. Rural hospitals are struggling to keep their roofs from leaking. They are struggling to [1:00:29] figure out how they can save money to build new actual infrastructure. They do not need band-aid [1:00:35] solutions. They need real help. [1:00:37] Thank you, Ms. Boebert. [1:00:38] Ms. Boebert, would you like to respond to what she just said? [1:00:40] Ms. Boebert, I think I have responded. [1:00:42] Okay, we can move on to other questions. Ms. Laubacher, there are democratic socialists and others in your [1:00:46] party that are advocating for Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare. What do you think about [1:00:50] that idea? And if you oppose it, what should Congress be doing to fix healthcare? [1:00:54] Ms. Yeah. So, when talking to rural hospitals, I have spent a lot of time talking to them and [1:01:00] asking them what would Medicare for All do for them. And they have said that Medicare for All, [1:01:04] without significant reform, would cause their doors to close. That, to me, means it is a non-starter for [1:01:09] now. Now, should we look at something to transform our payer system? Yes. Because we have 530,000 [1:01:15] Americans who are going medically bankrupt every year. That's more than one a minute. [1:01:19] That's pretty horrific. And we need to do things that make a difference for rural hospitals right [1:01:24] now and for people in Colorado. We need to restore the Affordable Care Act subsidies so that people [1:01:29] can actually have healthcare. Because right now, when I'm talking to people on the Eastern Plains, [1:01:34] so many people are making decisions about whether they buy a healthcare plan or they pay their mortgage [1:01:40] or they buy groceries for their kids. And those are real challenges that people are having. [1:01:44] Nobody has the money available. Nobody can afford to quadruple the amount that they were paying [1:01:48] from last year. It is making people lose their, well, lose their homes. And it's making our farmers [1:01:55] lose their farms. So, one thing we have to do is we have to work to support our rural hospitals to make [1:01:59] sure that they have a shake, a fair shake, when it comes to health insurance companies who are causing [1:02:04] them grave distress. Ms. Lawbacher, thank you. I did promise you the opportunity to talk more about the [1:02:08] Epstein files. So, we're going to do that now. You don't need to take the full minute if you don't need it, [1:02:12] but I did say that we were going to talk about this. Ms. Lawbacher, Ms. Boebert forced the Trump [1:02:16] administration to release the Epstein files by risking her political career to stand up to intense [1:02:20] pressure from the president. Is there an issue, any issue, in which you would be willing to put your [1:02:26] political career on the line to stand up to a priority of your own party? Is there an issue that [1:02:30] you are so opposed to what Democrats are doing now that you would put it all on the line to stop it? [1:02:35] Absolutely. What is that? The open border policy. Okay. Please explain. [1:02:38] So, as an intelligence officer who served for 34 years, I can tell you that that seems to me to [1:02:43] be extremely dangerous. There are a lot of people who would like to come to this country and do us [1:02:46] harm. And to me, that is a security risk. That is not something that I have ever supported, nor would [1:02:53] I support any policy like that in the future. Do you give President Trump credit for securing the [1:02:56] southern border? I do. Okay. Ms. Boebert, on President Trump's mass deportations, [1:03:02] do you believe that every person who has entered the United States illegally, or stayed illegally in this [1:03:08] country, should be returned to their home country? We are a nation of laws, and if you broke our [1:03:13] country's laws to come here illegally, then you should answer to that and go back home. We have a [1:03:18] self-deportation system in process. Many have opted into that. America is one of the most generous [1:03:25] countries in the world, allowing one million immigrants a year to become naturalized citizens. [1:03:35] It's one of the best ceremonies I've ever attended, is going to those ceremonies, [1:03:39] seeing people who actually take the time, do things the right way, invest their time and their [1:03:44] resources, and know that our American flag is the one true symbol of liberty and justice for all. [1:03:49] Unfortunately, my Democrat opponent here became a Democrat after President Trump had secured the [1:03:56] border. That wasn't enough for her to say, I will stand up to Democrats. She saw [1:04:01] Democrat socialist candidates like Milak Kiros rising up, and she doesn't even have the spine [1:04:10] to call out one Democrat that she would say is extreme or she would disagree with. So how could she [1:04:16] call them out for open border policies? Ms. Bovert, thank you. We have time for another question from [1:04:21] each of you to the other. Ms. Laubacher. Did you want me to answer any questions with regards to the [1:04:25] immigration? Nothing. I was specifically curious what she thought about immigration policy on that one. [1:04:29] If you would like to provide a short answer related to immigration policy. Ashley, you know what? [1:04:34] Could I hear from both of you just really quickly? Ms. Bovert, I know that you're a supporter of the [1:04:37] president's policies writ large. Do you have concerns about how the deportations are being carried out? [1:04:42] There have been some concerning moments, and President Trump has done what he can to change [1:04:46] leadership. I do not agree with creating a new position for Secretary Noem. I am very much of the [1:04:52] doge mindset to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, and that does not mean we create new positions when [1:04:59] someone's fired from another one. Thank you. Ms. Laubacher, quickly, you've talked about the [1:05:03] border deportation policy. Yeah, so I have grave concerns about a lot of the things that are [1:05:08] happening. I think that there needs to be major reform of the process that we have going on. [1:05:13] Violent criminals off the streets, I am all behind that. A secure border, I am all behind that. But [1:05:18] there needs to be a process for people. There's some good bipartisan legislation, the Dignity Act, [1:05:23] that I think has been proposed in Congress. I would get behind something like that, [1:05:26] that gives people a path to citizenship. And I think that that is an important aspect. There [1:05:31] are a lot of people who are trying to go through the process. It is hard. It needs major reform. [1:05:35] I think both parties have used it as a political football for decades now, [1:05:39] not actually trying to solve the underlying problems that make that process more approachable, [1:05:43] and I think we need to do that. A question now for your opponents, Ms. Laubacher. [1:05:48] Yeah, so you were hired to lower costs for people in the district. Why do you continue to support the [1:05:55] tariffs and the Iran War? We've talked about this, but you've not given me an answer that tells me [1:06:00] people are hurting. Why do you keep that going? I was hired to defend and support our constitutional [1:06:07] rights and to keep my voters free. Anything that I can do in addition to that, I'm absolutely doing [1:06:12] it. Our district is paying in a lot of money in taxes, and I am working to get that money back in [1:06:18] the district. I'm the first member in this district in more than 20 years to submit requests for [1:06:25] congressionally directed funding. And it's not just because I've changed my mind on a position, [1:06:29] it's because I actually work to reform that process. So it is not so swampy and in a system to buy off [1:06:37] members of Congress and their votes. I am funding with those tax dollars that were already paid out, [1:06:43] bringing back water projects, road infrastructure project. We have $11 million at work right now, [1:06:49] 15 million more to come. I'm delivering again for our farmers, our ranchers. I'm cutting regulations [1:06:54] in our energy industry. All of that does help lower costs. When we are producing the world's best energy, [1:07:00] when we are deregulating, that is lowering costs. Unfortunately, we had four years of Joe Biden's [1:07:07] inflation and terrible policies that we are having to undo. No part of that. [1:07:11] A question for Ms. Laubacher, please. A brief question for Ms. Laubacher, please. [1:07:14] So you had a private closed door meeting. It was reported with former CIA agent, [1:07:20] Hayden, Joe Biden and yourself. This was right around the time that the Hunter laptop [1:07:25] story was being covered up. It seems that you may have been instrumental in crafting a cover up, [1:07:32] especially seeing how the CIA intel officers who came out with a letter saying that the Hunter [1:07:40] laptop Biden was, the Hunter Biden laptop was not real and it was not his, have now endorsed you [1:07:46] through steady state, steady deep state. In fact, they have endorsed you. [1:07:50] There needs to be a question here. We're coming up on time. [1:07:52] Did you help to craft that cover up of the Hunter Biden and earn that deep state? [1:07:57] I did not. That was actually a great example of really bad reporting. It was alleged that I, [1:08:04] or it was reported that I met with Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA, when in actual fact, [1:08:11] I met with a different Michael Hayden who was working on South Asia policy at the time at the [1:08:17] director of national intelligence. That was not at all, did not have anything to do with the Hunter Biden [1:08:22] laptop. Ms. Laubacher, thank you very much. [1:08:24] Did those CIA directors endorse you through steady state? [1:08:27] It's time now for closing statements. As determined by a coin flip earlier, [1:08:32] Ms. Boebert, you will have the first closing statement. Ms. Laubacher, you will have the second. [1:08:36] Ms. Boebert, you have one minute. [1:08:38] I want to say thank you so much to the Colorado voters. Again, you know me. You know that I fight [1:08:43] for you, that I deliver for you. I didn't need million dollar consultants to rebrand myself. I don't [1:08:49] have a consultant or a campaign manager writing my lines or telling me what to do. Unfortunately, [1:08:55] I have an opponent who has paid nearly 10 million dollars to consultants, telling grandmas at home [1:09:01] that she needs their 19 dollar check so she can represent them. But instead, she is enriching [1:09:08] coastal consultants. I am fighting for our farmers and ranchers. I am working to get the USDA [1:09:15] hub at the Colorado State University in Fort Collins, impacting our entire district. I am fighting [1:09:21] for the moms and dads who want to stay in their children's school, continuing to fight for school [1:09:26] choice. I show up for you each and every time. I drive tens of thousands of miles every year to meet [1:09:34] with you, to listen to you, and to deliver the results that you expect from your member of Congress. [1:09:40] And I would thank you if you sent me back to represent you one more time. Ms. Laubacher. [1:09:45] This year, Colorado has a choice. To vote again for an incumbent who has been here for six years, [1:09:51] and yet in so many ways failed to deliver for people of Congressional District 4. You are supposed [1:09:56] to be here to lower costs, to improve lives, to strengthen rural hospitals, and you voted to hurt [1:10:01] all of those things and all of those people. Or you can vote for someone who believes in service before [1:10:07] self. Someone who believes deeply that after 34 years of serving our government, I am ready to serve [1:10:13] again, to make a difference for the people here. I'm a mom. I'm a veteran. I'm a member of this [1:10:17] community, and I'm someone who understands that we need to push back on both parties and the extreme [1:10:22] edges of them and find ways to work together, find ways to actually deliver for the people of this [1:10:27] district. That's our job. That's the job that I want. I lean for Congress. Thank you. Thank you [1:10:32] very much. Thank you both for having the courage to debate your views and your ideas. For all of us at [1:10:38] 9 news, I'm Kyle Clark. Have a good night.