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
May 27, 2008 11:26 PM UTC

Roll Call Jumps Gun on Schaffer-Related Fraud Trial

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We sheepishly explained to our readers Friday morning that we had been given bad information the night before regarding the felony fraud trial of the former head of the National Renewable Fuels Foundation (NAFF), whose board of directors during the time of the alleged fraud included Senate candidate Bob Schaffer. Contrary to our original update, the trial had not (and still has not as of this writing) ended, and the jury is deliberating the roughly two dozen counts in question.

We hate reprinting bad information, but we know “real” media outlets hate it even more. With that in mind, Roll Call reports:

Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-Colo.) has been named as a possible witness by prosecutors in the sentencing phase of a federal tax evasion and embezzlement case involving a former business associate who was found guilty of illegally using funds from a 2002 Congressional earmark…

At issue is a 2002 earmark tucked into what was at the time the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. The provision provided $3.7 million for the National Alternative Fuels Foundation for the development of a new type of fuel, and was to be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

NAFF was run by Orr, a Colorado businessman who operated a number of fuel- and energy-related companies and nonprofits in the state.

According to sources familiar with the case, the EPA’s inspector general launched an investigation into the case shortly after the contract was awarded in response to concerns that NAFF was not properly managing the grant. Although no formal public report was ever written, IG investigators eventually concluded that Orr had been misusing federal funds, using them to pay himself a $250,000 salary, and that the work the foundation had been doing was not substantial, according to these sources.

Schaffer, who lost a 2004 GOP Senate primary to beer magnate Pete Coors, left Congress in 2002 and took a position on NAFF’s board of directors in October 2004, according to his personal finance filings with the House.

According to Wadhams, Schaffer joined NAFF in part because of his interest in the development of alternative fuels.

Schaffer is “intrigued by the technology that the company was working on … the fact is Bob has had a longstanding interest in renewable fuels technology,” Wadhams said.

Wadhams also said Schaffer’s interest in NAFF – and his decision to join the board in 2004 – came about on the recommendation of longtime political associate Scott Shires.

Shires ran some of Schaffer’s local and statewide political campaigns, including fundraising operations and campaign committees.

However, Schaffer’s relationship with NAFF was short lived. According to his disclosure forms, Schaffer left the board in March 2005. Wadhams said his departure was a direct result of news that federal investigators were looking into the group and Orr’s handling of the earmark.

Without disclosing any sources or methods, we just want to say it’s unsurprising that we both got the case’s status wrong. And it’s safe to say that both we and Roll Call are making our own phone calls to the court today.

Very interesting additional detail from Wadhams anyway, now we know what he’ll say when the verdict actually comes in. Just one problem: dumping responsibility for this on Scott Shires (whose connection to the alleged NAFF fraud–and to Schaffer–is very well known) doesn’t absolve Schaffer in the least. Even if this excuse from Wadhams is true, and Schaffer was ‘duped’ by Shires and Orr into lending his good name to this allegedly fraudulent enterprise…does that in any way help? Can Schaffer save face by claiming to be clueless about what was going on around him? Isn’t that what he said about Jack Abramoff?

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “Roll Call Jumps Gun on Schaffer-Related Fraud Trial”

  1. Joining Schaffer on the witness list are Tom Tancredo, who received $1,500 in campaign contributions from Orr, and Bob Barr, who secured the Libertarian nomination for president yesterday in Denver, according to TPM Muckraker, which also notes:

    Orr successfully lobbied Congress in 2000 for a $3.6 million earmark, which he said he would use to develop a new clean-energy fuel that would emit less pollution. It’s not yet known which member of Congress inserted Orr’s earmark.

    [emphasis added]

  2. The Roll Call story also reports (between the ellipses in the portion Pols quotes above):

    The prosecution has indicated it is unlikely Schaffer will be called to testify against Bill Orr, but his name was included on a witness list submitted by prosecutors, which could become an issue in the campaign.

    Dick Wadhams, Schaffer’s campaign manager and chairman of the state GOP, said Schaffer has not been contacted by either the defense or prosecution in the case, and that he did not secure the more than $3.7 million federal earmark.

    “Bob was never part of the trial. He was never interviewed, he has never been contacted about this trial,” Wadhams said.

    [emphasis added]

      1. Wadhams isn’t going to issue a flat denial if he doesn’t have the facts in front of him.

        There is no evidence Schaffer knew Orr that long ago, just as there is no evidence Schaffer had any interest in alternative fuels or clean energy until a month ago.

        It’s worth looking into why Orr gave Tancredo $1,500 and didn’t donate to any other federal candidates during the period he solicited the earmark. Orr does live in Tancredo’s district. The story Orr floated is that he got chummy with congressional staffers when he was suing the EPA before he got the earmark, so the donation to Tancredo might have just been supporting his local congressman.

            1. But Schaffer didn’t get a “job,” he served on the organization’s board of directors.

              It’s reasonable to assume he was recruited for the “opportunity” to serve of NAFF’s board by Shires precisely because of his longstanding, prior connections–to the energy industry and to Congress. Under that assumption Schaffer would have been brought in to confer legitimacy to this alleged scam, like (as you correctly point out) other Republican members of Congress.

              That’s the plausible narrative here, linking this to other emerging Schaffer storylines: Schaffer seems to have spent an awful lot of time “innocently” conferring legitimacy on dubious undertakings, from sweatshops to snake oil.

              1. Schaffer’s involvement with NAFF damns his judgment. Apparently he’s unable to tell what’s really going on, instead parroting what his paymasters and bosses tell him.

                Wadhams can spin facts beyond recognition, but he’s not likely to flat out deny something he knows to be true, so I seriously doubt Schaffer secured the earmark for Orr. So what?

                Schaffer’s involvement with Orr came years later, when the scam was already well underway. At issue are Schaffer’s inability to question dubious documentation, lack of curiosity over where all the money was going, and willingness to lend his name based solely on the recommendation of party operatives.  

                1. When it seems like everyone you are associated with is under indictment or has already pled guilty, you are trouble, whether you had any actual knowledge of the wrongdoing or not.

                  1. who seems congenitally unable to have

                    any actual knowledge of the wrongdoing or not.

                    Blind Eye Bob should stick with the private sector, where willful indifference is rewarded.

  3. It seems that prosecutors listed a bunch of big political names as potential witnesses but  never called them.

    When did the case actually go to the jury?

  4. handle on pols was Iron Mike. Come on Mikey! Tell us the truth! Did you do this to our next former Republican candidate for US Senate?

  5. many dubious career choices since leaving Congress has becoming dizzying. I forget, did Schaffer’s “bank” ever end up doing any “banking”?

    Schaffer plays up key role in ‘bank’

    Candidate’s claims refer to startup that may not start

    By Jim Tankersley And David Milstead, Rocky Mountain News

    June 25, 2004

    Bob Schaffer says he’s a bank director. But the bank he directs doesn’t exist yet.

  6. Schaffer has done that isn’t corrupt? Honestly, did anyone take the time to vet this guy to see how many skeletons were in the closet? He’s about dirty as it gets and the Rethugs think he’s there best chance at keeping their only U.S. Senate seat in Colorado?

    It’s going to be an ugly decaded or three to be a Republican after what the Bushies and Contract with America crowd has done.  

    1. The “bank” was the only scandal that came up when he ran against Coors, and I’m guessing he didn’t face much serious opposition while he was running for Congress.  Besides, he’s had so much to build on since he left the Capitol.

      1. The NAFF business didn’t even happen until after he lost to Coors. And fellow Republican opposition researchers, when he was in the primary, wouldn’t have turned up anything in the Mariana Islands because they didn’t see anything wrong with what Bob did.

    1. Roll Call put up a correction tonight.

      Here’s the new lede:

      Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-Colo.) has been named as a possible witness by prosecutors in the sentencing phase of a federal tax evasion and embezzlement case involving a former business associate who is on trial for illegally using funds from a 2002 Congressional earmark.

      with this appended:

      Correction: May 28, 2008

      The article incorrectly stated that Bill Orr, who is accused of misusing funds from a 2002 earmark, was found guilty. His trial has not concluded.

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

44 readers online now

Newsletter

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