Michael Hancock Goes All In

(If he goes down, he’ll go down swinging. – promoted by Aristotle)

There’s no easy way to walk back from this statement:

Dear Friend,

In light of recent news stories, I wanted to let you know directly – from me to you – that these accusations are baseless and completely untrue.

Throughout our campaign, we dealt with false, negative attack after attack. As the election grew closer, each smear against my character grew more and more desperate, deceptive and ugly.

On Thursday June 2, I was hit with the most vicious attack yet. A groundless rumor that had been proven false over 3 years ago was dredged up only days before the election to diminish my reputation.[emphasis mine]

Each day since, I have been working aggressively to disprove these false and hateful allegations — allegations leveled by a convicted felon. I have instructed my team to be fully open, honest and transparent and to cooperate with all media outlets.

We have provided the press with my calendar. We have asked Denver Police to release any surveillance photos, videos or other evidence that may exist (and they have responded by saying there is no such evidence). Every piece of information and fact we obtain further disproves these outlandish allegations and sets the record straight.  

We have requested my cell phone records and we will continue to pursue other documents and records to clear the air, affirm my honor and integrity, and protect my family against these hateful accusations.

At the same time, I must also focus on the urgent and important work of transitioning from candidate to mayor. I will be sworn in as Denver’s 45th mayor on July 18. We have just 37 days to build an administration and prepare to hit the ground running on Day 1.

We’re making good progress. Today we announced the co-chairs of the DenverForward transition, well-respected leaders of our community who will help review city department opportunities and challenges, recruit great leaders for the Cabinet, and help prepare to launch our first 100 days initiatives.

We’ll have additional announcements about the Transition and inaugural events in the coming days and weeks as well.

I’m excited about Denver’s future and the possibilities ahead.

Thank you for your support.



Just what is the story from 3 years ago and how was it dispelled?

I just want the truth, whatever it may be to come out quickly.

What Do You Think?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

60 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Libertad says:

    What’s not a mystery is Anthony Weiners resignation dodge ….. er I’m in “Tiger treatment”, so I can’t resign now. Plus his wife is with child and apparently they’ve chosen not to abort.

      • Barron X says:


        the man has a sixth sense about when new stuff gets posted.

        Thielen is the only one he gives a pass to, and then only on weekend threads.

        Here’s what others have done to keep him from being the first poster:

        post yer diary;

        wait for Libby to post an incisive but uncomfortable response, usually citing Rasmussen.

        delete the diary and repost it within 1 minute.

        Libby will assume that he’s already peed on it and leave it be.  


        How do I know ?  Libby is my sockpuppet.


        • DavidThi808 says:

          Thielen is the only one he gives a pass to

        • Libertad says:

          My comment about this 3 year old story was valid, I’d never heard about it until I read the paper that shall not be named. I suspect most other folks hadn’t either.

          It turns out that 9News had confronted then Council President Hancock about the data and facts of the Denver Players (Hooker Scandal) 3 years ago.

          What I find most interesting is that Complete Colorado broke this story wide open. Their profile wasn’t high, so I suspect that the source(s) that exposed Hancock on his day trips to Hookerville didn’t much know about CC or ColoradoPols. That is, until they had spent months shopping the Hookerville facts to all the lame stream media outlets without success.

          Oddly it appears 9News either confronted Hancock on rumors about Hookerville or maybe some amount of data much, though less then has recently been published.

          Anyway I’d encourage these media outlets to now run with the story. I can’t believe that there are only 4 pages of Hooker call sheets. Maybe ColoradoPols wants to completely go through the reams of Hooker call sheets and develop a searchable database.

          If it’s about driving website traffic and creating a portal to the latest breaking news then this is a massive opportunity for Pols to take market share, make a buck and raise it’s profile.

    • Awen says:

      A GOP senator who bought time with prostitutes is still in Washington; apparently that’s perfectly okay with Republicans? I don’t see you making huge calls for his resignation, and what he did was flat out illegal. The GOP has no call on this one, and even Pelosi is being hypocritical because she allowed William Jefferson to keep his seat after they found $90K in his freezer…

      • BlueCat says:

        Vitter may have stayed and been re-elected by his constituents but he’s  not a driving force in congress and all the R sex scandals hardly did the Rs much good in the elections of 2006 and 2008.  Weiner is all liability now, no benefit.  His days of being the liberal/progressive lion all over cable are done. He has made himself a joke.   More shoes keep dropping. He could probably get re-elected too, but how much good is he to progressive interests anymore?

        Now he says he needs treatment.  If he needs treatment he needs to take, at the very least, a temporary leave of absence  The way things are, why not just resign so we can all stop talking about the guy? All he’s good for now is his reliable progressive Dem vote and, considering his district, that’s easily replaced.

        Fairness and hypocrisy really aren’t the point. The point is he’s already going into rehab and how many more cycles of this crap do Dems want?   I’m a Dem and my answer to that question is zero.  Buh-bye. As for Hancock, if the police really don’t have anything concrete and it’s his word against a pimps, he’ll get past this.  

  2. davebarnes says:

    with a hooker when a “hand” job would have been safer–both from a political and disease viewpoint?

  3. Dabee47 says:

    I hope this is a massive bluff.

    Of course…I don’t live in Denver…  😛

  4. ProgressiveCowgirl says:

    Did he lose all the proof in a house fire or something? I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but “to prove” is a verb that generally implies that the noun, “proof,” has been supplied. Said proof does not typically vanish, leaving its owner suddenly unable to repeat the act of “proving,” and instead stammering and wringing his hands for several days before asserting that proving has, past tense, been done.

  5. harrydoby says:

    The bottomline, according to Chuck Plunkett’s article (you’ll need to follow the link yourself) in this morning’s DP is that when reporter Deborah Sherman questioned Hancock in 2008, he flatly denied it then, just like today.

    When City Attorney David Fine took a look, he didn’t find anything worth pursuing (which unfortunately for Michael Hancock, is not the same thing as exoneration).

    As I and a few others on this site have at least implied, we’d settle for the explanation that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution, maybe an apology, and then move on…

    But unless the records of his name and cellphone in the Player’s book are a forgery, there will always be reasonable suspicion that blanket denials of any misbehavior are disingenuous, at best.

    That this matter went no further than it did 3 years ago was simply that there were many bigger fish to fry.  The Mayor’s race is major league.

    Mayor Hancock, welcome to The Bigs.

      • harrydoby says:

        … presumably from one of her sources within the justice system.  Whether she had the hardcopy records in 2008 is only known to Deborah Sherman.

        Perhaps she’ll follow up with a report on 9News today.

        Congrats to Chuck Plunkett for his immediate followup on the question raised by Hancock’s letter.

        • SSG_Dan says:

          Initial story here:


          Now, I was lucky enough to work with Deb Sherman a lot during my time at the station. She was the most determined, unstoppable and prepared reporter in the bldg, and was better than Paula Woodard at the height of her powers.

          And she would ruthlessly pursue a story until either she aired it or felt it couldn’t meet her personal standards for accuracy. So, if she thought in 2008 that there was any truth to a sitting City Councilman gettin’ busy with hookers, she would have chased it down and reported it.

          If she didn’t have enough at the time but thought there was a story there, she would have followed it relentlessly until she got a story.

          That’s why I’m 99.85% certain that there’s nothing here to report.  

          • harrydoby says:

            But it seems according to the article you provided, it was a target-rich environment. So it’s also equally likely Deborah Sherman couldn’t pursue all the leads — since only three entries spread over a couple of years would indicate only a minor fish in this pond:

            Sources tell 9Wants to Know the agency catered to prominent clients including judges, lawyers, businessmen, athletes and politicians.

            But I do hope your 99.85% confidence level turns out to be more accurate than my significantly lower confidence level.

  6. Sir Robin says:

    This is an unnecessary distraction. Denver needs a mayor.  

    • droll says:

      His name is Bill Vidal.

      Anyway, how do we judge him on the merits? DPD has been told to not release information that may be embarrassing to Hancock. The media can’t be counted on to report anything. Hancock lies like a rug.

      But let’s talk about Hancock. As a council member he won’t take a stand on the pension debate. He recently appointed a bunch more people to the Transition Team; besides kissing ass he’s sticking with the education reformers. He still doesn’t know how he’s going to fix the budget.

      He could’ve stopped the circus a week ago. He didn’t, instead he dug in his heels and lied in an email to his supporters. It’s his situation, he’s gotta deal with it.

      • BoulderDem says:

        Of course, naturally, flogging the hooker story has nothing whatsoever to do with how folks feel about Hancock’s performance on Council or anything … it’s all purely principle!

        You guys crack me up.

        • reubenesp says:

          And they resent that the CEA and DCTA fucked up big-time and are now 3-time losers (Romanoff, Mejia, now Romer).  To say that these clowns are out of touch with mainstream Dems in Denver is an understatement.  They hate Bennet and they hate Hancock.

          • sxp151 says:

            There are sharp lines on education policy around here, and somewhat less sharp lines on the mayoral race (because a lot of us don’t care, not living in Denver), but there’s no consistent correlation. I can think of several people who generally support teachers and still defended Hancock, as well as people who want the teachers’ union eliminated but still criticized Hancock early. It’s not been a major issue in this race, especially here on the blog.

            You’re seriously just talking nonsense.

            • Voyageur says:

              I’m on record that the possibility that the mayor to be may have had an orgasm out of wedlock, perhaps assisted by commercial means, bores me to tears.  Others, whom I respect, disagree with me.  But to argue a correlation between one’s position on hookergate and one’s position on K-12 reform is a bit of a reach.

                This scandal/tempest in a teapot — whichever you may classify it as — stands on its on merits or, in my opinion, lack thereof.

                That said, I do think the mayor-elect is lying like a trooper.  But if lying about sex becomes a crime, we’re gonna need a lot more prisons — and more nuns to guard them.  

          • nancycronk says:

            I don’t hate any of these people. Some of us are able to separate out issues, and weigh them against other issues. Please do not lump people into your arbitrary categories.  

  7. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    The pimp has nothing to gain or lose. Michael has everything to lose.  

    “I didn’t have sex with THAT woman, Ms. Lewinski”

    Why would Michael even bring up the pimp’s background? He acts like politians are not liars and we should just take their word for it? HUH?

    Where are the “ladies” let’s hear from the them.  Couldn’t they ID Michael.  Not too many short Black men on City Council in Denver.  Isn’t that how the pimp remembered Michael from his commercials?  LOL

  8. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    OK, turn over unedited phone records.

    Why is talking out of both sides of his mouth?

  9. BoulderDem says:

    You’re all sitting around this echo chamber desperately hoping that the hooker story is true, because you bet on a different horse in the election. And maybe, if Hancock resigns, your guy (or gal) can give it another go …

    And still, you’ve got only one piece of “evidence,” the word of a convicted felon who might have any number of reasons to hold a grudge against Hancock, and has probably lied under oath any number of times. Your chances of corroboration are diminishing daily … all you have left is the longshot hope that “his” hooker can be found — if she exists. Cuz she, Hancock, and the pimp are the only ones who know for sure, and no one believes the pimp. That much is obvious, with the cops now taken out of the story.

    It’s a nice day. Do yourself a favor and enjoy it!

    • harrydoby says:

      As someone that gave money to the Hancock campaign, and voted for him, I’m not “desperately hoping that the hooker story is true”.

      As I said above:

      But unless the records of his name and cellphone in the Player’s book are a forgery, there will always be reasonable suspicion that blanket denials of any misbehavior are disingenuous, at best.

      I’m not a lawyer, but I’m fairly sure forgery is a felony, whereas consorting with a prostitute is probably just an infrequently prosecuted misdemeanor

      • BoulderDem says:

        “reasonable suspicion” going forward then! I’ve worked on a lot of campaigns, and had to judge a lot of wild accusations from unreliable people, and whether to use them or not. Believe me, they come up, multiple times, in any competitive election.

      • Voyageur says:

        mostly it’s a petty offense, punishable in Denver by a fine of up to $999.  Which is why the cops like to confiscate a John’s $40,000 SUV by claiming he used it in the crime of soliciting an undercover cop.  That’s another story, of course, but one of squalid misuse of government power.

    • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

      Sorry Boulder Dem, but yes, this is an issue.  And yes, it is an issue, for me,  when the mayor believes the MMJ industry is a  moral issue.

      Also, as a woman I am growing sick of the powerful men cheating and breaking the law for sex.  He will have a bunch of women working for him.  I would have zero respect if my boss used hookers and i knew about it.  How would he speak to me about performace issues in the work place if i believed he is a pervert who buys hookers, when he has a wife and daughter at home?

      Look, i have no issue with hookers, if you want to live that life, don’t call out other professions and don’t run on the moral, “Man of God” stance and don’t be married.  

      Once again, who are you going to believe the politican that can lose everything or the pimp that will get 15 minutes of fame?  

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        to a hooker is a “pervert”?  C’mon that’s at least as far down the old crazy-train line as someone who says that anyone who has ever toked is an “addict.”

        Jesus, what is it about this last week that has everyones cronk out?

        • BoulderDem says:

          In one breath, WLJ calls Hancock a “pervert,” and in the next criticizes MH for portraying himself as a “Man of God.” In fact, calling johns “perverts” is exactly what the Christian Right would do!

          BTW, there is a very fine, long history of academic research into prostitution from a feminist angle. I recommend it to you.

          And finally, I never said it wasn’t a “big deal.” Just said there’s absolutely no credible evidence that Hancock lied. And this story will go away soon unless something is found.

          Obviously, WLJ is just upset by Hancock’s stand on MMJ. That seriously undercuts her “principled” stand on the hooker side, since her animosity has nothing to do with the hooker story.

          • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

            BD, just for the record, the cover of TIME has the same concerns about powerful men being “pigs”. Singling me out is somewhat silly since about 300 comments on the DP page, Westword and Pols are all echoing the same sentiment.  

            No evidence he lied?  Bill Clinton did not think there was either. Or Elliot Spitzer or John Edwards.  Frankly, at this point in our history, i would believe the pimp over 99% of elect officials. At least the pimp is truthful about what he is and where he is coming from.

            BTW, I am neither Christian nor Right and i have no issue with prostitution.  I have issue with hypocrisy.  The same issue i have with people i know smoke pot and want to legislate against it.

      • The realist says:

        to have a dialogue about the mistreatment of women in the prostitution industry.  We can look at the current story in several ways —

          * Men will be men (wink – wink)

          * Women can work in the industry if they want to

          * Woman are exploited, abused, taken advantage of in the industry, whether they’re there by choice or not

        I know, separate diary . . .

    • Voyageur says:

      Unfortunately, BoulderDem, you have your finger on the prosecutor’s dilemma.  While we’d all prefer that our witnesses were episcopal bishops or Nobel-prize winning nuns, such luminaries are seldom found on the inside of criminal transactions where they can observe prosecutable acts.   If we can’t go on the words of a felon, subject to whatever veracity a jury chooses to give his/her statements, then I fear the criminal justice system will grind to a halt.

  10. MADCO says:

    But I really don’t care.  Or, I care about as much as I did when  the mayor of another American city was accused of  another sleazy thing.  Hey- what about those Rockies?

  11. bjwilson83 says:

    They never learn. You’d think Hancock might have brushed up on his scandal-management skills after seeing Weiner go down. Although, maybe he did. There’s really no other way to play this one unless you just admit it from the outset. Something aspiring politicians have a very hard time doing.

    P.S. And let’s not hear any more about Vitter or Ensign right now. What they did was equally bad. But this is Hancock’s moment. Let him enjoy it.

    • Gray in the mountains says:

      bj, you know all about honesty don’t you?

      For those new to this page, bj is a proven liar. Not just about what color socks he wears, but about who he is. During the Bennet campaign against Buck, BJ attempted to infiltrate the Bennet campaign by pretending to be a human with compassion for others and consideration of issues.

      I do not see a reason, beyond healthy skepticism, to not believe Hancock. There is room in my universe to believe him at this time and remain skeptical and ready to pronounce him a fraud and a liar when such is proven.

      I use a public cell phone and would not be able to produce records. If by records you mean a list of numbers called, those repose with an office other than mine.

      FWIW, I’ve never met Hancock, supported Linkhart in primary and hold Romer in very low regard for the substance of his work. But, almost anyone has more reason to talk about honesty and fraud than BJ.

    • Irish Patti says:

      Vitter commit fraud? The C Street sleaze factory is full of holier than thou cheaters, liars and frauds, with unabashed homophobia thrown in for good measure.  

  12. Mark G. says:

    Nobody with a past can run for office.

    This leaves 2 choices. Straight laced people or those that know how to cover their tracks.

    Are there really any straight laced people? If so, what bubble have they been hiding in?

    We hate Jesus until in the voting booth, once inside we accept no less than perfection.

  13. barrylong says:

    Sunglasses eradicate particular frequencies of light. Certain frequencies of light could blur vision, and few others could improve contrast.

  14. barrylong says:

    Sunglasses  eradicate particular frequencies of light. Certain frequencies of light could blur vision, and few others could improve contrast.

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.