January 21, 2009 07:06 PM UTC

Balmer Turns Uncooperative On Ethics Probe

•  
• 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…