Weekend Open Thread

“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”

–William Butler Yeats

43 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. kwtree says:

    What could $5 million have done in Colorado, ( and five other states), if not used to boost Ron Hanks’ name recognition? What truths could have been told and messages spread, if our dollars and media hadn’t kept repeating the Big Lie? Yes, it was done to “choose the less electable opponent” for the Democratic nominee to run against, but it still seems like a boneheaded waste of money and media. 

    Our Democratic Establishment agrees.

    Democratic leaders call party mates' tactics to boost Ron Hanks, others during primary 'unethical'

  2. MichaelBowman says:

    My shocked face….

    Kiddie porn found on Alex Jones leaked messages. His response: 

    Alex Jones described the alleged child porn evidence as a “malware attack.”

    This, on the heels of launching an anti-LGBTQ  campaign to recover his street cred.

    Jones now wants to stage a comeback by positioning himself at the front of a new wave of hatred—with the help of powerful friends like Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

    Is there anything more predictable with this bunch of MAGAts? Their allegations are always, always an admission of guilt. 


  3. JohnInDenver says:

    Minor developments in the Tina Peters, RWNJ Mesa county clerk, saga in the past couple of days. 

    • As expected, the recount of the primary election did nothing about the 88,000 vote loss … but did turn up 37 votes missed by Elbert County Clerk Dallas Schroeder & his country’s staff.  Those additional votes added 13 to Pam Anderson (the winner), 13 to Peters, and 11 to the third candidate in the race. It gave Secretary of State Jena Griswold another occasion to put out a press release:

      “The recounts are complete and confirm once again that Colorado elections are safe and secure,” Griswold said in statement. “Accepting the outcome of free and fair elections is a cornerstone of American democracy. Disinformation and frivolous lawsuits do not change the fact that there are winners and losers in an election.”

    • Yesterday’s arraignment on the mix of felony and misdemeanor charges arising from the “security investigation”  formalized Peters’ pleas of “not guilty.”  “A jury trial, requested by Peters, is set for Jan. 26-27.” 
  4. MichaelBowman says:


    What could possibly go wrong? 

    • Duke Cox says:

      This is just false bravado. Loosely the same as, "There are no American tanks at the airport".

      Never admit defeat. Never admit guilt. Flood the zone with lies and bullshit. Create your own reality and refuse to leave it. 

      This is their MO.

      It will not change until they are locked up…and reporters stop talking to them.

  5. westslope says:

    JohnInDenver: the arraignment story you linked to is wrong. Peters was arraigned only on two misdemeanors in county court, stemming from her behavior of allegedly recording a county court hearing and later kicking a cop as she fought law enforcement seizure (per warrant) of her laptop.

    Her indictment by the grand jury for a variety of 13 charges, some felonies, is being processed in District Court. She was to have been arraigned yesterday but it was postponed. A court clerk said the cases’ minute order shows no reason for the postponement and no new date has been set.

    Mesa County’s 21st Judicial District gives new meaning to the adage that the wheels of justice turn slowly.

    That’s no excuse for the error-filled story.


    • JohnInDenver says:

      Let's see: story By MARIANNE GOODLAND marianne.goodland@coloradopolitics.com

      shows up in the Colorado Springs Gazette and Colorado Politics. and something called Newsline   

      Grand Junction Sentinel has a "Brief" that says the misdemeanor charges were answered and a 2 day jury trial is set for January.  No mention of the other charges.

      KREX / Westslopenow has a report that lays out the charges, shows some of the old tape, and explains the status: :

      She will next appear in Mesa County District Court January 26th and 27th for the obstruction case.

      As for her grand jury trial that has been put on continuance and will be resumed in September. District Attorney Dan Rubenstein told me more discovery is needed.

      District 21 Docket for: Mesa County – Mesa County Justice Center shows Tina Peters with

      Court Trial D392021CV30321Mesa CountyCourtroom 1212/20/22
      Court Trial D392021CV30321Mesa CountyCourtroom 121/12/23
      Pre-Trial Readiness Conference C392022M364Mesa CountyCourtroom 21/12/23
      Pre-Trial Conference C392022M2137Mesa CountyCourtroom 21/25/23
      Pre-Trial Conference C392022M364Mesa CountyCourtroom 21/26/23
      Jury Trial C392022M364Mesa CountyCourtroom 21/27/23
      Jury Trial C392022M364Mesa CountyCourtroom 2

      ELSEWHERE on the judicial site we can find a page letting us know "21st Judicial District / Mesa County Cases of Interest
      There are no cases at this time. "


      • spaceman2021 says:

        The top two case numbers are for a civil case (the "CV" part of the case number), and it appears to be Thomas Peters v. Tina Peters.  Her criminal case number is 2022CR371, and there appears to have been some sort of new appeal associated with it, case number 2022CA1295.  That appeal was filed August 4th, by media hound Harvey Steinberg.  Tina better keep fundraising if she wants to pay her lawyers (or, more accurately, have others pay them for her)

  6. ParkHill says:

    "Socialism" was a big scary word even in 1871. From Heather Cox-Richardson.

    On this day in 1880, the Republican candidate for president, James A. Garfield, spoke to thousands of supporters from the balcony of the Republican headquarters in New York City. Ten years before, in 1870, Americans had added the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, making sure that Black men could vote by guaranteeing that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    As soon as the amendment was ratified, though, white southerners who were dead set against their Black neighbors participating in their government began to say that they had no problem with Black men voting on racial grounds. Their objection to Black voting, they claimed, was that poor, uneducated Black men just out of enslavement were voting for lawmakers who promised them public services, like roads and schools, that could be paid for only with taxes levied on people with the means to pay, which in the post–Civil War South usually meant white men.

    Complaining that Black voters were socialists—they actually used that term in 1871—white southerners began to keep Black voters from the polls. In 1878, Democrats captured both the House and the Senate, and former Confederates took control of key congressional committees. From there, in the summer of 1879, they threatened to shut down the federal government altogether unless the president, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, agreed to end the federal protection of Black Americans in the South. 

  7. harrydoby says:

    Powerful column in of all places, Phil Anschutz’s Denver Gazette.  Liz Cheney, Profile in Courage

    History will remember Cheney as an honest-to-god, tough-as-nails profile in courage, I’m sure of it. Yet Wyomingites can’t see that right now; she’s been disloyal to the party, to Wyoming, to all the bamboozled Trump supporters up in those wide open prairies.

    But her loyalty is of an altogether steelier variety, I would argue: to the country, to the Constitution, to her own conscience.

    • Duke Cox says:

      Interesting comments.

      Contrast Rep. Cheney with the fast talking, craven “yes man” that is Fla. senator Rick Scott. His appearance on “Face the Nation” this morning was one incredible litany of spinning, deflecting, and outright prevarication.

      He repeated, at least 4 times, “This is about Joe Biden”. With every invitation by Margaret Brennan to offer a morsel of admission that  Democrats have had some victories, of late, Scott proved himself a hopeless, lying, fool.

      It has gotten so pathetic over there, they have begun a new narrative…Republican women are better looking and more attractive than Democratic women. I am not kidding.

      Even more nuts…the example they used was Marjorie Taylor Greene.

      I was nauseated.🤮

  8. MichaelBowman says:

    Blanche has the Sunday morning vapors…

    Republicans vow ‘hell’ for Democrats over economic bill

    Republicans are sharpening their knives while the Senate prepares to hunker in for a long weekend as Democrats deploy a special process to pass the party’s sprawling health care, tax and climate plan without buy-in from across the aisle.

  9. tim-tam says:

    Yet another version of Hiedi Heidi's name:


  10. Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

    This is how it gets done, people ….

    Senate Democrats pass climate, tax and health care bill after marathon voting session (msn.com)

    Everyone held her or his nose on the Dem side and voted for something which may not have been everything s/he wanted, but which did give the Dems a feather in their cap and some bragging rights going into the November election.

    I'll bet the GOP was most pissed off by the fact the Dems were acting like Republicans …. falling in line instead of falling apart.


    • MichaelBowman says:

      (Says the man who broke America

      “Democrats have already robbed American families once through inflation, and now their solution is to rob American families a second time,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

      • JohnInDenver says:

        Yep, "rob American families" … I'm sure we'll find out how at some point in the future. 

        Maya McGinnis of the [not especially friendly to Democrats] Committee for a Responsible Federal Deficit emailed IMMEDIATELY after Senate passage:

        The Inflation Reduction Act…

        It has been so long since we had a significant deficit reduction package that 60 percent of our federal lawmakers have never experienced one. This package is important not only for the savings it generates, but for the example it sets that when something is worth doing, it is worth paying for, and that deficit reduction should not just be an empty talking point but an actual commitment.

        So, anyone who is a SINCERE deficit hawk can now wonder about why he or she or they should cast a vote for Republicans.   THE ONLY PARTY TO GET SOMETHING DONE IS THE DEMOCRATS.

        • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:


          Not entirely true. During its four years, the other party slashed taxes for rich people and placed a usurper, an alleged rapist, and an Aunt Lydia onto the US Supreme Court.

          They also withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, placed children in cages, metaphorically fellated Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Viktor Orban and Jaire Bolsonaro, and tried to shake down the president of Ukraine.

          The other party accomplished many things few of which were positive.

    • notaskinnycook says:

      But they had to lose the insulin price cap to get Sinema on board. She demonstrated who butters her bread. 

      • Duke Cox says:

        Didn't the "carried interest loophole" survive because of her?

        • notaskinnycook says:

          It did indeed. She arm-twisted them into leaving it alone. We gotta get that 51st vote so the Senate Dems can tell her to get bent. 

          • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

            When there is a 50/50 split, each senator could force concessions from the other 49.

            Remember some of the unseemly stuff that had to be done to get the ACA across the finish line? The Louisiana Purchase? The Cornhusker Kickback?

            The sausage-making process is not pretty.

      • JohnInDenver says:

        Don’t put insulin on Sinema’s head …

        Meteor Blades, at Daily Kos, says

        The Senate parliamentarian ruled the Democrats’ proposed cap on insulin prices could not be passed via reconciliation. So Democrats (who voted unanimously for the cap) needed 10 Republican senators to join them to reach the 60-vote tally to overcome a filibuster. As Hunter notes, only seven did

        So, blame 43 Republicans. Or maybe the Parliamentarian.  Or those who set the rules for the carve-out of the filibuster in the “Reconciliation” exception. And certainly blame those who want to maintain the requirement of needing 60 votes to start to debate a bill (including, but not exclusively Sinema).

        NY Times version of Sinema’s extortion:

        To win Ms. Sinema’s support, Democratic leaders agreed to drop a $14 billion tax increase on some wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives that she had opposed. In a statement, Ms. Sinema said she had also won the inclusion of changes that would “protect advanced manufacturing and boost our clean energy economy,” but did not offer details.

  11. westslope says:

    JohnInDenver: my error-spotting on Peters’ felony cases remain. KREX, that you cited, was spouting about a grand jury trial’’ getting a continuance. What, pray tell, is a grand jury trial?

    Court cases for felonies have F in their numbers. 

    We still don’t know why her felony cases were continued. She had been scheduled for arraignment last Friday. The court record still doesn’t contain an explanation nor is there a new date set.

    Isn’t there a reporter left working in Colorado who knows the difference between county and district courts? Felonies and misdemeanors?

    • JohnInDenver says:

      The grand jury returned a set of indictments on the election flustercluck.  7 felonies and 3 misdemeanors, if I recall aright. I'm assuming those are the ones the KREX standup report referred to.

      The were separate from the misdemeanors dealing with the ipad in the courtroom foofaraw, which I think are the C392022M364 cases going to trial in January.

      And then there is D392021CV30321 — and I took the CV as meaning a civil trial, — so maybe sometihng dealing with the divorce & the house?

      Leaving another matter of C392022M2137 —

      And now, the docket lists

      9/7/22 4:00 PM1Hr PETERS, TINA Arraignment D392022CR371 Mesa County Courtroom 9 — that I assume is the (delayed) Arraignment on various tampering charges.




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.