U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

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) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

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

45%↓

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
January 21, 2009 07:06 PM UTC

Balmer Turns Uncooperative On Ethics Probe

  • 43 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: And this is pretty interesting: although the lobbyist accused of acting as Rep. Dave Balmer’s “emissary,” and two other persons implicated in the ethics complaint have offered sworn affidavits denying coordination with Balmer, it appears Balmer himself has made all responses to the ethics inquiry through legal counsel, which is not technically a response “under oath.” Of course the act of lying to a legislative committee in any sense has consequences of its own, and either way the lobbyist and other parties to the case have sworn their testimony.

Naturally, though, we’d say the difference is kind of noteworthy.

Balmer also hasn’t testified before the ethics committee yet, but if/when that happens (this all must wrap up one way or another in a week) he’ll be under oath. Another reason to foot-drag? Original post follows.

Uh-oh, as the Denver Post reports:

A legislative ethics panel Tuesday gave embattled Rep. David Balmer, once a candidate for House minority leader, another chance to hand over phone records and e-mails.

A letter Thursday from Balmer’s attorney called the panel’s original request an overbroad invasion of privacy and said turning over private phone records would jeopardize confidentiality agreements with his business clients.

Balmer faces allegations that he enlisted the help of a chiropractors’ lobbyist in securing votes for internal House Republican leadership elections. The lobbyist, Erik Groves, faces allegations that he offered campaign contributions in return for votes.

The ethics panel had hoped to track phone calls between several involved parties over a seven-day window, but they received little more than Balmer’s calendar.

The lack of response surprised ethics chairwoman Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder.

“There’s evidence we would like to have that we don’t have,” Levy said. “I was disappointed that he didn’t respond directly.”

…If the panel finds probable cause of wrongdoing, it can subpoena records and compel testimony. It’s possible that a second refusal from Balmer could trigger those steps, Levy said.

She and fellow Democrat Rep. Kathleen Curry expressed concern that lobbyist Groves knew which Republican representatives to target when pushing for Balmer’s election. That information, they said, could have come from Balmer.

As we’ve said from the beginning, the connection between Rep. Dave “Check Out My Resumé” Balmer’s conversation with the freshman legislator in question, and the volley of phone calls from lobbyists and others offering checks and “views” on the leadership elections to this same legislator, is very difficult to accept as coincidental: and the assertion that this is all “just a  coincidence” is the only real defense being offered in this case.

Of course, it’s a little more than a simple “defense,” isn’t it? In fact, lobbyist Erik “The Emissary” Groves and his chiropractor friends have submitted sworn statements insisting they had no contact with each other, or Balmer, during the critical time period surrounding the incident, haven’t they?

So, ah, does this not present a really obvious reason why Balmer might want to black out a few phone numbers from his records before he gives them to the ethics committee? Because, from what we understand, perjury is a hell of a lot worse than anything Balmer and Groves have been accused of so far. Heck, some people out there dismiss all this “vote-buying” talk with a wink and a nod as everyday play. We don’t personally think that’s cool, but we know some who are more jaded about these things.

But perjury? Now we’re talking about the real deal. The honest-to-God frog-marchable offense. The sort of thing, at the very least, that gets people nervously talking about “redaction” when they happily said they’d cooperate a few minutes before…

Tweet
Share

Comments

43 thoughts on “Balmer Turns Uncooperative On Ethics Probe”

  1. So, Geithner evades paying taxes and he should be confirmed as the top tax collector and arguably the most powerful man in Washington.  Of course he should.  It was just an honest mistake.  But the most important detail is that he is a Democrat.  He is being appointed by Obama – so that makes everything ok.

    But, Balmer should be stripped of his position, perhaps do prison time because he potentially had some friends ask a few legislators to vote for Balmer.

    Am I correct on this?

    1. As far as I can tell, Geithner made a mistake on his taxes and has paid the difference.  This is a common mistake for people in his situation (employees of the IMF) and the IRS has relaxed penalties for this.

      But I will trust the Senate’s judgment on that issue, as well as the CO legislature on the Balmer issue.

      1. Geithner want’s us to believe he is very sophisticated.  He alone can manage the 1 Trillion dollar bailout (350 Billion left over from Paulson and the 800 Billion Obama wants to add).

        Yet, he can’t read his employers (The IMF) form that said he must pay the partial reimbursement which was specifically paid to cover his payroll and self employment taxes.

        He didn’t make a mistake.  He commited tax fraud.  He kept money from the IMF which was clearly labled to pay his employment taxes.

        This guy should be tried for tax evasion – not confirmed to manage the taxpayers money.

        But, if he makes it in, I hope all the tax evaders out there point to Geithner as their defense.  The ol, “If the Treasurer of the US can do it – so can I” defense.  And when they are called on it they just simply pay the taxes due.  

          1. I think we should discuss the complete loss of intelectual honesty on this forum.  We should be looking at Balmer – sure.  But, I wanted to point out how readily people come to the defense of another person who’s actions are really indefensible.

            Personally I think Balmer is a scum bag and should go down.  But, equally I think that we should have higher standards for all public officials including Geithner, Blagojovich, Raines, Richardson, etc.

            I think Obama is tainting his presidency very early on by expecting you all to accept and even defend Geithner.

            But, by all means.  Let’s change the subject.  Let’s do what we can to throw objectivity under the bus.

            You people are the problem.  Honestly!  You guys are what is wrong with America.  You are so partisan that you don’t demand better.

            It is ruining our country – frankly.

            But, I am glad to see you demand better from Balmer at least.

    2. Balmer is perhaps one of the sleaziest politicians in two states who has been involved in more closed door deals with lobbyist than the press is reporting… as of today but that may change given his hint of perjury here.

      As for the President’s pick, stay on topic or write a new diary you smoke screening freak. You either have ADD and need your meds or else your small mind can’t handle anything other than spiteful Rush Limbaugh like comments.  

    3. You have to compare the two complete packages of individual, circumstances, and deeds with each other, not selective variables which serve your rhetorical purpose. When you do the former, you see that the conclusion you sarcastically suggested, stripped of the arbitrary partisan characterization, is, in fact, completely reasonable.

  2. I think it’s funny when people who are trying to cover up crimes end up committing worse crimes than the ones they were originally covering up.

    Is it a clear cut case that there’s something here? Why be uncooperative if he’s innocent?

    1. I frankly don’t understand why asking friends to support your candidacy and getting them to ask others to support it is a crime.

      It is a time honored tradition.  One that is practiced by both sides of the aisle.  You can’t tell me that Romanoff (or now Terrance Carroll) got to be speaker without a concerted effort to get him the votes.

        1. When Romanoff and Carroll became Speaker, they rallied support themselves. They didn’t need to have lobbyists try to influence the election. They are popular among their fellow Democratic legislators, and undoubtedly have good working relationships with all of them. I’m sure there were other people trying to get votes for them, but they were other legislators–not the chiropractic lobby.

          This could stem from the fact that they both, you know, have spent time here prior to running for office. They didn’t fail at politics in one state and then travel across the country to try to run in another state.

  3. is the combination of a consistent history of doing things that are at best ethically dubious and at worst illegal. Not once or twice, but more as standard operating procedure.

    Then add to that he is doing this over something that is of very little value. I’m sorry but minority leader in the house has very littel power. More power comes from being able to work well with the Dems.

    But Balmer is not the big problem here. There are always scumbags in office. The big problem is the GOP is not stepping up and saying that this is unacceptable and Balmer should resign. The GOP with its silence is clearly stating that ethical lapses like this are ok among their members.

    The GOP is definitely going for permanent minority status if they are going to be a party of wingnuts that embraces questionable ethics.

        1. We are working on it.  You all think that leadership should tell you that they are asking him to resign?  Maybe the GOP has a little more class by asking him in private to resign.

          Now, I realize that you all aren’t satisfied unless you get a chance to get all the details of private conversations so you can blog about them.  How arrogant to think that just because you were not consulted the leadership isn’t working on Balmer behind scenes.

                  3. not idiosyncratic meanings attributed by one party unilateraly to an otherwise commonly recognized symbol or set of symbols.

                    “MD” after a name is a widely understood abreviation for “medical doctor,” as I suspect you know. There is no convention for putting ones initials after their name, as I’m sure you also know. Any reasonable person would have known that most readers would assume that “MD” after the name was a claim to be a medical doctor. The fact that you were prepared to proffer an alternative meaning unlikely to have been inferred by any reader, knowing what readers would in fact infer, does not change the fact that you knowingly communicated what you reasonably knew people would understand those initials to mean.

                    You want to play games, suggesting that because you can pull some alternative meaning out of your rear-end the initials “MD” actually mean something other than what both you and your readers all understood it normally to mean, be my gues. But, in reality, you did indeed effectively claim to be a medical doctor.

                    And I don’t really care: You can claim to be big-eared flying elephant, if you want. One thing you can’t claim to be, however, is a person with any aptitude for logical argumentation.

                    1. Steve, I don’t know if you tuned in during the great Nancy L Baldwin/Nancy L. Baldwin screen name debate.  Was that Nancy with a period or not?  Eeeewwww……

                    2. But, I would love to hear that conversation.

                      Ralphie:  “I don’t know who you are.  And this guy on a blog says he is Michael Dorsett – but he also used his intitials MD and I assumed he was using your identity.”

                      Dr. Dorsett:  “What the hell are you talking about?”  

                      Ralphie:  “I am trying to get you involved in something that has nothing to do with you.  Do you want in on it?”

                      Dr. Dorsett:  “Does this guy claim to be me?”

                      Ralphie:  “In all honesty.  No.  But, if we can make the case that he is claiming to be a doctor and then maybe try to imply that he is handing out medical advice.  Then.  BAM we got him.  You want to play along Dr. Dorsett?”

                      Dr. Dorsett:  “I am kind of busy right now – what did you say your name is?”

                      Ralphie:  “Ralphie”

                      Dr. Dorsett:  “Ok Ralphie.  I am really busy right now.  I don’t have time to play games with you. Oh, and please don’t call my office again.”

                      CLICK>

                    3. But I imagine you wouldn’t be that honest.  Instead you would try to convice some guy that somebody on a blog was really stealing his identity.

                      You wouldn’t really let him know your intentions are to involve some poor Doctor in on a scheme to get a political enemy of yours.

                      Maybe you can enlighten us all as to how you plan to present your arguement to a total stranger.

                    4. Answering your own posts and all.

                      As far as how the real Dr. Dorsett feels about your use of his name, you’ll just have to wait and see if he comes after you, won’t you?

                      Using somebody else’s identity?  Think it’s OK? Tell it to the jury.

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

175 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols