CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 10, 2011 04:21 AM UTC

BREAKING: Key Facts In Hancock Prostitution Scandal Corroborated

  • 143 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

FRIDAY UPDATE: Complete Colorado adds some details on the open records request–make that requests–Monday, from Michael Hancock’s campaign and at least one news outlet seeking any surveillance evidence of Hancock having visited the Denver Players. As we said yesterday, DPD reports that no such photo or other record exists: it likely wouldn’t, given that his alleged visits would have taken place before the investigation of the Denver Players reportedly began.

CompleteColorado.com has obtained an email thread showing that KUSA Ch. 9 was the impetus behind an open records request by Mayoral-elect Michael Hancock’s team for any surveillance images of Hancock at a brothel linked to the “Denver Players” prostitution ring. The records request is the focus of a report by KMGH Ch 7. The records request did not deliver any results to either Ch. 9 or Hancock and his attorneys.

This clears up a question about the timing of this request, coming in response to one the campaign knew was being made by a media outlet. Although this records request was the lede of 7NEWS’ story last night, the confirmation of the authenticity of these records by the original owner and 7NEWS’ law enforcement sources is the more significant development (see below).

Also, 7NEWS has updated their story again with another unequivocal denial from Hancock:

“KMGH aired a story tonight with several unsubstantiated and false claims,” the statement said. “We are disappointed KMGH chose to air such unsubstantiated claims.”

The statement said the campaign was trying to cooperate with the media with their requests, but the statement did not address why the attorney was requesting that any negative information, if found, should be withheld.

—–

UPDATE: An update to this story from 7NEWS that would appear to rule out recent forgeries:

Sources said the documents with Hancock’s name and phone number exist in law enforcement files.

Please see: categorical denials. Not a positive development for Hancock.

—–

7NEWS is breaking major new details in the story of now Denver Mayor-elect Michael Hancock’s alleged link with the infamous Denver Players prostitution ring. A lengthy, must-read report:

7NEWS has been investigating the contents of client lists, appointment logs, schedule books and credit card receipts that Scottie Ewing, the former owner of the Denver Players escort service, has said were preserved from his business. Those documents make up the “black book” of information from the escort service.

Before it was raided in 2008, Ewing sold Denver Players to Brenda Stewart, but said he retained business records.

Hancock’s personal cell phone number and his misspelled name (Handcock) appear on the phone list. His phone number and first name appear on three different appointment logs…

7NEWS examined hundreds of documents linked to the escort service. None have years associated with them out of design, according to Ewing. He said the documents that indicate appointments for Hancock were from 2004, 2005 or 2006.

“The documents that show Michael Hancock was a client — are they accurate? Are they factual documents?” asked Zelinger.

“The documents are accurate, extremely accurate. There is not one phone number that is on that list that did not call in to use the services at some point,” said Ewing. [Pols emphasis]

Today’s late-breaking story from John Ferrugia, Marshall Zelinger and Art Kane of 7NEWS is the first confirmation from the owner of the records in question, ex-pimp Scottie Ewing, that the document originally released last week is authentic–insofar as it originally belonged to him, and does originate with the Denver Players prostitution ring. 7NEWS also reports that the Hancock campaign sent a records request to the Denver Police Department, asking for any surveillance evidence of a visit by Hancock to the Denver Players. While the DPD says there is no such photo, the records request curiously does ask that it not be released to the press if it does exist. Meanwhile, ex-pimp Ewing justifies releasing the information this way:

“After vaguely paying attention to some of the TV ads that were on — that were aired for the campaigns — someone that is running on a platform of their personal story and values and family, is somewhat hypocritical,” said Ewing. “I would think that the general public, the majority of them anyway, would think the same — that it is inappropriate behavior for someone to preach one thing while doing something on the other hand.”

Mayor-elect Hancock emphatically denies the truth of this story, and the veracity of the record posted by Complete Colorado now corroborated by Ewing–as he has from the start. Much like the mounting pressure against Rep. Anthony Weiner over his less serious sexual indiscretion scandal, this emphatic and categorical denial could turn out to be the real problem here. Make no mistake; Hancock is certainly innocent until proven guilty. But a politician caught in a bald-faced lie, particularly when that lie involves a crime, and especially when you get caught before you take the oath of office…well, if this does turn out to be true, it’s difficult to envision how Hancock can take office after he has boxed himself in with these unequivocal claims of innocence. And all of that before any questions are asked about the mysterious burglary of Ewing’s residence Monday, when his original copies of these records were reportedly stolen…

Remember the hypotheticals we discussed last Friday related to this story, the part about what might happen if it didn’t affect the outcome of the election, which it didn’t, but came out after Hancock won–perhaps even before he takes office?

It might be time to revisit that discussion very soon, folks.

Tweet
Share

Comments

143 thoughts on “BREAKING: Key Facts In Hancock Prostitution Scandal Corroborated”

    1. So what?  Do we care if the guy visited with an escort in 2004, 2005, or 2008?  I’d say that’s between him and his wife.  

      Although it does serve to reinforce my thought that this past mayoral election was further evidence that we are in the “Age of Mediocrity.”  

      1. As a matter of fact, i am sick of them.  Arnold, Weiner, Edwards, Clinton, Newt. Just fed up.  Keep your dicks in your pants.  If you are famous and you having stupid sex, you will be caught and exposed.  Why is that so hard to understand? Is it just ego that you think people wouldn’t dare expose YOU?  Get over self, Gentlemen.

        1. It’s not a one-way street.  

          I, for one, don’t care who anyone sleeps with provided it’s legal and that they don’t run on a BS “Family values” platform, which is why Newt, Haley, and other GOP types offend me more.  

          Why do you care who someone has sex with?  I agree with PCG’s comment below regarding human trafficking and the sex industry, but that doesn’t appear to be relevant here.  

          In point of fact, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that Mr. Hancock had sex with an escort.  

        2. you’re willing to leave the legal issues alone.

          Monogamy is very hard, and not the way people are programmed to be. Unless you’re very lucky like I was, most people don’t really learn it because their parents don’t practice it.

          I’ve never once cheated in my life, nor will I ever, but if I were to judge ever person who ever did, there would be almost nobody left to respect. Earlier this week I mentioned MLK and Thomas Jefferson specifically – do their infidelities diminish them in your eyes? They only make them human in mine.

          This is only an issue to me because it’s prostitution. Now, not every sex worker is an exploited, underage at-risk youth or a smuggled illegal immigrant living in a state of slavery. I don’t know if the escorts in the employ of this agency fall in the former or the latter category. If it’s the former, that is, if the escorts are sex workers of their own free will and are 18 or older) it’s a bit less of an issue (I don’t believe in victimless crimes – and in the case of the latter, there are victims). But it’s still an issue because it involves breaking the law.

          If no laws are being broken, then it’s a matter between Hancock, his family, and absolutely no one else anywhere. But if he broke the law…

            2. The Madam accepted a plea. DPD should have not talked about what the Justice Dept has, or does not have,at all.  Umtil the plea is accepted, this is an open federal racketeering case in which the pimp was given a very cosy deal to roll on the defendant.Hancock’s lawyer gave poor advice to inquire. He should know the law.

              The Mayor-elect should say nothing more and just move on with a governing mandate electoral victory.

              I say this as an open supporter of Romer in the election.I wish the Mayor-elect the best in governing. With no forthcoming evidence, it’s the Mayor-elect’s word v. an admitted tax evader and pimp.

              I’d just move on. It would be best for the city.

      3. The Madam accepted a plea offer. DPD should have not talked about what the Justice Dept has, or does not have,at all.  Umtil the plea is accepted, this is an open federal racketeering case in which the pimp was given a very cosy deal to roll on the defendant.  Hancock’s lawyer gave poor advice to inquire. He should know the law.

        The Mayor-elect should say nothing more and just move on with a governing mandate electoral victory.

        I say this as an open supporter of Romer in the election.I wish the Mayor-elect the best in governing. With no forthcoming evidence, it’s the Mayor-elect’s word v. an admitted tax evader and pimp.

        I’d just move on. It would be best for the city.

  4. Hancock’s attorney, Bruce James, said he was just trying to help clear Hancock’s name and that it is a “torturous” interpretation of his letter.

    Requesting that if there are pictures, the media not be given access to them is “helping to clear Hancock’s name” how exactly?

    Remind me if I need a lawyer not to hire that guy.  

    1. I was still not quite buying this whole thing up to that. I mean, Channel 7 is not always super reliable and some proactive corroboration on your own time can’t be bad.

      Doing so with a note that almost says there probably are pictures and a request to kinda squash some free speech… How much do you think James made last year?

      Ugh. I wanted so badly for this to not be true. Had it come out three months ago, fine. But now? (Much like the wayward Congressman, everything I write sounds like a bad joke.) Just sucks stinks.

      1. Between Anthony Weiner, who I genuinely like, and now this, I’m just sort of ready to refuse anyone, even Jesus himself, the benefit of the doubt in the future.  

        1. Not cool, Anthony.

          And at some point I should probably apologize to the beej for saying that he didn’t understand how letters and numbers work. 🙁 Thanks a lot, Handcock!

          (This is me apologizing to bjwilson83. Sorry for saying you were wrong when you weren’t. It was his phone number. You still suck.

          Love,

          droll)

            1. And apparently He loves me, too. And the sweet old church ladies. And pretty much everyone. So either Jesus is Ali, or he’s really getting around. (Or both.)

    1. I mean, I don’t live in Denver, but frankly it looks like “staying out of the headlines for one goddamn minute” is the more important qualification right now.

  7. The veracity of this story hasn’t changed.

    There was an open records request as a ‘just in case.’ It found nothing. This whole thing still hinges on a “document” that hasn’t even been authenticated.

    Looks like lots of folks rolled out their “jump to conclusions” mats today.

    1. If all it said was “produce the photo” they could have said it was calling a bluff.

      No I think Hancock’s lawyers’ missteps is one of the most telling things in this entire story

      2. “Produce the photo, unless my client lied to me, in which case, just give me the photo so that I can help the campaign manage the story, which is what they are paying me to do.”

        Is it really that suspicious that a lawyer for a candidate would not want to cover all the bases during a campaign? Of course the lawyer didn’t want something leaked to the press. I’d be pissed if he left that statement out of his request.

        1. That’s more of a news story than this tripe.

          I think what’s more telling is the other stations still refuse to run this story because of lack of evidence. 7 News didn’t stumble upon anything, they’re just doing their best National Inquirer impression.

          When it’s in the Post, it’s blown. Till then, it’s just 7 News being 7 News.  

            1. Fox 31: Hancock lawyer puts in a request, finds nothing. There’s still no evidence to back up the claim

              Westword: As of right now, there’s still no evidence of anything besides the word of a pimp

              7 News: Hancock lawyer puts in a request, finds nothing. But even a request is evidence of evidence, so despite there being no evidence, there’s evidence.

              Fox 31 and Westword reporting on the reports of another network, 7 News being sensationalist. Nothing out of 9 news, CBS 4 or Denver Post. Gotta love it when people try to make hay out of stuff.  

  8. Seems like a stretch – Ewing had documents.  Ewing says the docs are accurate.

    Doesn’t really seem like a corroboration, more like an affirmation.

    http://mw1.merriam-webster.com…

    And maybe it will all be true.

    But right now we’ve got docs and interviews with an accused felon and pimp.  Maybe he’s telling the truth. Maybe he’s trying to stay out of prison.

    2. Ewing is a sleazeball. He’s been convicted of tax evasion and assault.  Currently he is under house arrest and is doing everything he can to stay out of jail while figuring out how to pay the government $77,000 and change.

      Oh, and he’s a pimp too.

      Not the best corroboration in the world.

        2. A sleazy pimp may be a good source. But, the news agency examined the pimp’s documents and said the documents existed.

          That’s not a corroboration since all we have is the pimp’s word that the documents are real. If another individual comes out and presents evidence that the pimp’s documents are legit, that would be corroborating his claims.

          So, at this moment, we have a desperate pimp, who wants to stay out of jail and owes the government tens of thousands of dollars, making the claim that a mayoral candidate was being hypocritical in his campaigning, so he released this info three days before the election.  The pimp had this information for years and never did anything with it, but now, suddenly develops a conscience and a concern for what Denver voters think (do pimp’s vote? And if so, do you think they’re D’s or R’s?).

          In a courtroom, the sleazebag wouldn’t be a very good source. In the court of public opinion, we’ll see…

    3. Hancock’s personal cell phone number and his misspelled name (Handcock) appear on the phone list. His phone number and first name appear on three different appointment logs…

      So Ewing needs to provide phone records that the cell # was called.  Can we expect Hancock to release 3 yrs. of call records to disprove assertion — no.  Besides, if the name was misspelled couldn’t the tel # be transposed.  

      Controversy based on this barely flimsy possible evidence is just gonna sputter & die.  

    1. 1. Ewing could be a liar. The documents could be fake.

      2. There may be more Michael Hancocks. It’s not a terribly uncommon name.

      3. How is it these were in the property of Ewing anyway? If they were evidence used in a previous case, don’t they get locked up somewhere?

      4. Are these the same records that were reportedly just stolen, along with a computer (from an earlier thread)?

      5. Is anyone else confused?

      1. not saying that’s the source of the info he’s putting forward, but it’s logical that there were backups.

        Plus, if you knew that people might be after your files (I can’t imagine it’s uncommon in his line of work), wouldn’t you put the backups somewhere safe?

          1. I’m just saying that they guy seems savvy enough to be handling the press related to this possible scandal — he might be smart enough to backup some files somewhere else.

            Based on the descriptions of the “business,” it doesn’t sound like he had a couple women working street corners — he had a full-blown (no pun intended) large scale operation

      2. Fresh from watching several accounts of this tonight and not so fresh from paying too much attention to it since Friday, I think I can lend a small amount of insight.

        1. Fair enough. But you have to wonder about the motive. What’s it to Ewing?

        2. This particular set up specialized in high profile clientele. If there was a Mike Handcock with Michael Hancock’s phone number, it was Michael Hancock. So if it’s not wholly made up, that part is also true. It’s just what they did.

        3. Ewing’s files were never confiscated. He’d already sold the business. His problems just weren’t ever really brothel related. It was poor business. For him it could’ve been an accounting firm that he, you know, screwed over taxpayers and a few other things with. Ultimately the prostitution part didn’t play much of a role in anything other than being interesting.

        4. And this is interesting. Fox31, as I noted in that other thread, along with apparently everyone else saw those files. They videotaped them. They could not find a second source, so they did not run the story. So while the files were stolen, this is the same story from before with the dumbass lawyer added. Now, if people saw these docs and didn’t have a problem with them, whether fake or not, why would Ewing fake the robbery as earlier speculated? Kind of makes it sound like either someone is covering their ass, or about to blackmail.

        And another update that I’m posting at the bottom of the thread…

        1. Getting someone’s cell phone is no big deal, really, especially for a city council member. Haven’t you guys gotten calls back from legislators after leaving messages at their offices on issues you really care about? Sometimes they call back from home. A few call back from their cell phones. At the city council level and below, lots of them put them on facebook.

          Geez, I won’t tell you how many personal cell phone numbers I have as a result of being an organizer — guess I better delete them or bury them in the backyard, for fear someone will steal them. (Don’t break into my house. I changed all of them to the same Pol’s poster’s name, just in case, and my dogs Fang and Beast are guarding it now.)

          1. So Hancock gets three calls total, that he takes, and says, “Uh, yeah, I scheduled a hooker.” hangs up “So weird, I keep getting these calls, so I just say ‘OK’! Now, who wants ice cream?”

            But let’s say they called back the pay phone Hancock supposedly called from. He was known. If he’d shown up as someone else, they wouldn’t have given the appointment. This operation did not have anonymous clients. They researched them.

            And apparently he still has this cell phone number. So at a minimum, best case, is that someone stole his phone and scheduled the first appointment that would verify the others before Hancock shut off the phone. And then the guy shows up, looking like Hancock, named Mike, and possibly driving Hancock’s car, which he stole.

            Hancock’s only hope here is that the client book was falsified in ’08 and all this is an elaborate, seemingly pointless and ill-timed lie.

            1. You just have to insert logic, reason and facts into all of this.

              Okay, seriously, your comment is precisely why I am feeling worse and worse about this whole thing, by the minute. Your point about who actually showed up to the appointment is sort of huge, in my opinion. Ewing flat out says that they research who these clients are. So if Hancock didn’t show up the first, and second and third time, who the hell did? Even if they only used the cell # as a way to confirm who he was through telephone records and never actually called the number, at some point, doesn’t the owner of the phone have to match the client that shows up for the appointment?

              Am I just over thinking this?

              Plausible deniability isn’t looking very plausible anymore.  

              1. I was curious on Friday and kept reading. Bad move.

                Anyway, I would happily be over thinking and picking on Hancock’s policies, budget, or any other thing he hasn’t released yet. In fact, I don’t think I can do this anymore. So I’m out of the thread. You’ll have to take your over thinking (the answer is yes) questions elsewhere. 🙂

                For the record, I did want to reiterate that I would’ve been not happy, but certainly less upset if this had come up a month before the general election. While this interesting, it’s also a bit heartbreaking if true. And in my mind it’s looking more and more possible.  I’m not getting any kind of satisfaction from it. It’s heartbreaking for people who poured their time and energy into a campaign they believed in, for the city, for Dems everywhere, and for his family. His kids, at least the boy, are old enough to pay attention to the news and understand it.

                I’m now officially on to my next project. Also worth noting that I’m not judging anyone for staying on the topic, I simply don’t have the stomach.

        2. What incentive would Ewing have to smear Hancock?  Is he a decoy? A fall guy? A good investigative reporter would try to find out who is really behind this smear campaign.  

      3. I wonder if Mattie Silks kept a good accounting of who stopped by?

        It seems that anyone who runs an illegal “service” business might keep track of who was a customer. One for providing good recognition of repeat customers. Another for that just in case time when a judge; or a Senator or Representative; or a preacher might be called on to testify that you really are running an illegal operation.

        Good examples would be the Hollywood Madam, Vitter’s Madam, D.C. madams (serving Congress for decades).

      1. Not the special election, I knew about that. Would the Council call the vacancy after Vidal’s last day? In that case, would Hancock still get to name a Deputy? Or would the incoming Council President just step up?

        Wonk stuff. I love it.

        1. But I assume special election because the elected mayor is not in office.  When Hick left, we had a special election.  If an elected official dies, we have a special election.  As to your other question — if Hancock does the swearing in ceremony and then resigns, yes he would name his deputy mayor…who would have no credibility I’m sure.

          No idea if there are rules allowing the Council President to step up.

          1. Rather which. Anytime the DM refuses to serve the CC Pres. does instead, they are third in command. Denver’s system is actually a lot like the state’s. In any event, these are both people yet to be named.

            If a mayor-elect steps down from now to the last six months of his term we’ll have a special election. I’m just wondering who would be mayor in the meantime.

            Oddly enough, the manager of Public Works used to be mayor in case of vacancies. That’s how Denver got Mayor McNichols. Not anymore though.

          2. What are you talking about? No we didn’t, this was a regular election. If Hick had left earlier, a special election would have been required, but as it happened it wasn’t.

            Special election doesn’t have anything to do with whether “the elected mayor is not in office,” it has to do with the length of time from the vacancy to the next regular election.

            As to your last scenario, a deputy mayor would only serve until the special election or regular election, whichever was soonest.  

      2. Mejia should demand as a condition for running that all of Denver gather in City Park and sing the “Very Sorry Song” for not voting him into the runoff in the first place.

        3. who benefits from the timing, which was too late to affect the election much, coming out as it did after so many ballots were already returned? Too late to do Romer much good and the story was floating around quietly early enough that Romer supporters could have made more of an effort to put it out there earlier. Seems the beneficiary of a resignation and new election might be Mejia as the close number three with no chance except a do over. Could knowledge of a possible scandal about to pop be the main reason he threw his support to Romer instead, even though his grass roots clearly preferred Hancock? If there is a new election, he can run without the burden of having supported Hancock.

          All hypothetical, of course.  Hancock’s lawyer’s somewhat tortured explanations about just covering all bases to clear client’s name could hold up.

          1. But if this story was purposely leaked at this time to hurt Hancock, I can envision only two reasons for it.

            One, someone who wanted Romer elected is behind it – a desperation move that was designed to tip the election, but done by someone without the experience to realize that it was way too late to affect the election. Perhaps they only stumbled upon it and would have done it sooner.

            I don’t think that’s likely. Not impossible, but I don’t buy this scenario.

            Two, someone leaked this now in order to embarrass Hancock, make him a weak mayor right at the outset, perhaps even force Hancock out of city hall before he’s sworn in. (This did all start with a leak, didn’t it? I’m going by memory here.)

            If it’s this latter case, the question would be, Who opposed Hancock? Is there anyone who has reason to be really unhappy with his election?

            1. That is, someone “close” to the operation ratted on him and proved it. Then he admitted it.

              In this case it was Ewing himself. He certainly knew the information was there. But he’s not bright, so, well. FWIW, he says that he became irritated with Hancock’s commercials about being super great and wholesome. Those were hitting hard at the end.

              In all seriousness, one of the major Hancock drawbacks, for me, is that he only does what’s popular at the time. And I don’t mean with constituents. That’s why he won’t talk about why he has certain policies, he doesn’t know. The ideas belong to someone else.

              So, if there is some grand conspiracy here (about the timing anyway, the “evidence” as is has apparently been part of the record for years) it’s probably better to ask who of Hancock’s friends does someone want to discredit, or knock out of office as it were.

              Unless Ewing is a closet School Board aficionado, I’m guessing this is just becoming less interesting and switching to sad.

              I suppose seeing as how our Mayor is seen as the leading Dem in the state, it’s also possible that we would’ve seen a Romer scandal (hell, maybe the same one, both of these guys are kind of awful – and it’s not like Romer doesn’t have one in the wings) to discredit Democrats in general.

              But this feels like listening to people make sometimes good points about 9/11 conspiracies. Sometimes you think, “Hey, that sounds reasonable.” Then you remember that some things, and people, just suck.

              1. might be behind this in any way.  Just saying that knowing how rumors and inside info spreads among candidates’ inner circles, there must have been a lot of people who were very aware of this a long time ago.  It would be pretty natural not to want to endorse someone, other factors not withstanding, knowing that a scandal might be on the horizon. I sincerely hope it’s as Hancock says; completely false.  As he has pointed out, anyone can handwrite a name and plenty of people had his phone number. And lawyers do like to cover all possible bases.

                1. The way you intended. If I’d thought you were accusing Mejia of something… well, you would’ve known it. 🙂

                  Nor was I picking on Ari, just in case he read my rather dry comment that way, this is just how I naturally write. Giving off a friendly tone isn’t something I worry about in person (I’m a doll), so I have to work at it when my sunshine self isn’t there to let folks know. I was thinking out fingers.

                  I, too, would hope that this was all false. It’s just seeming less probable as we go along here.

    2. In the event of a resignation, there would be a special election, hopefully timed to co-incide with an already scheduled election (school board is coming up in Nov.).

    3. Notwithstanding the views of those “not eligible to vote,” Denver voters have already expressed their disgust at the mudslinging in this race.  Hancock will simply keep a positive attitude and move on.  Denver voters have made their decision and are not about change it.  Many if not most voters knew of the rumor before they elected Hancock by almost 60%.

      1. As a Denver voter, if these allegations prove to be true (which I think they are). I believe Hancock needs to step down.

        We don’t need a mayor who broke the law, then lied about doing so.

  11. I have some new information. According to Fox31 DPD has confirmed that no surveillance nuthin’ exists on Hancock.

    FWIW, all three of his alleged visits would’ve been before the investigation started.

    1. “Someone put my name and number in those logs.”

      His word against a pimp’s. Will he crack and confess? Will the public believe the pimp? Will this all blow over? Or will the aforementioned  lovely infant materialize?

  12. Oh, wrong thread.

    Is there a thread that discusses the Denver budget crisis and Hancock’s plan to balance the budget?

    No?  Well, maybe there’ll be a serious discussion in a week or two.  Back to your regularly scheduled sex scandal….

    1. The idea is a bottom up review of the budget while giving everyone a raise. That’s all we really know. **Said while looking sincere**

      Hancock was never one for the serious conversation, was he? Hell, I was banned from his Facebook wall for asking specific policy questions. Seems like there’s a price to be paid when you run like that. Sort of like people who run on gays being evil while being gay, but don’t think they’re evil. He’s been elected, it’s a bit late to be talking policy now!

      2. I guess i will not get the job as the MMJ Liason to the City. LOL

        This whole story is very sad.  I also understand, from the Westword blogs,that the two “Ladies” want to come forward as well.

        There is more drama in Colorado politics than there was in LA.

        1. If for no other reason to find out how the court of public opinion treats them.  (My guess: not well.)

          But at least then Howard Stern Boyles will have a reason to put them on air, and the WW will have an excuse to run their pictures for free, and not on the back cover.

    1. Denver police say “there are no “videotapes, photographs or any other surveillance or evidence held by the Denver Police Department relating to Michael Hancock, his vehicle and any residence under surveillance as part of the Denver Players investigation.”

      That would certainly seem to discredit what Pols and 7news is saying that law enforcement has such evidence. If Hancock wasn’t a public figure, I’d say he should sue for libel. If this goes much further, I’d say he should anyway. It is certainly pushing the line. I know Pols feels stupid for getting this election totally wrong, but lay off until you have some real evidence.

      http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-…

      1. merely pointed out that Hancock’s attorneys seem to think there might have been some.

        Anyway, I already pointed out this little detail. I also pointed out that the investigation hadn’t started when the alleged visits occurred. It’s like three posts up…

        1. That’s a stretch. From what Hancock’s attorneys are saying, the reason they made this request was to establish finally that the police do not have any evidence.

      2. As I mentioned before, this is only the second time that I have posted on Pols due to the uncharacteristically poor reporting on this story.  I rely considerably on Pols for my Colorado political news and your reporting on this is not up to your typically high standards.  The comments above here very clearly point out that you are getting the story wrong, at least at this point in time. Pols should have been able to check with a legal expert before insinuating that Bruce James’ request was anything other than standard language to clear his client’s name.  You also failed to mention that the answer to the request from the police was that they didn’t have any documents.  

        Certainly, instant news, blogs and the internet have given us more transparency and better information but they have also enabled amateur mistakes like this.  Pols, please own up to it and do a better job of analyzing all of the evidence before you cast dispersions.

        1. While the DPD says there is no such photo, the records request curiously does ask that it not be released to the press if it does exist.

          1. ….Hancock’s lawyer said that this is just standard, boilerplate legal language.  It would have been better for Pols to check with a lawyer and ask them how they would word this in such a situation.  They would have found that, although strange to the “non-lawyer”, this was standard language in such a situation.  I believe it was KDVR or one of the TV stations that has a video of their legal expert saying that what is written their is just is lawyer doing a good job.  He did NOT read any further into what Bruce James wrote.  The point remains that Pols should really check facts and verify them with their own experts (including legal like in this case) so that they are not making incorrect and misleading accusations.  So far, the “evidence” we have is questionable and is being “corroborated” by less than credible sources.  

            1. Why not interview a lawyer on the subject and publish a diary? I’d hit the recommend button for it, provided you choose a lawyer with relevant expertise and preferably one with no connection to any mayoral candidate.

              I know you’re new here, so I’m  not sure if you’re aware that any user’s diary can be promoted to the front page.  

            2. Libby was sheepishly explaining why they didn’t run the story (the reason is completely legitimate, no need for the apology) and they didn’t actually mention the odd wording. Kind of an ironic position for you to be, considering your entire post is a rant on making assumptions.

              But hey, when I know things don’t exist I ask for them back all the time. Is my unicorn still in your barn, ha ha? But seriously, if it is, don’t tell anyone.

              For the record, Hancock’s team is now saying that they asked just in case someone had stolen Hancock’s car and looks like him. To go meet with a hooker booked under Hancock’s cell #. Which is possibly a transposed number that actually belongs to a person named Mike Handcock, who happens to work for the city and looks like Hancock. And, again, stole Hancock’s car to go.

              Seems reasonable. What the hell is everyone so upset about?

        2. .

          and rubbing the noses of supporters of the loser in the fact that, while their candidate won top billing in the Primary, the POTUS and out-of-state money had the final word.  

          Now the shoe is on the other foot.

          CoPols cannot move on, cannot get over the fact that the candidate they had supported lost.  

          .

          Anyone else reminded of how AR supporters felt, and acted ?

          .

        3. We” aren’t getting anything wrong, because “we” aren’t reporting anything. This isn’t “our” story — it’s all over the place.  

            1. sorta implies that there might be some, you know, facts.

              But I guess if Pols considers the fact that there’s an allegation as being a fact, then I guess they’re probably factually correct . . . allegedly.

              1. Prior to 7NEWS’ verification of the source of the records posted by Complete Colorado, it wasn’t known who had produced them. It had been speculated, among other things, that the records were forged contemporaneously with the recent mayoral race. 7NEWS confirmed not only that the records were in fact Ewing’s, but that law enforcement also had the same information in their own files.

                This absolutely does “corroborate” what was originally posted by Complete Colorado, and their report does contain new “facts” not previously reported.

                We stand by our choice of words.

                1. but I hate the misinformation thing.

                  The records that have been verified by law enforcement have been proven to be accurate before. So accurate that an investigation was launched into a federal judge who would try to convince an escort to perjure herself (all started with a name off that list). And would you believe that the judges investigating believed the ho?! (Sorry, that implication was one of the douchiest comments in the thread.)

                  AND in an interview with 9News last night Hancock himself is no longer claiming forged or anything else. He’s saying that he just doesn’t know why he’s on the client list.

                  Anyone believing that Ewing planted evidence against a Council member of all people starting in ’05, planning on a get out of jail free card, should be begging Ewing for lotto numbers. If his ESP is so great, why didn’t he know when to shred, or phony up some documents showing a profit loss, thereby clearing him with the IRS from the start?

                  For a little perspective, in ’05 Hancock was a first term CC. Romanoff was hot, Hickenlooper was smoking, and Owens was nearly clean again. In ’06 we add Ritter, Carroll, Coffman, the rise of Perlmutter. Some of these men can even be traced to the club the escorts regularly had parties at (respectable place in general, I’m just noting it). Any of these times would’ve been a great time to add Bennet, eventually take off Romanoff, circle Hickenlooper, pop on Sal Pace in ’08. Why Hancock? Denver Municipal offices are allowed three terms; if Ritter had run again Hancock would still be some Council schmuck.

                  Huge digression, but I think important. The point is that the client list has been “corroborated” by other employees of the club, a judiciary investigation, and a former federal judge.

                  But hey, Hancock is going to release “redacted” records that have been in his possession, as opposed to in an evidence locker, to prove his innocence. That sounds infinitely more reliable. After all, he’s a nice guy.

                  The story has holes, but these little theories scattered through the thread aren’t them. And, much like freedom of speech, innocence until guilt is from government, not the arena of public opinion. How many times did Hancock use the word “perception” in the campaign? <– Lots.

                2. I’ve grown irritated with the story. More so with people who don’t know the difference between possible, probable, and very probable.

                  The facts of this story were always possible, against nearly anyone, they quickly leaned toward probable, then made the tumble to very probable.

                  There won’t be an investigation, but Denver is about to have a mayor who thinks it’s OK to break the law and then lie his ass off about it and ask his soon to be employees to not rat him out, as that would be a violation of his privacy. Yay transparency. I have a sense that this police situation is going to stay getting better. Buts that’s another thread, isn’t it?

                3. Just saying there’s still just one source – a source now cited several times, in several reports: 7News, WestWord, Complete Colorado, CoPols,

                  Yes, there were also new facts, just no new source for the list.

        1. A manager of the services lost a job, The HR director lost a job. The division director got forced retirement or firing, an assistant Colorado AG  counsel lost a job, and it would have been worse, but the proceedings were taped in arbitration rather than court recorded and Richard Nixon  crap occurred on a state officials testimony which I proved was pertjury with signed documents by the party in question unanimously released by the Colordo Supreme Court from a gag order.That official’s testimony was mysteriously erased, Abour 40 people tailgated my work and it cost city hall about 500k.This was from 1996 to 2000.

          I’d say that I (ahem) them.

  17. The only comment I would have is a sly smirk and maybe a snide remark that he had to pay for it.  Other than that it is a non-issue to me

    1. I don’t care if he cheated on his wife, but I do kind of care that he broke the law, especially since he has been very hard on another industry that encounters a lot of legal grey areas, the MMJ industry. I’m also concerned that he patronized an escort agency at a time when human trafficking is still a huge problem in the sex work industry. I am very much in favor of sex workers’ rights and would likely support a sophisticated decriminalization measure, but at this point in time I feel it is unethical and borderline misogynist to patronize these existing agencies which operate in an environment very dangerous to women and girls.

  18. It isn’t a crime to lie and say you’ve never visited a prostitute, when you’re not under oath and you aren’t swindling someone out of money when you do it.

    The statute of limitations on any crime that would have been committed in this case from 2006 or earlier has run long ago.  There will be no perp walk or investigation by the DA or grand jury investigation.

    Politicians don’t resign over stale stuff they can’t be prosecuted for doing most of the time.

    I find it increasingly implausible that Hancock isn’t lying.  If there is legal or police activity, however, it will be related to the alleged burglary of Ewing, the source of the leak to the blog, if discovered, or some sort of coverup efforts by someone.  A nastly divorce isn’t unthinkable either.

    FWIW, Hancock didn’t run a campaign on his personal moral purity or unambiguously crime free family upbringing.  This is a guy who has family members who have done time, an out of wedlock child from his teen days before he got married, and a pretty rough and tumble childhood, and has treaded into the morally ambiguous world of helping out family members who have gotten themselves into trouble they can’t handle.  He’s done nothing to hurt anyone but his family’s faith in him fidelity or abuse the public trust (apart from the latest probable lies about these handful of encounters).

    The classy thing to do would have been to say “no commment” in the last few days of the campaign, to owe up once he was elected and to be contrite.  He blew that.  But, it is a fine point and I’ll be happy to forgive him if he does a decent job of running the city.

    1. When did you predict this? I’m guessing right after the news started reporting on a scandal. Next beej prediction: the sun will rise in the morning!

      1. You were pretty much swallowing the line that it was a cheap attack from the Romer team. Actually, only CompleteColorado had reported it and you guys didn’t believe that Shepperd was telling the truth. Funny how much difference a few days makes.

    2. I’d go with “or something.”

      IndyNinja: “Why, on November 1st 2010, are you publicaly declaring victory [for Ken Buck over Michael Bennet], even though no results have yet been announced? What does that specific act gain for you?”

      bjwilson83: “Nothing, nothing at all. Just the sheer unadulterated glee of declaring victory and then being proven right.”

        1. You have absolutely nothing to do with this.

          And still playing the victim card. (As well as taking Buck’s place for yourself. Jesus never said “Blessed are the boastful.”)

          Anyway, go ahead and try to find the quote where I “defended” Hancock. I’d like to read it too, since I’m sure I never did that.

        2. You have absolutely nothing to do with this.

          And still playing the victim card. (As well as taking Buck’s place for yourself. Jesus never said “Blessed are the boastful.”)

          Anyway, go ahead and try to find the quote where I “defended” Hancock. I’d like to read it too, since I’m sure I never did that.

    1. Didn’t bother him at all.

      I’d kill to be a fly on his wall about now. I think the bigger question is if he’s being pressured by the party to step down. Failing that, unless the women come out I’d guess he takes office. And looks really sincere while doing it.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

113 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!