Darryl Glenn and the “First Rule of Holes”

A shovel.

A shovel.

We wrote yesterday about a fresh and by all accounts self-inflicted problem for GOP U.S. Senate candidate Darryl Glenn, responding to decades-old court records about an assault charge against the candidate that was quickly dropped.

A case that, once again, wouldn’t be a problem at all if Glenn hadn’t been dishonest about it. As the Denver Post’s Joey Bunch reports:

U.S. Senate candidate Darryl Glenn issued a written response to The Denver Post on Wednesday night about a 1983 assault charge he faced after an altercation with his father. Glenn said the incident was the byproduct of a violent family history and something he did not remember, and he provided details about what happened based on a conversation with his mother…

The Denver Post located an archived police report from 1983 that included a signature that a handwriting expert deemed to closely match a financial disclosure document Glenn signed when he was running for El Paso County commissioner. Glenn would not comment on the police report when his campaign was given a copy Tuesday, and he maintained he did not recall the incident and had never been arrested or questioned by police in his life.

Glenn said in the statement that he was never in court as a defendant in the misdemeanor case. Court records, however, show he made an appearance before a judge in December 1983, and later in the statement he talks of being called into the judge’s chamber.

Glenn said Wednesday the charge was “dropped nearly immediately.” Records show that the third-degree assault charge from the Nov. 20, 1983, incident was dropped Feb. 4, 1984.

Republican Senate nominee Darryl Glenn.

Republican Senate nominee Darryl Glenn.

The disclosure of this incident by the Denver Post has set off a fierce round of press-bashing by Republicans who claim nothing about the incident should never have been reported–and as a result amounts to a “hit piece” on Darryl Glenn. The problem, as we said yesterday, is that the facts of this very minor and quite possibly defensible case from over three decades aren’t at issue.

Glenn’s response to questions is the problem.

Simply put, Glenn made statements about the case when asked that didn’t make sense, and that is the sole reason this story received news coverage. Glenn’s denial that he had ever been interviewed by police, and unequivocal statement that he had never appeared in court about the case, are not supported by the record. Glenn’s response that the court documents could have referred to some other person named Darryl Glenn is, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory. The Denver Post editorial board summed the problem up well:

Some Glenn supporters are taking his back, saying that a case from 1983, when Glenn was 18 years old, isn’t fair game.

We likely would have agreed with this criticism had Glenn been more forthcoming from the outset. But how a candidate for higher office — and he’s running for the U.S. Senate — handles mistakes or potential scandals is serious business. His actions speak to his judgment, and his denial suggests he has trouble dealing with basic facts. [Pols emphasis]

The problem is not with what Glenn did or didn’t do in 1983. The problem is not that he had a rough home life growing up. The problem is that what he initially said about the incident is not true. The emotional subject matter Glenn disclosed about his family relationships as a child does not excuse making ludicrous excuses about this incident today. It’s just not believable to suggest Glenn remembered so little about this that he attributed the whole thing to some other person with the same name.

But once you’ve made such an obviously false statement, the press is going to write the story.

Because the lie is what makes it a story.

20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ModeratusModeratus says:

    The Denver Post/Colorado Pols one-two punch. We've seen this a hundred times, why do either of you even pretend to be credible? This was not a story. Everyone makes mistakes about things that happened 30 years ago.

    You are using low tactics because you're afraid of Darryl Glenn. Shame!

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      Which is exactly what you'd say if a Dem lied about something uncovered from 30 years ago. But why waste your time? Even must know Glenn is going to get nowhere against Bennet. 

    • JohnInDenver says:

      "Afraid of Darryl Glenn…"  Uh, I doubt it. Incumbency, cash on hand, on-going fund raising, outside group advertising, party and campaign ground game, and polling all are problematic for Mr?/Col? Glenn.

      I did a number of less than wonderful things in my late teens – but I remember whether or not they resulted in police being called, charges being raised, and my going to court. I think Glenn could have handled this pretty easily by saying "I don't remember" or "it happened, but ultimately there was no conviction." But by being definite that events did not happen when there is documentation inconsistent with that definite statement, the inconsistency becomes an element to be considered.

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        It's because of the whole Air Force code of honor thing, which Pols wrote about previously. He wasn't supposed to have any police contact or record, period, to be able to go into the Air Force at officer level.

        I know this because my own son had been interested in going into the air force ( he wanted to fly),  but was told that his getting caught with pot paraphernalia when he was 14 was disqualifying.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          I'm not sure that would still be true today, mj, but reefer madness has ruined many a y oung life.  I won't smoke the crap but I voted to legalize it.  Prison for pot or even loss of student loans for pot is crazy.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Wait, weren't we afraid of Keyser??? . . . 

      . . . damn, Fluffy, you sure imagine a lot of things for us to fear!!!

  2. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    Glenn's latest story is a really good one… that he was protecting his mother from his violent father. Why didn't he go with that one in the first place?  Because he just forgot? That's not the kind of thing anyone forgets. If it's true, his credibility is so shot it doesn't do him any good.  It's either not true or he's an idiot for not telling the truth in the first place. Which of course makes little difference, Modster, since Dems have zero reason to be afraid of this no hoper candidate in any case.

  3. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Glenn deserves a compassionate response on this story, but not any votes. I don't think that the story will hurt him with Republican base voters. Everyone knows that Colorado Springs has one of the worst domestic violence rates in the country; Like most military towns,  the stresses of military life contribute to battery and sexual assault.

    Glenn’s story would have been a very common one, and many people can relate to it. He was a kid. He was in a situation he couldn’t control. He should still have been honest about it, and as has been observed several times, it is the lack of honesty people will remember.

    • ModeratusModeratus says:

      There is no compassion on this blog for anyone.

      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        If that's the real story why didn't he tell it in the first place? It's admirable. He would have gotten not just compassion but respect for standing up to defend his mom. Now we don't have any reason to trust that the latest story is the true one. What is it? Version four? Five? Nobody just forgets stuff like that.

  4. roofer says:

    Having read the Denver Post article, it sounds like Mr. Glenn described growing up from the perspective of someone deeply traumatized by the violence. And the Post is guilty of re-traumatizing both Mr. Glenn and his mother without due diligence or a smattering of conscience or compassion by not consulting psychologists to learn how to explore the situation without re-traumatizing, or perhaps just getting the story straight from the beginning, instead of accusing him of being arrested. ColoradoPols shares in this hate speech by furthering the judgementalism, concluding their article assuming people who have been so traumatized remember all the details clearly and are even willing to revisit such an horrific past created by others. And yes, Blue Cat, people do forget stuff like this, because no one who has been through it wants to remember the details of one night of many. Before condemning, the Post, Colorado Pols and others should first spend some time getting to know people who have come out of a lifetime of domestic violence to live productive lives, rather than using this as a 'gotcha' story. 

    Horrible journalism. Absent humanity. The Post and Colorado Pols owe Daryl Glenn and his mother a very public apology!

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      No journalist in any of the stories appearing in the Post made any connection between Glenn and a murder.

      It isn't a journalist's job to consult psychologists before reporting matters of record.  

      Anyone running for public office knows perfectly well that their lives and records will be examined. 

      You may consider yourself an expert on trauma. I doubt very much that you are.

  5. roofer says:

    And by the way, another Daryl Glenn did murder an ex-wife several years ago, as the Denver Post knows because they covered the story which is still available online. Initially thinking a reporter was confusing the wife-murderer with the Senate Candidate makes a lot of sense, especially when remembering why Dan Rather was fired trying to influence a Presidential election. Again, shame on the reporter for not doing more thorough research before dragging these people back through all those aweful memories of physical and emotional pain.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Until you just mentioned it, that was a likely little known, little remembered fact from "several years ago."  I'm gonna' bet that the only people who now remember that murder in connection with the events of this candidacy are the people who coincidentally share the name and those operatives who coincidentally work for him (or one of his [coincidentally other] brothers) . . . 

      . . . obfusication through conflation.  Dan Rather — WTF?  Go sell your victimization somewhere else, maybe somewhere that you can find a bit of new tin foil lining for your hat. 

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      Wecome, roofer. Are you just joining us, or have I seen your username here before? 

      In any case, I have a question for you since you seem to be a Darryl Glenn supporter? The only commercials I have seen about him say he is a "new kind” of candidate. What exactly is “new” about him?

      Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.