CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

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*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

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 06:40 PM UTC

El Paso DA Says Investigation Still Underway into Trailhead

  • 8 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As Colorado Confidential reports:

Criticism over potential criminal charges that could be filed against Trailhead Group director Alan Philp in El Paso County for false ads attacking a Democrat are premature — and has resulted in a sharp rebuke from District Attorney John Newsome, who has entered a potential political minefield.

On Thursday, Colorado GOP attorney Scott Gessler sent a pitch to Republicans seeking donations for legal fees for his “good friend” Philp, who he said was to be “criminally charged for political speech.”

Newsome, a conservative Republican District Attorney representing the 4th Judicial District, was clearly perturbed by Gessler’s claim that charges were to be filed today — and by his assertions that Newsome is giving “special courtesy” to state Senate candidate John Morse.

“It is a pending investigation; we’re not done investigating this and were working very hard to finish it,” Newsome said. “I have not made any final decision; I am trying to do my job and I’m being attacked by all sides — which means I’m doing my job.”

Comments

8 thoughts on “El Paso DA Says Investigation Still Underway into Trailhead

  1. Newsome is doing what he needs to do to “look” like he’s honoring his oath but this won’t go any further.  He is in major debt with the powers-that-be and he won’t jeopardize his political future by taking on Trailhead.  Frankly, he is currently in over his head and is creating a lot of tension with his staff because of his enormous ego.  He will be lucky to win another election in 2 years if only someone with guts and character takes him on.  I hear several are lining up for the job.
     

    1. Give me a break.  Newsome is doing his job. Period.  I love it when people whine about Judges and DA’s when they do not agree with a decision that they make.

      Enormous ego eh?  Sound like the pot calling the kettle black here.  And I primary for the El Paso DA with an incumbant?  Sure.  Newsome is often accused of having a huge ego only by the total Repub party FREAKS in El Paso simply because he, *GASP* thinks for himself.

      I will bet that the “several lining up for the job” are already baought and paid for.  And in two years, politically, THIS WILL BE ANCIENT HISTORY.

      Good luck with that.

      1. Hopefully Newsome is really doing this to show how stupid that law is.  Gessler is right.  Political speech is something that should be protected not prosecuted. 

        Newsome is doing his party a favor so this thing can go to the supreme court and be overturned.  I mean THE Supreme court – not the pretend one we have in Colorado.

        I can’t stand Philp – he is an idiot.  But, I would donate to help overturn such a bad law.  Thanks Newsome for taking one for the team!

  2. The European Court of Justice has ruled that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures. The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to “protect the rights of others”.

    In Nazi Germany, the decree of February 4, 1933 authorized the prohibition of newspapers or public meetings that “abused, or treated with contempt, organs, institutions, bureaus or leading officials of the State”.

    In America, we elect our lawmakers.  We shouldn’t have to contend with cops with guns as fact checkers.

    1. because this was still under Weimar law, at a time Paul von Hindenburg was still President of the German Republic.  It was before the Enabling Laws, before opposition parties were banned, before unions were banned, before the book burnings, before the racial laws were enacted.

      My point is that laws like Newsome’s law are preliminaries to authoritarianism and not the results of it.

      The Nazis were the largest party in the democratically elected German legislature.  They passed this law democratically to destroy freedom and democracy.  They got away with it because the citizens let them.  And then it was too late.

        1. Jeez, that doesn’t fly – I should know, I still have the welts from the last time. I did not read Andy’s post as Rs = NSP, I read it as “start down the slippery slope and you let OTHERS steer the bus”. That I agree with wholeheartedly.

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

74 readers online now

Newsletter

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