U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

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
September 21, 2006 11:16 PM UTC

Big Republican Donors Could Face Big Penalties

  • 64 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Complaints against the Trailhead Group are popping up more often than zits on a teenager, with the latest being an allegation of illegal coordination between Trailhead and the campaigns of Bob Beauprez for governor and Mark Hillman for treasurer.

What drew our attention in this new complaint is the last paragraph of a press release sent out by Clear Peak Colorado:

The complaint further alleges that the Trailhead Group has been behaving as a “political committee” and is therefore not permitted to receive contributions in excess of five hundred dollars per two-year cycle.  Trailhead has received over $750,000 in excess of its applicable contribution limits and is therefore liable for penalties of at least $1.5 million and up to $3.7 million.

Why is that interesting? Because of Section 10, Article 28 in the Colorado Constitution:

(1) Any person who violates any provision of this article relating to contribution or voluntary spending limits shall be subject to a civil penalty of at least double and up to five times the amount contributed, received, or spent in violation of the applicable provision of this article. Candidates shall be personally liable for penalties imposed upon the candidate’s committee.

If the complaints filed against Trailhead Group and other Republican 527 committees prove valid, particularly charges that Trailhead Group was behaving as a “political committee” with strict contribution limits, then donors could be held liable for giving money to these groups. With a civil penalty of at least double and up to five times the amount contributed, that’s a lot of money that donors could have to pay in fines. Pete Coors, for example, gave $150,000 to Trailhead, which could potentially make him liable for a $750,000 civil penalty.

With Beauprez’s gubernatorial campaign in the toilet and Republican chances at taking the House or Senate also dim, donors may decide it’s not worth it to risk making any further big donations that could potentially result in civil penalties later. Trailhead and other groups have opened the door to trouble with some questionable accounting practices, and not just for themselves.

Comments

64 thoughts on “Big Republican Donors Could Face Big Penalties

  1. Is Coladopols allowing itself to be used by the Dems to create a false controversy?

    Are the Dems stretching to scare contributors to the Repubs in to zipping their checkbooks?

    Just who is being ethical and unethical here?

    Don’t know.

    Just skeptical.

    1. In the sense of being “used” the Pols are doing their job by posting occurences in the political sphere, and Trailhead being sued for breaking campaign finance law, electioneering law and 527 coordination is pretty big news. 

      While the Dems do not have control of the SOS office to stop GOP giving, like the Trailhead group does with Gigi Dennis, they have brought information (laws being violated) into the public view.  I would say, if anything, they are performing their public duty to question and be skeptical.

      Pretty simple, not unethical.

      I do know, and I’m nto skeptical.

        1. You don’t file a legal complaint without some standing, or else you get yourself slapped with some serious legal penalties, and the lawyer doing the filing can have his license to practice revoked.  So you have to start by assuming that there’s enough information to at least make a casual conclusion that Trailhead is colluding with the campaigns.

          Beyond that, though, I haven’t seen the “smoking gun” memo that definitively links Trailhead to the campaigns through these consulting groups.  But if you start at the Trailhead, you have to wonder where the trail leads.

          1. I don’t know about the other campaigns around the state but I am familiar w/ SD22.

            In the R primary the Mike Kopp campaign filed two complaints against Kiki Traylor and threatened to file another. One was dropped immediately (the person that was lured into filing the complaint by the Kopp campaign learned that it was just a political stunt). The second was filed by the campaign and was dropped the day after the election. The third was a threat by the Kopp Campaign because Traylor posted an Owens robocall on her website. The  contention was that posting the robocall indicated that Traylor was coordinating w/ outside groups. That same week Kopp posted a robocall on his website. For his efforts Kopp earned the nickname “Courtroom Kopp”

            No, the only sanction is that the general public will learn that your campaign is about sleaze rather than issues. Not sure that matters anymore.

    1. While I personally do not have the facts in front of me on this one, this smear swift boat action of desperation is as low as it gets.  Is it going to work? Probably not.

      Who paid for this ad?  And if the BB campaign sent out a press release, announcing an unsealed case from Ritter’s file, and a 527 releases the ad, does that blatantly prove coordination between the two? Does that prove to all the skeptics and moonrakers out there how much these people will stoop to keep power?

      1. Beauprez’ “top secret unsealing document” looks exactly like the one 527 lawyers and the “Justice” lobby group is using against Ritter.  Coordination. Coordination. Coordination.

      2. they are using that same footage of Bill walking forward, looking to the right, and smiling, that the Trailhead commercial used.

        GOD – these people are idiots.

      3.   They desperate attacks by the Both Ways people and their “independent” supporters at Snakehead will get worse.  They haven’t fully wheeled out the story about Ritter eating monkey meat in Africa yet…..
          I wouldn’t surprised if Willie Horton makes a cameo appearance in Colorado before this election cycle is done.

    2. This kind of BS makes me more determined than ever to stick with the Republican party and fight for what is left of it’s heart and soul….GONE is the party of my father and grandfather.  Moonraker — have you ever met Bill Ritter?  His family?  Have you ever spent any time in Africa? Stared into the eyes of people who never have a sense of where their next meal is going to come from…or a mother who can only stand by and watch helplessly as her children slowly die from malnutrition of hunger?  Well I can answer yes to all three of these questions — and for me there is only one man in Colorado that I want to lead this state for the next 8 years — Bill Ritter. His positive message and life experiences make him the man Colorado is going to put into office in November.

      Is this considered a 527?  I heard the Oil and Gas Association in Colorado — along with Tri-State Generation and Transmission (and by default the rural electric cooperatives in this state) are funding an “anti-Ritter” 527 campaign. I’m going to assume they won’t be talking about “their” energy policy because that would be too obvious — perhaps it is this little stunt?  If so, rural Colorado should be outraged.  The next time your at a Bronco’s game and you see one of those “touchy-feely” commercials about “Touchstone Energy Partners” and how they are here to help make the world a better place…just remember this ad … and hold your nose. 

    3. Don’t you have any friends on this blog? Can’t they jump in with a word of support or are they completely appalled too?

      Hmmm, ad was paid for by “Coloradans for Justice.” Will have to look them up and try to see where the tentacles all come from.

      1. I’m not sure if this little girl’s mom has internet access, but I’m sure she’d disagree with you that this is “low” or “BS”.

        It says a lot about you when you agree that:

        a drunk lady with a suspended license who runs over a family of 4, kills a 4 year old girl and flees the scene to be found by a news crew 3 days later in a bar (whew!)

        should get 8 mos in a jail.  Disgusting.
        http://www.youtube.c

        1. she then took advantage of the good will of the people of metro Denver, to include a nice republican radio host and his conservative listeners. 

          She spent the money on a car, clothes, whatever else.  Not a trust for her kids. Not a college education.  Not opportunities for her kids. Not rehabilitation for her own drinking and DV issues. 

          Sad, really, that this is the best Trailhead has to offer.

          1. I knew a rape victim who took a long vacation and went to a spa to get over her grief.  People work their troubles out in different ways.  There’s no set formula.  A little gentleness is in order here.  Don’t go sounding like Ann Coulter.

        2. I didn’t say any of the stuff you attribute to me. But then, you’re a dishonorable shill as we’ve proven before, so putting words that are nowhere near what I said into my mouth is par for the course with you.

          1. It was my understanding you and your compatriots on this thread believed that justice was served when a horrible person got a slap on the wrist for what she did to a little girl.

            In fact, now some are actually attacking the mother (not you).  I’m not sure what the mother’s history is, but it shouldn’t matter.  One thing I’m sure is true – is that she loved her daughter.

            Bill Ritter had a choice.  He could have sent Shiela Towns (the killer) to prison for 12 years!  Did he do that?  No.  Why not?  She basically got time served and a ticket to live by her family in Portland, OR while on probation.

            Of course Aristotle, I’m speaking to the choir.  But I challenge others on this blog to actually address the case itslef, rather than attack the mom or dismiss it as if it didn’t really happen.

            1. "Bill Ritter had a choice.  He could have sent Shiela Towns (the killer) to prison for 12 years!  Did he do that?  No.  Why not?"

                Because he wasn’t the judge.

              1. Why is it that people think that all justice that prevails is the type portrayed on TV …Law and Order.

                Everyone knows the DA has to deal with the official police report and the available evidence.  They then must go thru discovery and work alongside the Defense. 

                After both parties have had their say, the jury receives instructions from the judge.  They deliberate and render a veridct.  The judge then sentences the defendnat based upon sentencing guidelines established by the Colorado legislature.

                If it was a hit and run with a drunk driver…ask any MADD supporter and they will tell you that very few DUI, DWAI’s actually do jail time.  Especially on a first offense.

                Maybe what we should do is have a “Wheel of Misfortune” in the courts.  A foxy, bimbo in a tight skirt, and pumps spins the wheel.  On the upside, a murdere may get life or death.  Then again, a shoplifter might get life or death.

                So where is the justice?  No system is perfect. 

            2. Yes, she did get sent to Oregon…to live in an Alcohol Rehabilitation facility for 2-5 years. That is not prison, but it does force her into a controlled living environment where she will have to deal with her crime. Also, she will be on probation the entire time so if she screws up at all she will be remanded back her to serve out her 12 year sentence. We can argue all day if she got the punishment she deserved, and we will obviously not result in a conclusion, but your nice little youtube fails to mention the westword article and the second you posted it I could find nothing about them on the web. They filed at 4.02 today, an hour and one minute later you posted the youtube. Thats fast. Good game trailhead, obfuscate the facts in order to help your cause, since we all know BWB cant do it.

              1. From the front page of today’s Denver Post…

                “On Aug. 20, Washington, 27, was the passenger in a car when a traffic stop led to discovery of a “large bag” of marijuana and a loaded 9mm handgun. Three days later, Washington faced two felony charges and a $25,000 bond, according to court records.

                But by the end of the day, the felonies had been dropped by the Denver District Attorney’s Office and Washington had been released after plea-bargaining some old traffic violations.”

                One month later he shot dead an Aurora police officer.

                1. … the total facts are probably more complicated. Why did they drop the charges? Did the police muff it somehow? (No, I haven’t read the article yet.)

                  BTW, no charges = no plea bargain, so how does this support a critical case against Ritter or plea bargaining in general?

                  This is why I asked who you were voting for. I noticed that all your posts seem to be subtly anti-Ritter. I’m not accusing you of anything, I just find your tone interesting.

                  1. I’m talking about policy issues and you’re all about your candidate so you want to make me the focus?  I’m a private citizen.  It is my right to discuss issues.  The focus should be on the man who says he wants to lead us and his policies.

                    Read the article.  The police charged him.  The charges were dropped in a plea bargain.

                    1. but I don’t make any bones about my affiliations. Of course that’s why I picked an anonymous handle, but you’re free to make your choices.

                      Are you the focus? Hardly. (Although now that I have to answer you the focus may shift toward you a bit.) I really do wonder about your motivations. Does that infringe on your right to discuss issues, like you imply? It does not, so spare me the overreaction. I’m just as free to wonder where you’re coming from, especially in light of the consistent tone of your posts. You know, I’m just a reasonable guy questioning Ritter’s background, it’s just coincidental that these fall right in line with the Republican’s attacks. And I know, it’s possible for a person to honestly have these concerns. But it makes me wonder…

                    2. I think I’ve only addressed my area of expertise. 

                      Overreaction?  You come on like the secret police and start questioning someone’s motivation.  Isn’t that I subtle attempt to discredit?

                      You know what you’re doing and you have to live with it. 

                      If you want to shut down debate, just say so.  I won’t post anymore. 

                    3. And yes, I do know what I’m doing. I’m checking on your honsesty, and you’ve convinced me. (I’ll feel better about it if you post about other topics, too.) But word of advice – don’t be so defensive. It’s a blog. Wait until someone really rips you. It won’t be me.

                    4. Found the article online. Here’s the part you didn’t include:

                      …………………………………………..

                      As for the Denver arrest last month that might have kept Washington in custody, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey said Thursday that although both a Denver police officer and a judge believed there was probable cause for an arrest, the felony charges on Washington would not have stuck in front of a jury.

                      The arresting officer noted that the marijuana was “stuffed between the passenger seat and the passenger door” and that a loaded handgun was “under the passenger seat where the suspect was sitting.” But it would have been difficult to prove Washington knew the gun was there, Morrissey said.

                      “This is the hard part of our job,” he said. “Oftentimes we look at really
                      bad guys, but we can’t use that to determine if we can prove a particular case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

                      ……………………………………………

                      So, Andy, what do you think? If they brought him to trial and he was acquited and he then murdered someone, would that make the situation better? I’m not saying this to defend the current policy, and I certainly don’t have any solutions (other than decriminalize victimless crimes, but that’s a whole other debate).

                    5. I haven’t, but experience tells me not to put too much stock in the DAs excuse.  What would you do if you were the prosecutor and a cop was killed because you made a mistake?

                      I understand now that you are just a politician.  Nothing means anything to you but winning.

                      Okay son, youth must be served.  You have the last word.

                    6. I’m no politician. I’m registered unaffiliated, but am proudly liberal. I don’t need the last word, I just don’t want anyone misunderstanding where I’m coming from. And where I’m coming from is this – I think the debate would be better served discussing gubernatorial policy. We can dissect what Ritter and Beauprez have done, and that’s fair. But I wish this were about what they would do for the state. (The candidates don’t make it any easier since they put out nice, positive sounding but vague statements about it.)

                2. You can point articles and examples of people who got off on plea bargains and I can only point to people that are currently in jail serving the full term of their sentences. The reality is that we do not have enough jail space to keep all the people who should be locked up. We have things like early release. Is that a good thing? I would argue that it isnt. Parloees get out early. is that a good thing? Debatable. Do we need more jails? I think an emphatic yes would be the answer to that one. But truthfully are all punishments correct? I would say that it depends on the offense, the victim and the perpetrator. Look, i do not think that plea bargaining is ideal. This case you provided shows the short comings of the system. The case I replied to that Moonie linked an ad to, clearly misrepresents the facts.

                  1. and his office is working on a proposal for a national database of prison places (along the lines of what the airlines use for passenger placement).  Once in place, it would have to be enacted through a series of federal-state compacts, but the end result would be that all violent or potentially violent offenders would go into a general pool and they would be placed in appropriate facilities in-state if possible, but out of state if necessary.  These violent offenders would bump non-violent offenders out of the prison places if need be.  It would relieve the pressure on prosecutors’ offices.

                    But are you really interested in any of this, or do you just want to defend Bill Ritter?  The last guy is trying to discern the motives of a private citizen instead of discussing policy.  This is all part of the juvenile “team spirit” politics practiced in America today.

                    It’s My Party Right or Wrong!!!

                    1. I want suggestions as to how we can improve the system so plea bargains arent an issue. I am  a law student who is looking into this type of legal work so the issue is something that I am deeply interested in. If what your friend is proposing is true than that would be really interesting although I dont think that it would really solve the issue of overcrowding in jails. Nor do I think that it would solve the issue of plea bargains.

                      As far as what my motives are I will tell you straight up that I am voting for Ritter, but I just as easily could be defending Suthers. I think that that gets overlooked a lot here too. Another statewide race that has a candidate with a high number of plea bargains yet the focus of any discussion concerning plea bargains is focused on Ritter no matter what side of the aisle you find yourself on.

                      Before I went to law school I talked with an alum of the school i attend who is a public defender in Colorado and has been one for about four years. I asked her about her job and what her case load was like. She said that she has had over 12,000 cases, 4 of which have gone to trial (3 of which she had won). Presumably the number is equal on the prosecution side as well. So the problem is not just with jail overcrowding and prisoner placement. We simply do not have enough people to try cases (that includes judges, clerks, court reporters, courthouses, and eeverything else that is needed to try a person) without violating that pesky amendment to our constitution (number 6).

                      In the interest of full disclosure her court cases concerned mostly misdemeanors and DUIs (but often those cases also include jail time).

                      I am trying to debate an issue. If republicans or Greens or the prohibition party come up with a reasonable way to get rid of plea bargains than they have my ear, but dont say someone is trying to question your private citizen motives than question theirs.

                    2. Small problem – here is the report of the Courts for Fiscal Yesr 2007 here, where they state they cannot handle the existing caseload with current staff. So, if you want to see plea bargaining rates go down (which I would) tell me where the money comes from? Are you in favor of increasing conviction rates in return for tax increases? I wouldn’t blame Bill Ritter or John Suthers for the position they have been put in.

                      What I see is the “Cherrypicking” of plea bargains. Don’t give the symptoms, explain the problem and give me a solution. My explanation:

                      Problem:

                      Everyone wants their concerns funded, don’t want to pay taxes and complains that uses of money they don’t like are bad.

                      Solution:

                      Create greater transparency of the state budget, explain trade offs and fund the services a majority of people want.

            3. is the exploitation of a family’s grief to score political points. That’s where I’m coming from.

              I remember the whole Willie Horton affair like it happened the last election cycle. Somehow I still can’t stomach all the horrible negativity involved in politics. I know it’s been there since day one, but I’m still idealistic enough to think that if candidates just focused on their own qualifications, and not the other guy’s negatives, we’d have a much better system. Some day I’ll be sufficiently cynical not to care anymore but it hasn’t come yet.

                1. She probably, secretly loves Bill Ritter.  But she was paid enough to lie about her feelings.  Because we all read her comments in the news when the (lack of) sentencing occurred and she couldn’t say enough nice things about him.

              1.   This bit of breaking has just come out.  Federal prosecutors (also known as U.S. Attorneys) have been plea bargaining cases in federal court.  This has been going on for some time now.  What has Rep. Bob Beauprez done in the last four years to either end this travesty of justice, or at least substantially restrict its use?
                  If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem!

      1. The Republican Party was formed in large part to free Black Americans from slavery.  Read the pre-Civil War platforms of the parties and you will find the Republican platform calling for the abolition of “slavery and polygamy” (yes, it was the anti-Mormon party as well) when the Democratic platform was comparing slaves to property.  A good source for these documents (out of print now) is National Party Platforms, 1940-1968, by Porter and Johnson.

        Rights for Black Americans were strongly supported by progressive Republicans like President Teddy Roosevelt at a time when many progressive strains in American politics were adopted and absorbed by the Republican Party (legal recognition of labor unions, the early environmental movement, votes for women, and so on).

        Black Americans were mainly Republican until President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.  Roosevelt accomplished an extraordinary feat of coalition building, bringing Black Americans into a party that was partly dominated by white Southern racists. 

        I can never get over how devoted Americans are to their party identification.  It is something along the lines of a devotion to a sports team.  I’ll kill for the blue team and he’ll kill for the red.  It’s silly, and it has nothing to do with policy.

        When I was a boy the national conceit was “King and Country.”  I came here at a time when it was “My Country Right or Wrong.”  I’ve lived long enough to see that morph into “My Party Right or Wrong.”  Sad.

        1.   Why did you not continued with the major political parties’ role reversals. 
            In 1964, Lyndon Johnson blew off the segregationists when he signed the civil rights bills into law.  He even predicted that he was delivering the Deep South to the GOP. 
            Not to take any chances, Richard Nixon took up the cause of racism for the GOP with his infamous Southern Strategy.  Of course, they code named a campaign of “law and order.”  That was a euphemism for jailing or executing African American men after southern criminal trials. 
            Role the tape forward to 1988 and we have Daddy Bush running the Willie Horton commercial.  (Could not he and Lee Atwater find at least one mean and dangerous looking WHITE murderer released from prison who killed again?  Like that has never happened?) 
            In the late 90’s, we had James Byrd dragged his death tied to a P/U truck in Texas while the then Gov. of Texas, Shrub, refused to sign a hate crimes bill to make racial killings (amongst others) a state offense. 
            Finally, last week we had the spectacle of Republican Congressman Tom “Back to the Border” Tancredo signing “Dixie” with a bunch of Klansmen in South Carolina. 
            Yeah, the Republican Party cared about African Americans until 1964 when all that changed.

          1. Instead of going through your rah, rah, go-team-go exercise that makes all the red evil and all the blue saints, think a little and try growing up.

            The Democratic Party’s dominance in Congress was maintained up until very recently on the votes of Confederate flag waiving “yellow dog” delegations from places like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and so on.  How long ago did George Corley Wallace stop picking who ran for Congress in Alabama.  It wasn’t 1964.  The guy was still Governor of Alabama in 1986.

            Under the Democrats the South was institutionally racist.  Unless you traveled through it THEN you can have no idea of what it was like.  The small beer you bring up, along the way arguing that Black Americans don’t support “law and order”, is just silly.

            And while we’re at it, which party honors the memory of two racist Presidents every year at its Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner?

            As any demographer will tell you, the South changed because of northern, middle-class migration.  It isn’t the old agrarian, racist and (sadly) Democratic place it was.  If you love the Democratic Party so much that you will spin its faults that’s your business.  I am a progressive.  I make my judgments based on policy, not party.

            1. I shouldn’t have been so hard on you.  I have no right.  You worry me.  To be so angry and so sure is a kind of blindness.  There are people of good will in all parties, they just have different traditions.  Get to know them.  The world will become more interesting.

        2. Political parties are constantly changing, as difficult as that may seem in the present.  As you say, around the beginning of the 20th century, many of the more progressive policies were advocated by republicans.  Lincoln was a Republican.  Obviously, that was then, and not now.  Yes, Roosevelt brought a lot of people together in the Democratic party, and then the civil rights movement — overwhelmingly supported by the Democratic party and opposed by much (not all) of the Republican leadership, drove out much of the “old” Democrats.  Nevertheless, the Republican party remained mostly moderate until two things: Reagan, and the Christian Coalition.  Now we’re here.

          That’s not to say that “Republicans don’t care about black people.”  I don’t agree with that statement.  The truth, as always, is more complicated.  People put on blinders, and refuse to see what doesn’t fit into their ideological agenda.  When one is advocating for programs that kill the hopes of those living in poverty, it’s more convenient to acknowledge poverty only on paper, but not to go out of one’s way to find out how it affects people.  Many Republicans don’t understand how society, structured as it is today, affects the socio-economically disadvantaged, regardless of race.  That a larger percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged Americans are black makes this look like a race issue, when it really is not.

          Then there’s Tom Tancredo and George Allen, of course.  They are obviously just racist, but they don’t represent the majority of any (significant) political party.

      2. I too get my national policy talking points from Kanye West. However, you misquote. He merely stated that George Bush doesn’t care about black people. Methinks you extrapolate too quickly.

  2. … and blatantly designed to scare off donors.

    Name one instance where a donor has been penalized for making a contribution. 

    It has never happened anywhere in this country. 

    1. where this thread has scared off donors.  The first post  states the law.  Are you saying people should not be penalized for making illegal contributions?

      1. but a post on a blog is how I decide who to donate to and when to hide my check book. I was thinking about donating millions to Trailhead but now I’m too afraid to.

    2. George Steinbrener was convicted following a guilty plea in 1972 to making an illegal contribution to CREEP (the Committee to Re-Elect the President), Richard Nixon’s version of Trailhead Foundation.

      1. You mean a plea bargain right? That is the way Beauprez and his Trailhead cronies are using the word. Apparantly if a criminal pleads guilty to the charges, even when there is no deal from the prosecutor, that is a “plea bargain.” Beauprez would rather spend tax payer dollars to go to trial and risk the defendant walking free.

        1.   Absolutely…..and in Beauprez World, the government would need to raise taxes significantly to hire a multitude of additional prosecutors and judges to try the 95% or 97% of cases currently not tried. 
            More courthouses would need to be built too.  And construction labor will not be cheap because in Beauprez World, we will be deporting all of those cheap, illegal laborers.
            And since all criminal cases in Beauprez World are equally iron-clad, slam-dunk cases in which the Defendant is guilty and will be proven to be so, taxes will also need to be raised to build more jail and prison space since nothing less than a maximum sentence is possible in Beauprez World. 
          P.S.  What’s the problem with Scott Storey in Jeffco?  Why did he let Pete Coors off so lightly when a county jail sentence was clearly warranted under the Beauprez World theory of justice? 
            Note to the Democratic candidate for Jeffco D.A. in ’08:  Why did Scott Storey cut such a sweat-heart deal with the beer barron?  Could it be the Republican connection between the two?
            Perhaps Tim Knaus will set up an organization called “Jeffco Residents for Justice” and ask these probing questions.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

263 readers online now

Newsletter

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