President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

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 17, 2006 07:28 PM UTC

Don't Drop the Soap

  • 37 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Looks like winning November’s election really might be the least of Republican Bob Beauprez’s concerns. From the Rocky Mountain News:

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation notified Bob Beauprez’s campaign Monday that agents will soon question his staffers about whether they illegally obtained information from an FBI database and used it to slam opponent Bill Ritter in a TV ad.

Beauprez’s campaign manager, John Marshall, said they will cooperate with the CBI probe, which was triggered by a Ritter complaint.

But he refused to identify a mystery “informant” who provided the campaign with federal immigration case numbers that a federal official called confidential.

Marshall, who said he didn’t know where the source got the information, insisted it would be “a total ethical breach to obtain information on the condition of anonymity and then to (reveal) that source.”

“Look, there is an investigation going on now,” Marshall said. “I’m not going to talk to you about any of that. We have done nothing wrong. There’s no reason to believe that our source did anything inappropriate.”

Marshall said the campaign would ” cooperate fully (with CBI),” but wouldn’t say whether investigators will interview Beauprez.

Comments

37 thoughts on “Don’t Drop the Soap

  1. I just went through Trailhead’s 3rd quarter form 8872, available on the IRS web site.

    There are several expenditures to CBI for “research”.

    Maybe Moon can fill us in on what kind of research CBI is doing on behalf of Trailhead.

  2. I’ve heard of protecting statements made to attorneys, to pyschotherapists, to doctors, to accountants, and to reporters.  I’ve never heard of special protections for statements made to campaign managers.

  3. …all jokes aside for a moment, it wouldn’t surprise me if someone high up in the campaign staff (and/or someone at Snakehead) hired an outside contractor/investigator to get this info., but is there any evidence so far that Beauprez himself okayed the project? 
      This business about Snakehead actually making a direct payment to CBI for “research” is interesting but it probably won’t turn out to be as sexy as we suspect. 
      It’s got to be something else.  I can’t believe even these people would be so foolish as to illegally procure confidential info. and put it on their books in such blatant manner.

    1. the cbirecordscheck.com method cited above is probably what the money went for. It’s a great — and common — tool for press research, as well as law enforcement. The records yielded include known aliases and a pretty thorough arrest and disposition account for Colorado. No doubt many of the plea-bargain ads used this to discover and source various cases.

      What the CBI check doesn’t include is out-of-state cases or, to my knowledge, subsequent out-of-state aliases unless the accused crosses paths with the law inside Colorado again. That’s why the federal database would be required to establish a tie between a Colorado plea bargain and a California crime.

  4. (Non disclosure agreement) in a contract there is ALWAYS an out for disclosure compelled by law such as:

    “Notwithdstanding any other provision hereof, in the event Recipient (of confidential information – my note) is reuqested or required (by oral question, interrogitories, request for information or documents in legal proceedings, subpoena, civil investigation, demand or other similar process) to disclose any Confidential Information, Recipient shall provide Discloser written notice  of any such written notice or request so Discloser may seek a protective order…If, in the absence of a protective order, Recipient may disclose..”

    It would be interesting who the person seeking the protective order would be – could create paper trails. Also, courts DO NOT recognize an “ethical” obligation to not disclose. Neither do the police – in fact they have a name for it, accessory after the fact or coconspirator. Neither of which are pretty labels to wear.

    I don’t know enough to know if the underlying case has any merit – just responding to the non-disclosure.

    1. There really isn’t any kind way to deal with this.  Congressman Beauprez pledges to reveal his source and all the information that will establish he received the information legitimately. 

      Then Marshall admits they received or confirmed the information by matching-up federal databases which can be construed as an admission the campaign did something wrong.  Then Mrashall says no we received this informaiton through several different sources, not just one.  then he says they obtained the information through the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which is total nonsense.  Finally, Marshall tells the press he promised the source anonynmity and therefore he can’t reveal who it is but nevertheless he is going to cooperate fully with the CBI.

      If they received this material legally, then why not go to the source, ask him (or her) if the campaign can reveal his identity.  Also, politically Marshall and Congressman Beauprez have just wasted another five or six days where Beauprez has become the issue.

      Usually, even when campaigns are waging an effective come from behind campaign, they can only gain about one quarter of a percent per day on the opposition.  Do the math, its too late for Congressman Beauprez.

      1. of the “We Just Want To Win” Strategy.  Starting to sound like a Colorado version of Watergate.  Who knew what, what they knew, and when they knew it.

        If the information wasn’t of a confidential nature, why not just come clean?  The suspecion alone is going to put nails further into this coffin.  Just a matter of time and even hardcore supporters will begin jumping ship.  Especially to minimize the imact it may have on the entire organization.

        When Marshall and BWB said they were going to cooperate fully, did anyone check to see if the fingers they had behind their backs were crossed?

        Just a thought.

        If true, this is just a further example of the nonsense that is going on within certain Republican circles.  2006 is starting to shape up as a contest between candidates of “Who is the Village Idiot.”  After all, each Village has at least one or two idiots.  Now don’t they.

  5. The goose in the oven sure smells good.  Let’s hope this issue roasts all the way through election day.  CBI eventually saying that BB & Marshall are not responsible may help them, but for now the damage is being done since BB’s message (such as it is) is being diverted and also many of the absentee & early voters are following this case…

  6. I’m not a lawyer, but does anyone think there is a conflict of interest going on here:  You have Gov. Owens, who is part of Trailhead, calling the CBI to influence the speed of the investigation — which presumably now involves Trailhead, given their latest disclosures?  I can’t imagine there’s a lawyer in town giving the Guv advice to get in the middle of this investigation.

  7. I really, truly, thought just insiders were following this case.  but while I was sweeping off the sidewalk tonight, my neighbor actually came out to ask me what I knew about this and if it was likely true.  he still has his absentee ballot sitting on the kitchen table, but said he couldn’t vote for bob knowing this might be true.  I was really stunned.  politicos, yes.  but used car salesmen? wow.  this is big.

  8. Here’s what a real DA can do if he or she wants to.  I’m sure she didn’t have any evidence like Bill Ritter never has any evidence to work with, but somehow, some way, she made it happen…

    Here’s what she wanted to do….
    http://articles.news

    And here’s what she did…
    http://hosted.ap.org

    In Nassau County you get 25 years to life.
    In Denver County you get 15 months…

    To you libs, this is armegeddon, I know.  Or maybe cold fusion.  But Kathleen Rice proved it can be done.

    1. First, I bet no one told you that New York has different laws than Colorado.

      Second, if you remember your case correctly, the police did not catch the driver for a couple days here. Guess what… she had a BAC of zero then. How do you propose proving she was drunk?

      Last, if Pete Coors had hit someone instead of making it home safely by random chance, would you support giving him 25 years to life? If so, how do you condone the fact that he got no jail time simply because he was lucky and made it home?

        1. Rice had the option to plea bargain.  Quite a bit actually.  She didn’t.

          In the Dixon case, the driver- caught 2 days later (at a bar, probably blowing a 2.0, but I understand what you’re saying) was eligible to receive up to 12 years.  There were plenty of witnesses including her boyfriend who was in the car.

          1. Keeps idiots out of jail (saving tax money) and off the road. To many people like Pete Coors in power positions in our country to let a law like that pass though.

  9. we should look at the best case on point, the one referenced by Bill Ritter’s attorney in his letter to the CBI.  The defendant was the Republican Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama, which is Birmingham and the suburbs.  He lost an election by 39 votes and had his staff access over 2,000 individual NCIC records of voters in an attempt to find enough felons who had voted absentee to overturn the result.  And he did.  (Believe it or not, the Democrat turned Republican and beat him in the primary next time).

    The case was a real mess from the start.  Everyone had to recuse themselves, including the U.S. Attorney, because it was so political.  They finally got a judge and prosecutor from the outside to come in and the case was thrown out the first time for prosecutorial misconduct.  Then a lengthy appeals process and the case was allowed to go forward.
    After six years a jury rendered a split verdict and a judge sentenced the Sheriff and his lawyer to six months probation and a $500 fine.  The sentence is under appeal.

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

80 readers online now

Newsletter

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