President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(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 20, 2006 06:25 PM UTC

BeauprezGate Still Leads the News

  • 25 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The BeauprezGate controversy continues to be front-page news in Colorado, and new revelations today say an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement official may have been the source of the information used in an attack ad against Bill Ritter. From The Denver Post:

A special agent from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is the target of a criminal investigation connected to an attack ad aired by gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

Cory Voorhis, a federal ICE agent based in Colorado, has been identified as the person who allegedly used the National Crime Information Center to search the name of a man featured in the ad, according to multiple sources close to the investigation.

The ad claims an illegal immigrant was given a lenient plea bargain by Beauprez’s Democratic opponent, former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, and then went on to commit a sex crime in California.

Voorhis, who was reached at home Thursday, declined to comment. ICE referred questions to the FBI, which declined to release details or the status of the investigation.

Beauprez would not confirm whether Voorhis provided the information but said the person was in law enforcement. He said he has never met nor spoken with the individual, and his campaign never asked the person to do anything illegal or knowingly received anything illegal. Beauprez also said he had never heard of the NCIC until the current flap erupted.

Comments

25 thoughts on “BeauprezGate Still Leads the News

  1. a TWO term Congressman who’s apparent crusade is illegal immigration hasn’t heard of the NCIC before now?  What the hell has he been doing in DC?

  2. There is just no good way out for them on this.  Every time I think Ritter will have to shift to full attack mode, the BWB camp does something remarkably stupid.

    Immigration reform?
    From Wiki:
    “Heritage Bank was found to be accepting matricula consular cards from illegal immigrants. While Beauprez claimed to have no influence over their activities since he was elected to Congress, his wife Claudia still maintains an important position in the bank.”

    I think a very interesting question is how Feely managed to lose to this guy.

    1. Didn’t they just sell out their share of the bank for $16.2 million?  BB and Claudie have profited handsomely by having those pesky illegals bank at their establishment.

        1. They sold the place for 100x earnings.  Given the power of multiplication — even those pesky little dollars from those lowly immigrants amounts to something.  Did you get a good supply of soap?

      1. Let’s have John Marshall and “Ice Man” review the records of BB’s bank and just see if one of his depositor’s under another alias may be guilty of committing a crime in another state.

        Wouldn’t it be ironic if BB profiteered from having deposits from illegals into his bank? And even more ironic if one of them might have committed a crime outside Colorado under an alias?

        1.   It would probably be illegal to rummage through personal financial records to uncover information…..even info. of illegal financial transcations…..and then divulge it in the middle of a political campaign. 
            Ritter may want to be governor really badly, but there are some things he won’t do to win the prize.

          1. I am not suggesting that the Ritter Campaign do this but this information is something that may exist.  Agreed, Ritter is to much of a stand up guy to lower himself to something BB would do.

  3. Beauprez said this am that they received the information, but did not ask for it. Maybe that’s some clever legal way to deny responsibility. But he also went on to say after they relieved it that they VERIFIED it. Well unless they went into the federal database to verify it they could not have. The case originally came into question because news and Ritter’s campaign could not verify the information through legally available sources.

      1. Just another case where Dems have been successful (kudos) in distracting attention from the issue at hand.

        Bob gets his stats mixed up and says black abortion rates are too high.  Dems ignore the problem (or is it?) of REALLY high black abortion rates and instead jump all over Bob for getting the number wrong.

        John Morse’s police dept botches a high profile case in Fountain where a guy ends up getting plea bargained from 14 felonies down to 1.  (THG said 14 felonies down to 1…misdemeanor).  Trailhead even called Morse imcompetent.  He’s ok with that.  But he, and many of you on this blog, are up in arms over the error in charge.

        Bob Beauprez points out that some illegal alien with a long history of crime gets busted in Denver and Bill Ritter lets him go – which he does- to California where he sexually assaults a minor.  But Ritter, Dems and many posters here are MORE concerned with the fact that BB got hold of some mysterious number that means nothing to most people.

        It is certainly important to be accurate in any charge or claim you make during political discourse.  And obviously no laws should ever be violated, especially intentionally.  I want to be clear on that.  It is appropriate that opposing parties hold each other accountable.

        However, there is the big picure here.  And the response has been totally disproportionate.  Bill Ritter lets a career criminal/ illegal immigrant go and he ends up molesting kids.  Everyone’s ok with that.  But if an ‘A’ number gets out “Man the battle stations!!”  Meanwhile, no one is concerned that all SSN’s, DOB’s, aliases (& maiden names), birth marks, and many ‘A’ numbers are public information.

        1. while many ‘A’ numbers may be public (I’m not sure that statement in itself is even correct)…apparently the particular ‘A’ number that this CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION is all about is not — thus you would not have the FBI involved.  As I’ve said earlier — we have a two-term congressman who doesn’t understand there is a district line between the “Law” and “Politics”.

        2. I’d like to see evidence… ANY evidence… that the guy Ritter plea bargained even WENT to California… let alone was charged with anything or convicted of anything. Oh, Bob Beauprez says so… yeah I’ll take his word for it.

          1. Not sure where you’ve been for the past 2 weeks, but the whole reason this CBI guy is in trouble is because he apparently did prove this guy went to California and committed sexual assault.  If he didn’t, there would be no “beauprez-gate.”

            1. I don’t really care whether he “proved” it to Bob Beauprez. I haven’t seen the so-called “proof.” The media hasn’t seen the “proof.” They are just assuming it is true because no one has refuted it yet. But, how is the public expected to refute something that they can’t see because it is illegal? Beauprez keeps saying that Ritter hasn’t denied that this guy was the same guy… but how could Ritter confirm or deny something that he can’t check because he doesn’t have legal access?

              1. so he does have “evidence” that someone at CBI accessed the NCIC:

                The CBI has already interviewed staffers with the Ritter campaign. Evan Dreyer, a spokesman for Ritter, said they have provided the CBI with evidence they believe shows the federal database was illegally used to obtain information on five immigrants who received plea bargains from Ritter’s office and were the subject of Beauprez’s first attack ad. – Rocky Mountain News, October 21, 2006

        3. We have been over this ground so many times.  The evidence in the case wasn’t that strong and everyone knows that.  That is why it was plea bargained.

          Second, do you want someone like Beauprez to be our governor who illegally uses a criminal database to obtain information for illegitimate purposes.  This morning Congressman Beauprez said that the federal agent just walked into his headquarters to give the campaign the information about this particular defendant.  I’m sorry that needs to be checked out.  Beauprez identified 152 cases he wanted to use to attack Bill Ritter and some federal agent just happens to coincidentally, on his own, look-up that one case on the NCIC database and decided, on his own, to go to Beauprez’s campaign with the information, even though the agent was well aware that he was committing a crime.  This doesn’t wash with me.  The FBI and the CBI need to review the agents access to the NCIC database to check and see if he looked up other cases on the list of 152 that the campaign has.  If he did, then it will be obvious that someone from the campaign or on the campaigns behalf went to the agent and asked him to use his access to the NCIC computer for political purposes.  Even if the agent initially volunteered to help the Beauprez campaign, did Congressman Beauprez or someone on his behalf then ask the agent to review other case files on their list?  If they did then they were actively engaged in a criminal enterprise.

          It doesn’t seem plausible that a senior federal agent would risk his job, his pension benefits or the possibility of severe punishment, including conviction of a felony and jail time, unless someone asked him to do this. 

          In line with this is Congressman Beauprez’s insistence that he couldn’t reveal his name because he promised the source (the federal agent)anonymity.  Why would Congressman Beauprez promise him anonymity unless he had been told that what the agent was doing was illegal?  Congressman Beauprez should be asked did the federal agent tell either the Congressman or someone on the campaign staff that he needed anonymity because what he was doing is a criminal offense?  If the agent did then, the Congressman and his staff knew they were in the middle of illegal activities.  He must anser this question immediately.  And assuming for a moment that the agent, in fact, contacted the campaign on his own, but requested anonymity wasn’t it the responsibility of Congressman Beauprez’s campaign to ask why the agent needed anonymity.  There is only one reason why Congressman Beauprez stonewalled on the identity of the agent, he knew either at the time the agent provided the information or immediately after Bill Ritter raised the issue last week that, in fact, the agent had committed a criminal act.  At that point he was obligated, especially as an elected public official, to immediately provide what he knew to the CBI, but instead he chose to stonewall; and whether the CBI had contacted him or not at that moment he had decided to obstruct their investigation.  His statements of full cooperation do not ring true in light of his refusal to open up his records and show that he obtained the information legally.  In fact its obvious he did not contact the CBI.  He was waiting for them to contact him.  Its obvious he wanted to withhold the informaiton for as long as he could.

          This investigation is far from over and there are key questions unanswered which Congressman Beauprez should answer immediately so the public can be assured that he will enforce the law, the first and most important responsibiltiy of the governor.

           

        4. “Just another case where Dems have been successful (kudos) in distracting attention from the issue at hand.”

          Someone is really projecting. Your response is exactly that – a distraction. So are most of your posts when you come right down to it.

        5. BWB is a member of Congress.  Does that qualify him as a career criminal?  In the eyes of most Real People, it probably does.

          Mark Twain said, “no man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session.”

          ‘Twas true then, ‘Tis true now.

          Be real careful about throwing that “career criminal” thing around.  It could eat you alive.

  4. I’m suffering from Beauprezgate Fatigue Syndrome. (BFS) Can Coloradopols condense the Beauprez threads down to maybe two per day?  Example:  ‘Beauprezgate Still Leads in the News’ could be combined with ‘How damaging is Beauprezgate’, and ‘Beauprez Responds’ could be combined with the Beauprez poll tagged to the end.  Then it would look like only two anti Beauprez threads instead of four. 

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

47 readers online now

Newsletter

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