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
April 18, 2017 10:27 AM UTC

Colorado Democrats Want To Make 'Em Show The Numbers

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Before using Republican attempts to make Barack Obama “prove” his citizenship as a foil, Republicans in the Colorado legislature might want to re-read Senate Concurrent Resolution 11-003, requiring “any person elected to public office in the state of Colorado to provide proof of citizenship along with the oath of office.” If they have any questions, they can direct them to co-sponsor Sen. Kevin Grantham.

Oops.

—–

President Donald Trump.

As the Colorado Independent’s Marianne Goodland reports, Democrats in the Colorado House have introduced legislation directly addressing the hot potato of President Donald Trump’s tax returns–the refusal by Trump to disclose them having emerged as a major point of dispute as questions swirl about Trump’s loyalties and liabilities:

Two days after an estimated 7,000 people took to Denver’s Civic Center Park to demand that President Donald Trump release his tax returns, a House committee okayed a bill to require presidential candidates to make their returns public.

The measure, which is sponsored by Democratic Reps. Edie Hooten of Boulder and Chris Hansen of Denver, would require both presidential and vice-presidential candidates to submit the most recent five years of tax returns. Those who don’t submit those documents won’t appear on Colorado’s presidential election ballot, under the bill.

At least eight other states are working on similar legislation to require those tax returns, Hooten said; six are states carried by Trump in the 2016 election. In other states, although not Colorado, the legislation is referred to as the Tax Returns Uniformly Made Public Act, or TRUMP Act. [Pols emphasis]

We assume that the decision to not go with the “TRUMP Act” as the title of the legislation in Colorado was in hope of persuading a few Republicans to place principle ahead of partisanship and help pass it. Presidential candidates disclosing their financial history has routine for the last 40 years, after all, and it won’t be long before the shoe is on the other proverbial foot. But as the Denver Post’s Brian Eason reports, Republicans couldn’t get past the fact that the legislation was inevitably a response to a fellow Republican’s actions:

Suzanne Staiert, the deputy secretary of state, told lawmakers that in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has resisted state-level efforts to impose new qualifications on candidates for federal office — except for things such as petition-gathering or filing fees designed to deter insincere candidates.

National legal experts have opined on both sides of the issue in recent weeks as similar efforts have proliferated. So if nothing else, Staiert said, lawmakers should expect the measure to be challenged in court if it became law…

A number of Republicans Monday said they favor transparency, but fear that the bill would only attract such a lawsuit. And, they added, despite Democrats’ insistence that it shouldn’t be a partisan issue, the measure appeared to blatantly target a particular Republican candidate.

Rep. Susan Beckman, R-Littleton, recalled Republicans across the country mounting a similar effort to require candidate birth certificate disclosures while Barack Obama was president, in response to debunked questions about his citizenship. [Pols emphasis]

We’d say there’s a very large difference on the merits between requiring financial disclosure from a presidential candidate and the racist campaign to make Barack Obama “prove” his citizenship–which persisted for years after Obama did just that. In fact, that absurd comparison from a Republican lawmaker is an offensive reminder of the double standard Obama was subjected to for his entire presidency.

It will be even more absurd when Colorado Senate Republicans kill this bill.

Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Colorado Democrats Want To Make ‘Em Show The Numbers”

    1. No previous president had been required to produce his birth certificate. The republicans needed a black president to show us why proving that you were not born in Kenya was now so important. Every president for 50 years has released their tax returns. The republicans needed their own grifter president before they realized why disclosure of potential financial conflicts of interest is not important. 

        1. Funny thing is…Bill O'Reilly debunked the whole birther gig on his Fox News TV show in early 2009. He held up; for a camera closeup; a birth announcement of baby boy Obama from a Honolulu newspaper. 

          1. A so-called newspaper from the so-called city of Honolulu in the so-called "State" (if you count what we take as Manifest Destiny) of so-called Hawaii. 

  4. Maybe you should heed the advice of your loser in chief:

    “We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought,” Clinton added. “But I still believe in America, and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

    It is difficult to show less class than the Clintons, but Colorado Polsters lead the way in doing so.

    1. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” 

      I guess you are right, PissAnt. The Republican Party showed us the way to do that when Obama was elected….oh, wait. No you didn't.

      You sniveling hypocrite. 

      We owe him and you nothing ….but resistance. You underestimate the resolve of free people. We will not go down easily…lay in some supplies, motherfucker…this is far from over….

    2. You who have posted racist shit and fanned the flames of hate against Obama from day 1 have no business lecturing about class.  You have zero. 

      You just want Americans to be blindly compliant when the GOP is in charge.  Cornhole, in your heart you are not an American.  Just a vile fascist.  

      1. Worth remembering in 2009 what George W. Bush had to say when asked about President Obama's performance: "(nothing), he deserves my silence." 

          1. But Cheney didn't have a heart either as his anti-Obama commentary came before his heart replacement surgery, if I recall correctly.

      2. A majority of voters said NO to Trump.  Trump never won the trust of a majority of Americans, and is losing even more every day through his actions, broken promises and chaotic performance that shows no signs of improvement.

        Cynical hypocrites like ACHole want blind, ignorant, fearful followers. Knowledge and courage are poison to the GOP's agenda.

        The faster we toss the Buffoon-in-Chief and his Band of Bozos out of office starting in 2018, the better.  Trump has no respect for law or history, much less anyone or anything that doesn't suck up to him or bend to his impulsive will of the moment.

        But Good Nazis like ACHole will continue to spin and "normalize" all his and Trump's outrageous words and conduct.

        1. But Good Nazis like ACHole

          Please.  Carnholio was never a party member and, besides, they forced everybody to join.  He knew nothing about the camps.

  5. Just like Democrats who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, to offer up a bill that on its face that is unconstitutional. But at least they get to feel good. Now the question is, what will be the design of the ribbon they wear. Maybe a knit hat in the shape of a dollar sign. Nothing is too crazy for the current makeup of the Democratic Party.

  6. CHB

    The Senate gives its "advice and consent" to approve appointments that the President makes.  In the case of Garland the advice was they were not going to vote on any nomination to the Supreme Court until after the election.

    You may not like it, and it may or may not have been wise, but it was in keeping with their constitutional role.

    1. Yeah, CHB. the constitutional role of congress is to wrest control of the government through every unethical means possible and hand it to an autocrat who will reward them with untold riches…

      …being honorable servants of over 300,000,000 constituents who are struggling to make it in an increasingly unbalanced economy…not so much. Mitch McConnell (R-Big Pharma, Big Money, Big Oil, Big Ag, and on and on…) is an enemy of the American people, for whom he has complete disdain….unless you’re rich as fuck, that is.

      1. Andrew: the 200+ years of constitutional law may not give such a restrictive position to the role of the Senate. When one gives advice, the very definition of the word is providing information on a nominee. Ditch O'Donnell saying he won't allow a vote is not exactly "advice." 

        1. CHB:

          The role of the Senate is set forth in the Constitution, a writing which you implored Powerful Prune to read.  You either can't read or have chosen not to read it.  It says what it says.  Nothing more, nothing less.  You sure the hell have not read 200 years of constitutional law so your view on it is equally silly.  It appears you have not read any of it.

          Just because you don't like the advice, or how informed it was or how it was delivered, it was advice nonetheless.

          To suggest otherwise is stupid.

            2. Which was their right – what was not their right was to neglect the "advise" part by refusing to even discuss or vote on Garland's nomination.

              I don't know if you've noticed, but it's hard to advise someone while refusing to communicate with them.

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

246 readers online now

Newsletter

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