Much of the media coverage of the Colorado Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute Jon Caldara, President of the libertarian/conservative Independence Institute, for voter fraud featured a quote from Caldara that the Attorney General’s decision proved his innocence.

For example, there’s this memorable Caldara quote from The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels’ story: “I told you what I did was legal,” Caldara said Thursday, adding “neener-neener-neener.”

Bartels and others reported that the AG’s letter did not “condone” Caldara’s stunt, but no journalist corrected Caldara’s mistaken belief that AG letter is proof of his innocence.

While the letter did say there is “arguable ambiguity within some of the new legislation,” and Caldara should not be brought to trial, it certainly did not say Caldara’s actions were legal, and reporters should have said so categorically.

I asked Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch, for his comments on whether the Colorado Attorney General’s letter was proof of Caldara’s innocence.

Toro: The AG’s office did not declare Caldara innocent. The prosecutor correctly noted the ethical obligations of a prosecutor when making a charging decision.  These include an obligation not to file charges without sufficient evidence to support a conviction.  Evidence that could raise reasonable doubt included signing a lease at an address in the district, changing his driver’s license to the Colorado Springs address, and actually staying at the address where he claimed to reside when he voted through Election Day. Caldara’s lawyering up and extensive preparation to raise reasonable doubt only proves that gaming the system is not as easy as he pretends. His attempt to prove that anyone in Colorado can show up anywhere on Election Day, claim to reside in a district, and legally vote ended up proving the opposite…”

The real reason not to charge is, in the prosecutor’s words, Caldara’s “choreographed actions that were designed by him to create a record that he used to support his stated intention that at least on September 7, 2013 through September 10, 2013 he was an El Paso County resident and thus was permitted to be a registered elector.” Caldara only proved that without elaborate “choreographed actions” and top-notch legal representation, someone who shows up on Election Day and falsely claims residence in a given district will be charged and convicted.

I asked Caldara if he thought that he inadvertently proved the opposite of what he intended, that, in fact, you can’t just show up on election day and vote.

Caldara: “You can read that into it, if you like, but you would be reading in your own wishes,” he told me. “It doesn’t say that at all. It says that for what I did, prosecution would be unwarranted and not viable. That’s all it says. Now, the AG’s office can opine about anything they wish, and that doesn’t change the fact that the conclusion is, that prosecution is unwarranted and not viable. And I knew I would be under extra scrutiny, so I took the extra step of simply signing a simple little lease and changing my driver’s license address online. It doesn’t take a lawyer to do any of that. And I know that there are those who say this can only be done with top legal work, I think the AG’s work has given us a very tight blueprint of what becomes unwarranted and not viable to prosecute. It doesn’t take a lawyer to do any of that.”

Toro had this to say about the Attorney General’s reference to “arguable ambiguity within some of the new legislation”:

Toro: The “arguable ambiguity” line doesn’t mean much. If something is “arguably ambiguous” it is also arguably not ambiguous. Defendants often argue that a criminal law is ambiguous, with mixed results.

The AG’s letter in its entirety:

Wm. David Byassee, Esq.
Jackson Kelly PLLC
1099 18th Street, Suite 2150
Denver, CO 80202
RE: Caldara Election Complaint
Dear Mr. Byassee:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my decision regarding a complaint that was made in September 2013 against your client, Jon Caldara. Following my office’s three-month investigation into the allegations that Mr. Caldara violated one or more statutes, I have determined that no criminal charges will be filed against him at this time. This decision is being made after a comprehensive review of the currently known facts and after an examination of the applicable state statutes. It is important to note that this decision is being made based on the specific known facts in this matter when compared to the applicable state law. Furthermore this decision, which follows the above referenced factual and legal review, is being made in accordance with the ethical standards required of prosecutors who administer the prosecutorial function.

As you might be aware on or about September 9-10, 2013 the Office of the Attorney General and two separate District Attorney offices received a citizen complaint. The citizen’s complaint alleged that Mr. Caldara, a long time Boulder County resident and elector, violated one or more Colorado statutes when he participated as a newly registered elector in an El Paso County recall election on Saturday, September 7, 2013, during an early voting period. The day of the actual election was Tuesday, September 10, 2013. Based on the fact that the complaint named Mark Barker, a current Deputy District Attorney in the El Paso County DA’s Office, as being an individual who was supposedly involved with Mr. Caldara and his alleged behavior, the District Attorney for the 4th Judicial District (El Paso and Teller Counties) requested that the Attorney General’s Office investigate the complainant’s allegations.
Page 2
Regarding the events surrounding this particular election the investigation most clearly demonstrates that Mr. Caldara had multiple goals leading up to and through the election on September 10, 2013. One of Mr. Caldara’s key goals was his intent to make a public statement about one or more issues that he perceived to exist regarding new election related legislation which resulted from the passage of HB 13-1303.

Mr. Caldara’s stated focus on HB 13-1303 and its potential impact on the election process in Colorado was well documented in the public record during the months leading up to the election in El Paso County in September 2013. It appears that Mr. Caldara’s assertion was, that as of May 10, 2013, the Colorado Revised Statutes (most notably § 1-2-217.7, C.R.S.) permitted him, as a registered Colorado voter, to move from one jurisdiction in Colorado to another jurisdiction in this state and then either update his address or register to vote. Additional relevant statutes at issue that must be read in concert include, but are not limited to, §§1-2-101,
1-2-102(1)(f), 1-2-201(3)(a)(V), 1-2-204, 1-2-205 and 1-2-216(4)(a)(I), C.R.S.. As a result, a reading of these various statutes demonstrates an arguable ambiguity within some of the new legislation. This arguable ambiguity was clearly examined in your client’s specific investigation. In Mr. Caldara’s specific case, which is limited by its unique facts and the applicable statutes, a key issue is present. The issue is what does it mean for a resident of Colorado to demonstrate or assert that his or her intention, as a supposed prospective elector, is to make a new county or precinct a permanent residence at the time that he or she is either updating their address or registering to vote?

With Mr. Caldara voicing his opinions about HB 13-1303 and the laws which arose from the bill, it appears that Mr. Caldara then interpreted the new legislation and began to choreograph a series of calculated actions in preparation of the approaching September 10, 2013 recall election in El Paso County. The evidence acquired by the Attorney General’s investigation includes information that prior to Mr. Caldara actually appearing at the El Paso County Citizens Service Center on the morning of Saturday, September 7, 2013, that he had already taken various actions in an attempt to demonstrate his stated intention of becoming a qualified elector in State Senate District 11 (Colorado Springs, El Paso County), including the following:
– On September 6, 2013 Mr. Caldara entered into a residential lease agreement with Deputy District Attorney Mark Barker to rent a bedroom with access to a bathroom and with kitchen privileges at Mr. Barker’s home, which is located at 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906;
and
Page 3
– He had changed his home address for his State of Colorado issued Driver’s License from a Boulder County residential address to 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906.

With Mr. Caldara having created a record of his supposed intention to make El Paso County his sole legal place of residence, he went to the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder’s Citizens Service Center September 7, 2013 while accompanied by members of the media. The evidence then shows that Mr. Caldara apparently was given a registration form that he filled out and self-affirmed by signing. It should be noted that Mr. Caldara failed to fully complete this registration form when he did not list the date that he had supposedly moved to 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906. This particular field on the form was a required field and at the top of the form it stated that if the registrant did not provide all of the required information, the application to register to vote would not be complete. Nonetheless Mr. Caldara was in fact registered to vote by the election staff. After Mr. Caldara provided the election staff with a Driver’s License he was given a Paper Ballot (Ballot #01343) for the Senate District 11 Recall Election. The evidence then shows that while Mr. Caldara did submit a ballot on September 7, 2013 he apparently did not cast an actual vote in the particular election. Furthermore, the acquired evidence shows that Mr. Caldara apparently stayed/resided at 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906 on Election Day, September 10, 2013.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013, the day after the recall election Mr. Caldara left the Broman Ct. address in Colorado Springs and went to his work in Denver. It should be noted that September 11, 2013 was the beginning of the multi-day series of rains that caused the unprecedented flooding that devastated parts of the Front Range, including in Mr. Caldara’s long time hometown of Boulder. In the subsequent weeks after the floods had occurred Mr. Caldara made a public statement that he was reclaiming Boulder County as his home of record. The additional issues created by Mr. Caldara’s post flood statement about Boulder County again being his home is another obstacle in confirming or disproving the veracity of Mr. Caldara’s self-affirmation that, at least on September 7, 2013, his intention was to use the leased residence on Broman Ct. as his sole legal residence. It should be noted that Mr. Caldara then changed his county of residence for voting purposes back to Boulder County in November 2013.

It is imperative to note that the Office of the Attorney General does not condone Mr. Caldara’s choreographed actions that were designed by him to create a record that he used to support his stated intention that at least on September 7, 2013 through September 10, 2013 he was an El Paso County resident and thus was permitted to be a registered elector. Various factors cause me to hesitate when examining the veracity of Mr. Caldara’s intention of being an El Paso County resident on September 7, 2013. In particular I noted Mr. Caldara’s use of a lease agreement with Deputy District Attorney Mark Barker and the circumstances
Page 4
surrounding this lease as being questionable. While the legitimacy of Caldara/Barker lease arrangement is suspicious, when the available evidence and the applicable law, including arguable ambiguities, are reviewed and compared to the ethical standards for commencing a prosecution, I have determined that a criminal prosecution is not warranted or viable at this time.

Sincerely,

FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
______________________________
Robert S. Shapiro
First Assistant Attorney General
cc: Dan May, Esq.
District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
105 E. Vermijo Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

At a time when radio stations are dumping local talk shows in favor of national yakkers, Denver’s KNUS is heading in the opposite direction, filling its lineup with local flotsam and jetsam tossed from competing stations.

KNUS’ latest addition is Denver Attorney Dan Caplis, a social conservative with decades of experience on the Denver airwaves, most recently at KHOW, where he was paired with fellow attorney Craig Silverman.

For his first broadcast Monday, Caplis interviewed GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo as well as former state GOP chair Dick Wadhams. He said he’d put any callers with differing opinions at the front of the line.

“For 20 years, it’s been my policy to take callers who disagree first,” Caplis told me later after I asked him if he was serious about wanting to talk to progressives. “People want a battle of ideas. All I want from a caller is to answer the question directly.”

Caplis’ first show made a news bit when Wadhams said Republicans need a fresh face in the gubernatorial race, and Wadhams thinks the face of GOP candidate Mike Kopp has the best chance of defeating Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2014.

Will Caplis’ show focus on politics?

Caplis says politics will be part of his show, but his content will be determined largely but what’s happening on the ground.

“I don’t want to sit around talking about this stuff; I want to affect the outcome,” he told me, citing Boyles’ recent focus on Masterpiece Bake Shop, which got into trouble for turning away a gay couple seeking a wedding cake.

Caplis promises “lots of investigative reporting and the use of public records to expose corruption.”

At KHOW, Caplis and Silverman dove deep into the JonBenet Ramsey case, and Caplis took the national spotlight for supporting Broncos QB Tim Tebow. They also had a major impact on the 2010 election, with their frequent and intelligent interviews of political candidates.

A Caplis interview with Rep. Mike Coffman might come into play during the upcoming election. Coffman asked Caplis to clarify, on air, that Coffman opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest.

The show’s interviews will likely be diminished without Silverman’s edgier questioning of conservative guests and with most progressives refusing to appear.

“We did smart, tough talk radio,” Caplis said, adding the he hopes Silverman will be a regular part of his new show. “Craig asked tough questions of Republicans, me of Democrats. I will continue to invite Democrats, but I doubt they’ll accept because, frankly, they don’t have the answers–with the impressive exception of [Boulder Congressman] Jared Polis. He comes on.”

Caplis calls it a “brilliant” move of KNUS, which owned by Salem Communications, to scoop up talk-radio hosts, like Boyles, Kelley, and him, who have name recognition in the Denver market.

“There’s a demand,” he said. “It’s a very smart move on their part to go live and local.”

He has a point. The market for a brand runs deep. Twinkies was even scooped up by some big company. Boyles, Kelley, and Caplis have their followers.

I asked Caplis if he had a contract or any expectation of how long his newest gig would last.

“In the words of Chris Brown on ESPN, ‘We’re all day-to-day,'” Caplis replied. “I only want to do the show if it’s succeeding. I have other things to do in life.”

It looks to me like progressive Keith Olbermann said the day-to-day line first, but it doesn’t matter. It’s true, especially in radio.

One of the biggest political stories of last year has got to be the escalating war between the Republican Party establishment, the so-called “country-club Republicans,” and the  Tea-Party wing.

Trying to predict how this story will play out in 2014 may be crazy, given what we’ve seen since the Tea Party’s inception, but it’s still worth attempting to identify the weapons both sides have at their disposal and how they might use them this election year.

Here in Colorado, one of the major battlefields in the GOP’s civil war is conservative talk radio (e.g., Grassroots Radio Colorado on KLZ, Peter Boyles on KNUS) and websites like OGRE eXposed.

Against the backdrop of strife you hear on the radio and elsewhere, when the Colorado Republican Party takes the unusual step of setting up its own Super-PAC, reporters shouldn’t assume that its target will be Democrats but also, perhaps, its own.

The state GOP organization, per its by-laws, is not supposed to support any individual Republican candidate prior to the primary election.

But in a recent petition to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, the state GOP acknowledges that its Super-PAC would be completely independent from the State Party, possibly allowing the state party to skirt the mandates of its organizational bylaws and get involved in primary races, opposing candidates of its choosing, GOP or Democrats.

“The Colorado Repubican Party’s (CRP) petition argues that the Super-PAC (“independent expenditure committee”) will not be the CRC or ‘one of its committees’ because the Super-PAC will be independent,” said Colorado Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro via email. “The Petition says that after the State Party Chair appoints the executive director and management committee, neither the State Party Chair, or any other officer or agent of the CRP, nor any committee will have ‘any degree of management or control over the development of any of the plans, projects, activities or expenditures of the [Super-PAC].’ Page 17 of the Petition. So no one in the Party could enforce any rule against the Super-PAC that would prohibit it from intervening in primaries.”

In August of 2012, the state GOP set up its Super-PAC, called the Colorado Republican Party Independent Expenditure Committee, and spent over $85,000 on state legislative races, according to the GOP petition, filed by Richard Westfall.

Now the GOP is worried that “one or more persons or organizations” will file a lawsuit claiming its Super-PAC violates Colorado’s election law.

And so it is petitioning the SOS to make a formal determination that it can spend unlimited amounts of cash from any source, including corporations, because, as the petition states, the GOP plans to use its Super-PAC to raise funds “with no contribution limitations on either amount or permissible contributor.”

In response to the state GOP Super-PAC petition, Colorado Ethics Watch filed a petition, as described on its website, asking the Secretary of State “to conduct a full rulemaking proceeding so that the ultimate decision will apply to all parties alike and so that all interested citizens may have a full and equal opportunity to have their voices heard during the process. Ethics Watch urged the Secretary to issue a proposed rule that would prohibit political parties from using independent expenditure committees to circumvent restrictions on political party fundraising in Colorado law.”

The key question here is whether a political party, like the state GOP, should be allowed to set up a Super-PAC, and the Secretary of State has scheduled a hearing to address the GOP’s Super-PAC petition tomorrow, Jan. 7, at 1:30 p.m.

Absent will be answers about what Tea Party activists can do to ensure that the State GOP doesn’t use its Super-PAC against them.

Toro said this question is outside of his expertise, but he wrote:

Presumably the by-laws could be amended to clarify that the Super-PAC can’t support or oppose candidates in a contested primary. But if the Super-PAC were to be subject to state party rules it wouldn’t be very independent, would it?

So this leads back to the battle cry you hear from the Tea Party folks on the radio. They often say they have to take over the Republican Party. They say it’s the only way they win the war.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) delivered a major buzz kill on the radio Wednesday, saying he’s worried that pot legalization might keep Fortune 500 companies out of Colorado and drive down the state economy.

“I worry, ‘What about that Fortune 500 corporation that wants to move to Colorado?'” Coffman said on KOA’s Colorado Morning News (@3:45). “And the chief executive officer has young kids, and to say, ‘Do I want my children exposed to a culture where this is acceptable for adults? And will that influence their behavior as kids?'”

Without the cloud of marijuana in the mix,  you’d think a big CEO would move his or her company  to Colorado based on bottom-line considerations, but unfortunately KOA co-host April Zesbaugh didn’t delve into the facts underlying Coffman’s fear of Fortune-500 flight.

Overall, Coffman said he’s worried that pot legalization could be a bummer for Colorado’s economy, and unfortunately he wasn’t asked about the benefits.

“So we are really charting into an unknown world, and I certainly worry about the effect on this economy,” Coffman said (at 4:05 in the interview).

Listen to Coffman discuss his concern that pot legalization will drive down state economy 12-31-13

Also in the KOA interview, Coffman said he was concerned that military recruitment might be hurt by Colorado’s new pot law, because potential enlistees could be rejected due to their use of marijuana.

What’s more, he said current military personnel might get tripped up by the law.

“In terms of the military, we have a fairly significant military population [in Colorado],” Coffman said on KOA. “The military has screening tests that they spring, quite frankly, on their uniform folks every now and then. And if they test positive for drugs, to include marijuana, that’s really an issue that leads to a discharge.”

Coffman wasn’t asked what he could do, legislation-wise, to address this.

Coffman is considered one of the most endangered incumbents in the nation. His Colorado House district was re-drawn in 2010, and he defeated a weak Democratic opponent in 2012 by a slim two-percent margin. This year, analysts agree, he faces a much tougher challenger in Democrat Andrew Romanoff. Observers also point out that lower voter turnout, compared that of the presidential year in 2012, could work in Coffman’s favor, if voters stay home November.

Asked by a caller on Saturday to name a conservative billionaire who donated to the recall campaigns of Senators John Morse and Angela Giron, KVOR radio host Jeff Crank replied, “Charles Koch.”

This caught my attention because Koch’s name hadn’t appeared on any recall donation lists that I’d seen.

You’d think Crank would know about Koch, though it’s not a certainty, because Crank was a Colorado state director and (briefly) chief operating officer of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, until he left in July to start his own political consulting company, Aegis Strategy.

Via Twitter I asked Crank to explain which recall activities were funded by Koch, and he vehemently denied saying that Koch contributed to the recall campaign at all, tweeting that my take on the conversation was a “total misquote.”

“I mentioned [the] Kochs write checks to defend freedom,” Crank tweeted yesterday. “Didn’t say wrote checks in recall. Listen carefully at 1:55.”

I listened again, and so can you below, and I heard Crank say the Koch brothers are funding “freedom,” but I also heard a caller ask Crank to “name one [billionaire] that wrote a check in the recall!” And Crank replied, “Charles Koch.”

CALLER RON:  It was the billionaires that came after our guns.  So, should we go after the billionaires? 

CRANK:  And it’s also the billionaires that are funding freedom.

CALLER RON:  Name one!

CRANK:  –that are funding—I’ll name ya some!

CALLER RON:  Name one!

CRANK:  Sure!  Charles Koch!  David Koch!

CALLER RON:  Name one that wrote a check in the recall! 

CRANK: Charles Koch.

CALLER RON: Name one that wrote a $500,000 check in the recall.  Name one! 

CRANK:  They didn’t write personal checks. First of all, let me tell you.  Americans for Prosperity, Ron, did a heck of a lot more to help win on those issues than you’ll ever give them credit for! 

Asked to comment on Crank’s radio discussion, Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch, said via email that “Jeff Crank is admitting what we at Ethics Watch have been saying for years: Americans for Prosperity spends money on elections but uses a loophole to keep from having to disclose the money.”

Toro: “They did it in the Colorado Springs mayor’s race when Jeff Crank was the state director. They always say that they are just discussing the issues, not supporting or opposing candidates. They justify themselves by avoiding using words like ‘vote for the recall’ or ‘defeat John Morse.’ So by avoiding the ‘magic words’ and claiming not to have a position on the recall, they could spend as much money as they wanted on ads personally attacking Morse and Giron while at the same time pretending not to have a position on the recall vote. Crank is coming very close here to making a legally significant admission that AFP was spending to support the recall and should have reported where they got the money and how they spent it.”

Last week, the Sunlight Foundation released a list of groups that contributed to the Morse and Giron recall campaigns, and Americans For Prosperity didn’t appear on the list, including its list of TV ad buyers.

But the Sunlight Foundation notes that contributions by Americans for Prosperity wouldn’t have been reported if they were classified as “issue advertising.”

The Sunlight Foundation’s blog states: “Much of the money — how much isn’t really clear — spent by outside groups in the recall race came in the form of undisclosed dollars. There were no limits on contributions to these races and much of the advertising was classified as issue advertising and did not trigger official state reporting requirements. That meant that groups such as the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, on the pro-recall side, and Americans for Responsible Solutions, on the anti-recall slate, were active but did not report their spending to state authorities.”

Transcript of Dec. 14 exchange between caller “Ron” and KVOR radio host Jeff Crank about the political donations of Charles and David Koch

CALLER RON: If you want to show sides, it was the billionaires that came after our guns. So, should we go after the billionaires?

CRANK: And it’s also the billionaires that are funding freedom.

CALLER RON: Name one!

CRANK: –that are funding—I’ll name ya some!

CALLER RON: Name one!

CRANK: Sure! Charles Koch! David Koch!

CALLER RON: Name one that wrote a check in the recall!

CRANK: Charles Koch.

CALLER RON: Name one that wrote a $500,000 check in the recall. Name one!

CRANK: They didn’t write personal checks. First of all, let me tell you. Americans for Prosperity, Ron, did a heck of a lot more to help win on those issues than you’ll ever give them credit for!

CALLER RON: Well, tell us!

CRANK: Because you think it’s – I –

CALLER RON: Tell us!

CRANK: I’ve been telling you!

CALLER RON: There was $500,000 given. $360,000 was the NRA! Where was the billionaires on our side, Jeff?

CRANK: Oh, Ron! Ron, listen! First of all, I’m not even going to get in it with ya, because you just think that –. The only issue you ever want to talk about, Ron, is guns!

CALLER RON: You brought it up with the recall!

CRANK: But you think the only people out there that do anything in politics are the gun people! And you’re wrong!

When you read about House Speaker John Boehner turning against his right-wing supporters, what you miss is how Boehner’s salvo was received from the humble perspective of the Tea Party in the trenches of a place like Colorado Springs.

For this raw material, you need to tune to Tea-Party radio, like KVOR’s Jeff Crank show, broadcast from CO Springs.

On Saturday, someone named “Ron” phoned Crank’s show and calmly suggested that the Tea Party should back off a bit, because it might cause Republicans to lose elections. And Crank, a Tea-Party stalwart, lets loose on him.

I transcribed it below, but to understand the underlying feelings and battle scars, you have to listen here. (First you’ll hear caller Ron, then radio-host Crank.)

“[The Tea Party] is trying to do something real big, all at one time, and turn around the ship,” Ron told Crank. Maybe it should be more incremental, Ron said.

Crank: “Your attacks on the Tea Party, Ron,” said Crank as he began to blow his top. “You need to look and see who won those [recall] elections. I know you think it was the ads that the NRA ran.

Ron: “No! No!”

Crank: You’re foolin’ yourself, Ron. You’re foolin’ yourself, if you think that. You’re foolin yourself. I’m not going to sit and argue about it [apparently muting Ron]. I know who won those recall elections. I know who was out walking precincts, Ron. [Shouting] I know who did it! So you can say, ‘Oh it was just the NRA came in and won it.’ [now screaming] Look, I’m a member of the NRA! I have spent time and effort and money trying to get people to contribute to the NRA, Ron. But they’re not going to save America singlehandedly. We’re going to save it. And you attacking the Tea Party. And John Boehner attacking the Tea Party is simply counter productive. It just is.”

Fresh from his top-GOP-Senate-candidate showing in the latest Public Policy Pollingsurvey, Ken Buck took to the talk-radio airwaves in recent days, bragging that he’s ahead of his primary opponents by “25 points or more” and that he “had a lot Tea Party support last time” and he has “a lot of Tea Party support this time.”

Reminded by KHOW’s Mandy Connell that he was tagged as a “gaffe-machine” in 2010, Buck said:

Buck: “Obviously, I’m more careful in what I say and where I say it and who I’m around. It doesn’t mean I don’t hold the same values. I think messaging is important.”

Connell wouldn’t have gotten anywhere with Buck had she asked him the sorts of things he’d say privately versus in public, but she could have at least listed a couple of Buck’s private utterances that Democrats used to  sledge-hammer Buck in TV ads last time around, including his infamous exuberance for banning abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, as well as his private courting then public dumping of personhood activists, whose failed amendment would have banned common forms of birth control, as well as all abortion.

Connell, who had Buck on her show Tuesday, also might have recounted some of the Buck material leading to the “gaffe-machine” tag, like his comment comparing being gay to alcoholism.

With this info out there, listeners might have wondered about the truth of Buck’s claim to Connell: “The donors know me. They trust me.” Really? On the issues, Buck said: “I’m going to put out a series of issue statements, starting in January, that will be very specific on health care, on energy, on five or six or seven different issues.”

Five! Six! or even seven issue statements! Connell could have mocked Buck for promising such incredible depth. But instead she just let him say:

Buck: “I think it’s very important for Republicans to stand for something, not just stand against something. I’m not just part of the party of no.” On health care, for example, Buck says he wants a “free-market health-care system.”

On KLZ radio Friday, Buck took a shot at candidates who petition onto the primary ballot, as planned by his opponent Rep. Amy Stephens, instead of going through the caucus process.

Buck said the petition route “bypasses the party structure, the people who work the hardest in the party, and it’s something that would be very unfortunate, if people petitioned on.”

Discussing in more detail why it’s bad for a candidate to skip the caucus-process and petition onto the primary ballot, Buck and Clark said:

Clark: Then you have the other tactic, which is simply to pay a bunch of people to go out and get a bunch of signatures and put your name on the ballot. Well, okay, we’ve all seen what happens when that happens. It’s usually not very pretty. This particular candidate, I have a feeling, is going to run a scorched-earth campaign. We’re just going to have to deal with that. Ken?

Buck: Well, I think, one, there’s a big advantage to going to the caucuses and the assembly. And that is, you go to all the counties of the state, and you ask for their support. And they work for you in the primary and they work for you in the general election. And when you put people in front of a supermarket with a clipboard in their hands, you’re not gaining support. You may think that you may have enough money to run an air game in Denver media and win a race, but the reality is that running state-wide is very difficult to win petitioning on. And so, I agree with your analysis.

Buck told Clark: “In primaries, people are going to put their best foot forward, and they’re going to put their opponent’s worst foot forward, and we will be weaker going against a candidate like Mark Udall.”

Speaking on KOA’s Mike Rosen Show Wed., Secretary of State Scott Gessler said that Colorado Democrats will hold State Sen. Evie Hudak’s seat at least until the next general election in Nov. 2014.

Rosen: So, all things being equal, the Democrats will retain their 18-17 majority in the State Senate through the 2014 session….

Gessler: “That’s correct. Unless someone wants to recall another state senator. But not that I’m advocating for that at the moment. But yeah, currently, that’s the way things are going to work out.  And the Democrats will retain their 18-17 majority. They will cling to it.”

Gessler’s comments, which were not reported by real journalists, are important because recall organizers pledged last week to forge on with signature gathering, hoping that somehow, some way, their efforts would lead to a recall election in Hudak’s Westminster district. Gessler’s comments appear to officially close the door on the Hudak recall campaign.

Rep. Mike Coffman announced Tues. that he may file a personal lawsuit against President Barack Obama over what Coffman sees as Obama’s abuse of power.

Speaking on KHOW radio’s Mandy Connell show, Coffman said America is in a “Constitutional crisis” due to Obama’s “abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion.”

Obama is “creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government,” Coffman said on air. (Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he’s considering legal action against Obama.)

“My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration,” said Coffman on the radio.  “It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them.”

On the radio, Coffman was unclear about the specific instances of prosecutorial discretion would be the focus of his legal action.

In June, Coffman voted to strip “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to this country illegally by their parents, of work permits and start deporting them, because, Coffman said, Obama over-stepped his authority in allowing immigration officials to defer deportation of them. (Yet, Coffman is also opposed to comprehensive-immigration-reform legislation, passed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, and he has yet to propose a specific plan that he would support.)

On KHOW, Coffman said he believes Obama exceeded his authority in lifting “certain elements of the [Iran] sanctions,” in deciding that governors had some discretion under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and in implementing Obamacare.

One wonders what else Coffman is thinking of. Relaxing some federal drug enforcement measures relating to Colorado’s marijuana statutes? (unlikely since Coffman has signed on to a bill allowing banks to conduct business with dispensaries). Maybe Coffman is also upset about Coffman’s approach to DOMA?

Reporters might explore the irony that Coffman is wasting time with a hail-Mary lawsuit trying to stop Obama from getting stuff done via executive orders, which Obama has arguably been forced to use thanks to Coffman and his fellow obstructionist House Republicans.

Partial Transcript of Rep. Mike Coffman’s Appearance on KHOW Nov. 26, 2013

Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he’s considering legal action against Obama

Coffman: I think this country is in a Constitutional crisis because of this President’s ability or abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion, and basically creating law by not enforcing existing law, creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government.

Connell: …One of my great frustrations with the Republicans DC is that there does not seem to be a concerted effort to push back against these exact Constitutional abuses that you are talking about. Is this something that comes up in the Caucus about if there’s any strategy. There has to be some way to tell the President of the United States that he cannot just on a whim choose to enforce or not enforce pieces of legislation that have been created by the Congress.

Coffman: My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them.

by Michael Lund

In the heated battle and drama surrounding the efforts to recall Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak, accusations of malfeasance and misrepesentation have been thrown back and forth, a gubernatorial candidate has proffered obscene gestures, and local news outlets have entered the fray to parse out the truth and report on the contentious issues raised by the two sides.

Never the wallflower, KNUS radio talk show host, Peter Boyles, has become the media point man for the Recall organization, hosting the organizers Mike McAlpine and Laura Waters in daily appearances  for updates and rallying cries.   As you might guess, the tone of the show these days is combative and loud.

When KDVR Fox 31’s reporter Eli Stokols and KCNC CBS4 Denver’s Shaun Boyd ventured into Arvada and Westminster to report on the Recall and efforts to thwart it, they were not spared from Mr. Boyles cutting criticism and confrontation.

We’ve provided some audio clips from The Peter Boyles Show for you to hear exactly what Peter Boyles thinks of their journalistic efforts:

1. Peter and Joe Neville, lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, respond to Eli Stokol’s report identifying paid signature gatherers for the Hudak recall effort as having criminal records, which supports claims purported in door hangers and robo-calls by Hudak supporters.  The root of Mr. Boyles’ complaints seem to lie mostly with the organizations defending Hudak against the recall, whose methods to investigate recall works Boyles refers to as “underhanded”, “Brownshirt technique” “gestapo-esque” and “very, very KGB”.  Misters Boyles and Neville accuse the Democracy Defense Fund as ‘gift-handing’ information to Stokol’s for his report.  Further criticism from Neville and Boyles refers to Stokols’ reporting that DDF “fundraised” $30,000 to fund their efforts when it appears the money was donated in large amounts by few donors.  Finally, Boyles charges Stokols for not forwarding information concerning the potential crime of threatening phone calls from someone associated with the Hudak recall.

2.  Boyles calls Stokols’ piece “bad journalism”, claiming that DDF gave Stokols information critically important to the report, while refusing to return Boyles’ phone calls requesting answers to his questions.  Further criticism from Boyles falls to Shaun Boyd’s report on the recall in which she interviews Hudak.  Boyles mocks Hudak’s appearance in the piece a, saying that “Evie is now part of ‘Shaun’s people'”.

3.  Boyles facetiously adopts the song “Eli’s Coming” to mock Stokol’s supposed failures in his report.  Also in this segment, Boyles lays out his case against Shaun Boyd’s report, which reported that Hudak claimed that she had nothing to do with the organized opposition to the recall.  Peter calls “BS” on that claim, but doesn’t back up his assertion.

4.  This clip includes audio from Shaun Boyd’s interview with Evie Hudak, complete with Peters peanut gallery commentary and editorializing.