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
October 01, 2006 10:20 PM UTC

Some Damage to Ritter Likely Over Latest Attack

  • 28 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Along with the Denver Post’s ringing endorsement of Democrat Bill Ritter for governor today, Post reporter Karen Crummy has a story detailing the latest charge from Republican Bob Beauprez’s campaign against Ritter’s record as Denver DA. It pertains to the plea-bargaining of certain criminal cases involving immigrants, both legal and illegal, down to offenses that would not require their deportation:

A review of 15 of the agricultural trespass cases in Denver showed that heroin and cocaine charges, theft of motor vehicles and domestic violence crimes – miles away from any farm or open land – were transformed into agricultural trespass…

Lynn Kimbrough, former spokeswoman for Ritter and current spokeswoman for Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey, said pleas to agricultural trespass are intended to be used primarily in drug crimes for legal immigrants.

“Usually when there are proof problems in the case,” she said. “And because we have to balance our trial resources.”

…Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who has hammered Ritter on plea- bargaining illegal immigrants in the past, continued to do so Friday.

“It appears that he intentionally used a loophole to avoid enforcing the law,” campaign manager John Marshall said.

The effectiveness of this line of attack will be determined by how clearly the public understands that the majority of cases dealt with legal immigrants, who generally elicit more sympathy than those in the country illegally. Also important to note is the apparent referral to federal immigration authorities of a number of these cases, referrals that for whatever reason weren’t acted on by the INS/CIS.

However it plays out, we are likely seeing the most serious attack that will be leveled against Ritter in this campaign.

Comments

28 thoughts on “Some Damage to Ritter Likely Over Latest Attack

  1. Bill Ritter probably will win despite his winks at illegal immigrant criminals and his efforts to protect their ability to become legal immigrants, but for the few Ritter supporters who consider the security of our borders a major issue, this was disappointing news.

    What Ritter needs to do is admit that his office mishandled the illegal immigrant criminals. He must promise to sign any legislation that strengthens the state’s laws against hiring and illegally subsidizing illegal immigrants. And he must promise to back Tom Tancredo’s efforts to make our borders even more secure.

    A simple statement that he support’s Tom Tancredo’s new 700-mile wall would help blunt the Bob Beauprez attack on this issue, because BB is both ways on this issue, too.

    If Ritter continues to play Bush on this issue, and refuse to admit that he made a mistake, BB will have an opening. Whether that opening is very big or not depends on whether you believe the polls that say Ritter has a 2.6 percentage point lead or the ones that say he leads by 16 points.

    We’ll get a pretty good feel about how Ritter is reading the polls by listening to how he handles the issue. If he blows it off, he thinks he’s got the race won. If he moves to soften the blow of these disclosures, you’ll know he’s not so confident.

    1. Citizens have the right to direct and complete explanation from Ritter, regardless of what the polls say. Was this part of his overall approach to drugs which involved attempts at rehabilitation and not only jail? Did he kowtow to the bishops? Was it something which was not important during his administration because the flood of immigration didn’t start until recently? Ritter ducks issues (ie abortion) I want to see how he handles the tough ones.  This is a tough one.

  2. doesn’t like crime, Pols.  Regardless of who commits it.  It’s more offensive when people who aren’t supposed to be here commit it.  But the public would be in favor of deporting US citizen criminals in many cases if it were legal.

    What is offensive is that Bill Ritter had the option to prosecute these criminals in a way in which they would do time and then be deported.  Instead he chose to plea them down to where most got probation.

    And what unbiased source says that federal authorities were notified but never acted?  In fact, the specific plea (“designer plea”) was utilized because the federal authorites would not be notified.  That was the whole point.  Otherwise, there would be no article.

    1. and this best you can come up with? You are banking pretty hard on the general populous thinking that all immigrants are illegal immigrants as, I’m sure, the attack will make this sound.

      Moonraker, please go into Marshall’s office and tell him we want something that doesn’t depend on confusing the average voter. How about filling us in on what BWB has actually done instead of what he claims to support?

        1. It is the Beauprez camp that releases smut that they hope will trick the voters. If you will look at polls you will note that the voters don’t buy it. I know this.

          I’ll give you a hint: I’m not Bill Ritter. This is my response. You’ve already heard, I’m sure, Ritter’s response:
          Most of those cases weren’t illegal immigrants, most of those cases were plea bargained because there wasn’t enough solid evidence to support the case, etc.

          I was merely pointing out how feeble the attempt to take a jab at Ritter is. The only hope of BWB’s camp is to confuse the voter and that’s not going to happen.

      1. putting up yard signs.  At least most of the Ritter staff on here know their basic stats.  Bill Ritter’s office handled 61k cases during his 11 year tenure.

        It doesn’t matter if they were illegal or legal.  In many cases these people were given a plea bargain of ‘trespassing on farmland’…..

        No one has explained:

        1.  Why is it only given to one race of people?
        2.  Why is that specific charge given instead of a host of other options?

        1. 3. Why were young girls, in horrific circumstances, who made desperate decisions which were wrong, charged with first degree murder?  Lisa Altman and teenagers who gave birth and abandoned or killed their babies? In England and other countries, young women who give birth and abandoned or otherwise leave their babies to die, are identified as suffering from some kind of psychotic disorder and are treated differently than premediated murders.

    2. The general public would be okay with US citizens being deported if they commit crimes? Uh, that is a pretty heavy statement, and I would really appreciate it if you could back that up with some data.

      1. on a limb here.  It is my opinion that most Americans would not be apoplectic if we were to start deporting murderers and rapists and the like.

        1. Nor suspending habeas corpus?

          Surveys show that a significant portion of the populous, including apparently yourself, wouldn’t vote for the Bill of Rights were it to be presented today.

          Patriotic supporters of America my ass.  Nationalistic supporters of the Reich Wing Party of Amerika more likely.

        2. Not that that would stop you and your friends, but I am conjuring up some amendment, I think it has something to do with cruel and unusual punishment.

  3. Beauprez better make sure he still provides reasons for voters to vote IN FAVOR of him, and not just AGAINST Bill Ritter. Attack Bill all you want, but I still have no idea why I should for for you, old man.

  4. As best I can figure from these new ads, Beauprez would rather have legal immigrants sitting in jail on drug charges than violent and dangerous criminal offenders. After all, there is limited prison space due to low funding. There is only a certain amount of room to lock people up. So… who should we lock up? The rapist or murderer? Or the guy who had one ounce of pot to many.

    Of course, had the INS actually ever came and deported people, the situation would have been different. But Washington didn’t do anything about the problem and left local decision makers with few tools to deal with the problem. Ritter did the best that anyone could have done with the limited resources that he was allowed by the people who controlled the purse strings.

    1. Until today’s Post published its page one report on Slippery Bill, I thought the attacks on his record as DA were trumped up and didn’t make sense as a campaign tactic.

      Now, Ritter has some explaining to do, like it or not. His policy toward illegal criminals was unethical on it’s face, and cause pain to the victims of those preyed upon by the illegals he let go.

      He’d beter admit his errors and promise to right his wrongs.

      1. Between the three I have seen ONE case of an illegal immigrant getting the “deal” that they are all talking about. The rest were legal immigrants. Let’s see a few more. If there really are so many out of th 60k+ felonies Ritter handled, then you should be able to find say… 1000 to say it was a lot? Instead I have seen one. Let’s go for two shall we?

        1. Legal immigrants are only legal so long as they obey the law and don’t commit crimes.  Once they do that, they become illegal and that is why they get deported.  It’s the same in the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, and everywhere else.  Your status changes if you commit a crime beyond a certain threshold.

          I see you like George Orwell.  Have you ever read his novel, “Keep the Aspidistra Flying”?  Years ago I used the pub in which some of the book’s action takes place.  It was jokingly called “the burglars’ rest”, because when it was burgled one night the miscreants got to drinking and fell asleep.  The landlord woke them next morning and plea bargained them.  I suspect they were regulars and he let them go provided they paid him back for the drink (I doubt they walked out with coin).  He still turned in an insurance claim though.  Back then it was “give the poor blokes a break” and “stuff the rich.”

  5. To all those that complain that this site is fundamentally unbalanced/biased against conservatives – behold – a thread with more conservative posters than Democratic (or at least Ritter supporters it seems).  I guess a little positive news for Beauprez brings out some enthusiasm.

    Secondly, you all are grossly mischaracterizing this.  It’s obvious BWB’s campaign is banking on public confusion and general dislike of illegals in order to try to gain some ground on Ritter here.  I haven’t looked at the facts myself, but it appears that it’s actually a very limited number of cases, and as somebody already mentioned, plea bargaining may have been employed due to a lack of evidence or other circumstances.

    At any rate, if this is Bob’s biggest sucker punch, I don’t think the Ritter campaign will be too worried.  This isn’t going to be strong enough to reverse Beauprez’s numbers.

  6. It is not our job…republican or democratic…to rationalize away or attack what Ritter did as DA.  It is Ritter’s responsibiity to explain and defend, if need, be.
    The no response is an insult to the citizens of Colorado.  Ritter needs to go on TV and talk about this.  It is central to what is happening in Colorado. If he doesn’t, then my assumption will be that he could not get permission from his handlers (read: Democratic BIG MONEY and perhaps his church) to speak. His silence would cost him my vote.

  7. Instead of Family Feud, it’s U.S. Family Screwed…

    HOST:  Bill Ritter
    Participants:  1 U.S. Family
      Javier, illegal alien.

    First Scene:
      Javier, caught trafficing heroin and meth faces the U.S. Family in court with Bill Ritter as the show host.  Bill asks the first question for 10 points:

    Bill:  Okay contestants, for 10 points, Javier has trafficked heroin and meth into our country and we let him go, what if any charges did we convict Javier on?

      Javier:  None!!!, None!!!!
      Father of U.S. Family:  Drug trafficing?

    Bill Ritter:  No, agricultural trespassing!

    Bill Ritter:  Javier was driving drunk last week, drug his girlfriend for a few miles behind his truck..  What charges we will bring him up on, convict him on and then let him walk free on?
      Javier:  None!!!, None!!!
      Father of U.S. Family: Murder?

    Bill Ritter:  No, agricultural trespassing!!!

    Bill Ritter:  Javier was let go again and yesterday was caught performing a drive by shooting, he took out three people on east Colfax..  What charges will we bring him up on, convict him on, let him walk free on?
      Javier:  None!!!, None!!!
      Father of U.S. Family:  Murder?

    Bill Ritter: No, agricultural trespassing!!!!

    Bill Ritter:  Javier today ran over some pedestrians at the corner of 64th and Broadway while drinking his beer… What will we charge him on this time and what do you think we will convict him of and let him walk free on?
      Javier:  None!!!!, Nothing!!!!!!
      Father of U.S. Family:  Let me guess, agricultural trespassing??

    Bill Ritter:  Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!!!!!!  You win, Javier, you win!!!! And yes, we will charge him with agricultural trespassing!!!

    ………… and On, and On, and On……………

  8. 15 cases out of 61,000?  And in part due to inaction by the INS which has sole jurisdiction over deportation?  That’s a weak case to start from.

    FWIW, I do think Bill Ritter needs to respond to this ad, but only because it’s so misleading that it could be misconstrued as a real issue.

    OTOH, “It appears that he intentionally used a loophole to avoid enforcing the law,” campaign manager John Marshall said.  Now that’s the kind of statement that can get you in trouble.  A more reckless misstatement it is harder to imagine coming directly from a campaign.

    1. Marshall’s correct. Ritter saw a loophole and rather than enforce the law, played to his political base. I hope BB blasts him for that until he confesses and changes his attitude toward illegal immigration.

      1. Marshall is accusing Ritter of willful avoidance here; I don’t see it, given Ritter’s record as a DA and the fact that failure of the INS to act played a part in some of these cases.  That’s not avoiding the law or playing political pandering – it’s doing what you have to do to get *something* out of the case in the face of adversity.

        It’s also 15 cases, and if you think Ritter only prosecuted 15 of these cases WRT legal or illegal immigrants, I’ve got some oceanfront property out on the West Slope to sell you.

        Most people don’t pay enough attention to the DA’s office to ever consider 15 cases amongst the crowd; calling this “playing to his political base” is laughable.

      1. I fail to see where you’re leaping from in my statement, but that’s a huge leap.  Republican leadership knew of Foley’s predeliction for pages at least as far back as 2005, and at least one page says as far back as 2001.  They had one case, and they ignored it for political gain.

        Ritter apparently took these offenders on a case-by-case basis (that’s the only logical conclusion given Both Ways Bob’s pitiful 15 case find…) and given a lack of sufficient evidence and a lack of co-operation from INS, got at least *some* kind of conviction instead of complete “catch and release”.  I wonder how John Suthers did on similar cases…

        1. I see where you got your ’15’ from – the Post.  But Karen simply did a self sample of a larger group of cases.  Apparently she didn’t want to or didn’t have the time/resources to do all of them herself.

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

114 readers online now

Newsletter

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