Since the Democratic primary for Attorney General is now over, the Incredible Shrinking Pack of Vermont Journalists has dutifully turned its attentions to the Man in Waiting — Jack “Six Teats” McMullen, the Republican challenger so cavalierly dismissed by Bill Sorrell on primary night. The Freeploid, VTDigger, and the Vermont Press Bureau attended McMullen’s post-primary news conference* where he outlined his agenda. And, it seemed to me, there were quite a few “off” notes.

*Since the primary wasn’t actually decided until that morning, wouldn’t McMullen have been wise to postpone his presser? I realize it was scheduled in advance, but why not put it off for a day and have a news cycle all to himself?



The big item on ol’ S.T.’s agenda is some kind of a War on Drugs that seems to be an amalgam of right, left, and fuzzy. Plus a couple of ideas that strike this non-lawyer as fundamental changes to the way our legal system works.

McMullen held the presser outside a Burlington house in a neighborhood reportedly victimized by a rash of burglaries. His approach to fighting “drug-driven crime in the state of escalating proportion” (parse that one, amateur grammarians!) starts with a delineation between violent and non-violent drug crimes*. Violent offenders would be dealt with harshly, while the nonviolent would be diverted into treatment.

*So, is burglary violent or nonviolent? Just askin’. I’m sure Jack’s homeowner/host would like to know if his burglar is headed for the pokey or the Betty Ford.

Also, for dealing with the violent, he wants some sort of coordination by the AG among the county state’s attorneys that sounds an awful lot like the AG telling the state’s attorneys what to do. Digger:

“With 14 different state’s attorneys addressing the problem, you have an uneven approach to it and what that means is that the bad guys can figure out where the seams are and then work them,” McMullen said.

Somehow I doubt that drug gangs are conducting in-depth analyses of the counties’ sentencing patterns, and targeting their crimes accordingly. I think they go where the money is.

But aside from that, it sounds like Jack wants to eliminate prosecutorial discretion and centralize punishment standards in the person of the Attorney General. Which is dandy if you’re the AG, but is that the way our system is supposed to work?

For the nonviolent drug offenders, treatment would be the preferred option. Wait, what? Is Jack McMullen a secret Democrat? Coddling criminals, calling for expanded treatment? He even promised to lobby the Legislature for more money for treatment programs. To help how many people? Freeploid:

McMullen said he didn’t know how many offenders could be diverted to treatment.

Not even a guess? Awkward. I guess Jack is still boning up on this Attorney General stuff.

Speaking of which, he was inevitably questioned about the small matter of him not being licensed to practice law in Vermont. His reply: he’s gonna fix that. And it doesn’t really matter anyway. Digger:

“I should be a member of the Vermont Bar in a matter of months, but I’d also point out that as Attorney General Sorrell well knows, most of the cases are not prosecuted by him, they’re prosecuted by his staff.”

Yeah, well, technically he’s right, kinda sorta. But wouldn’t it be better to have an Attorney General who’s actually got some prosecutorial experience? Even if only so he can effectively advise his staff? And devise policies that adhere to the law?

This Amateur Hour problem was on display in Jack’s rather revolutionary proposal for dealing with out-of-state drug offenders. Vermont Press Bureau:

If residents of New York or Massachusetts – two source states for cocaine, heroin and other opiates, according to law enforcement officials – are convicted of serious drug violations in Vermont, McMullen said, then their home states ought to be responsible for jailing them.



“The idea is if it’s your guy, you should pay for it,” he said.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but is this legal? If a guy commits a crime in your jurisdiction and is convicted in your courts, can you just ship him off to the state he came from?

Evan if it is legal, I see all sorts of procedural problems. What if state of residence is unclear? What if an offender is from New York but has lived in Vermont for a year or two or five?

And what if other states don’t want to play ball? I’m sure there are far more crimes committed in Vermont by New York or Massachusetts offenders, than there are committed in New York or Massachusetts by Vermonters. Jack’s idea would be a great deal for Vermont, but I don’t know why other states would want any part of it.

Finally, there was a big fat “Trust Me” moment when McMullen addressed Vermont’s legal battle with Vermont Yankee. He’d drop the state’s lawsuit and try to make a deal with Entergy. VPB:

McMullen said he’d work with Shumlin to find out what concessions he wants from the plant’s owners, then go try to extract them.



“Let me go there and cut the best deal,” McMullen said.

First of all, this wasn’t the only time McMullen promised to work with Governor Shumlin. Which would seem to presuppose Shumlin’s re-election. Wonder how Randy Brock feels about that.

Second, if we want an AG who can work with Shumlin, why not a Democrat, hmm?

And finally, and most obviously: do you really trust Jack McMullen to go into a quiet room with Entergy and come out with a good deal for the state?

All in all, it was an underwhelming debut for Six Teats. Nothing as egregious as his debate performance against Fred Tuttle, but for a guy who’s been running for AG at least since May, he still seems to be engaged in active on-the-job training. His good ideas were all cribbed from Democrats, particularly TJ Donovan, and his bad ideas came from his very own brain. Which isn’t what you want to see in a major-party candidate for a high state office.