During a six-hour Republican Party meeting, held June 26 to gauge support for GOP State Chair Steve House, Tom Tancredo sat with Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman in the hallway outside the meeting room. Tancredo was holding copies of a document that listed grievances against House.

Coffman was eventually given the chance to talk briefly to the executive committee, but, as I reported last week, Tancredo said that House blocked him and Pueblo County GOP Chair Becky Mizel from distributing the document to committee members, who voted 22-1 to support House.

Yet, mysteriously, given the speed at which GOP allegations can fly around Facebook, I couldn’t find the document anywhere until someone graciously leaked it to me yesterday. (See below.)

But is it the real thing? The document Tancredo wanted to hand out at the meeting?

I can’t say for sure, but my source says so, and I emailed it to Tancredo, who responded with, “Looks like the same one to me.”

Tancredo pointed out that there was nothing secret about the document, as evidenced by the fact that he and others gave it to various reporters at the meeting and elsewhere. The document asks House to resign.

I asked Owen Loftus, communications director for the state Republican Party, to respond to the allegations in the document. I’ve been waiting since yesterday and have heard nothing from him.

Without the cooperation of Loftus, it’s hard for me to assess whether many the grievances are true–but since reporters haven’t posted the document or reported on it, omitting a key piece of information in the story, I’ve posted it for all to see. It’s a big part of the story, and reporters were remiss by failing to get it out there.

It addresses Dick Wadhams’ sniper-like comment in The Denver Post, in which he told the folks who want House to resign to “reveal the charges.”

“They need to put up or shut up,” Wadhams told The Post.

As you can see, the document describes numerous failures by House, relating to party finances, communication, personnel, and more.

For his part, Tancredo told me, “What’s inaccurate is the allegation that we wanted [House] to hire Ted Harvey and that if he didn’t, we would go public with his dalliances.” Tancredo told me. “That is totally, completely untrue. It’s a false narrative. There was an issue with Ted Harvey, but it had nothing to do with him not getting the job.”

Tancredo says House’s actions after the private meeting where Tancredo, Coffman, and Mizel asked him to resign, have been “even more egregious than what he did up to that time.”

Statement of Friends and Supporters to Chairman Steve House

June 25, 2015

Chairman Steve House
Colorado Republican Party

Dear Chairman House:

The controversy swirling around you and your leadership of the party is taking a toll on the party’s health. With the great potential and challenges ahead of us for 2016, we must find a leader who can regain the confidence of the stakeholders of the party and repair the damage you have caused. We request that you tender your resignation immediately for the reasons listed below.

Party finances

Trust is essential for donors large and small. The following jeopardizes the trust needed for successful and sustained fundraising.

• You claim to have inherited over $300,000 in debt, but supporting information is required on campaign finance reports and does not appear there.
• May expenditures exceeded donations by $21,974. May donations decreased $28,464 from April’s donations.
• The budget, which was due June 15, has not been provided to the Executive Committee as required by the bylaws. A draft was presented to them at the last meeting. Required quarterly financial statements have not been provided to the Central Committee.
• You were informed in writing that the $100,000 line of credit with a $60,000 draw had disappeared from the FEC reports, that there were no payments listed and that amended reports needed to be filed.  However, you did not see that they were.
• The most recent FEC report lists $10,000 paid to American Express. The individual charges must be listed as “memo entries.” No memo entries were reported.

Lack of consistency and clarity in communication

The state party must be clear and consistent in its public policy positions. The chair must behave professionally and not undermine elected Republicans. We are aware of many such instances on your watch—too many to repeat here. Examples include:

• You gave mixed, confusing, and changing statements to legislators, the general public, and the press regarding a presidential primary. This publicly embarrassed Republican legislators and led to a scathing Denver Post op-ed.
• After you rescinded your intent to resign on June 15, you issued a press release that included: “If I refused to meet their demand to resign, they threatened…that false rumors that I have been unfaithful to my wife would be made public.”  The Colorado GOP issued a statement, one you later paraphrased, that said, “These false rumors are coming from the same people who continually try to bring down the party for their own gain, year after year.”  It is inconceivable that a state party chair would refer to the Republican Attorney General that way and attempt to cause severe damage to her stellar reputation.
• You refused to call a special Executive Committee meeting for June 22, well before this weekend with all the national press and attention surrounding the WCS.  You did so after committing to Douglas County Chair Jim Pfaff that you would and after receiving the requisite signatures. Defiance of the wishes of the members requesting a special meeting is unacceptable. The result has been more discord than had you called the meeting as promised.  Though the call was late, you possessed the authority to waive the delay.
• We have recently heard that you claimed to national media that there was a grievance process that should have been utilized. We are aware of no such process.
• You have made commitments both for and against a straw poll that would bind Colorado’s delegation. In email you have expressed a willingness to hold caucus in February and reduce Colorado’s delegation from 34 delegates to 9.

Donors, volunteers, appointees, and employees have shared many other examples. These same people have expressed frustration in your rapidly changing direction in decisions and communications, from the mundane to issues of national significance like the primary bill. A loss of confidence has ensued for those who work closely with the party. That loss of confidence must reverse under new leadership.

Defamation of character in your official capacity

The state party chair must be above gossip and defamation of character. Yet we have seen many instances including:

• You made irresponsible false claims about Ted Harvey’s personal life and finances to members of the media and others in the context of your official reasons for not offering Harvey employment. You fabricated and promoted the notion that Harvey’s personal circumstances could lead him to embezzle from the party. None of your statements are true.
• You falsely asserted another state party officer would be resigning soon because of personal financial stress and alleged pending bankruptcy. Spreading such information about another party officer is inexcusable.
• After the meeting with your former key supporters, you communicated to 9News that no “criminal charges” would likely be filed. This incorrectly implied that Coffman, Tancredo, and Mizel had been involved in illegal acts.  Your themes of blackmail and extortion were picked up widely in the press causing unnecessary harm to the party and respected members.  Now, a formal request for investigation against the three has been made with the Denver District Attorney as a result of your statements and actions.
• Through Colorado GOP spokesman Owen Loftus, you communicated that attorneys for the party had contacted the US Attorney’s office and, according to KUSA 9News, the Denver District Attorney. This public announcement gave the impression that there is merit to the “criminal charges” you have been promoting. At that time, the Denver District Attorney categorically denied that they were contacted and the U.S. Attorney’s Office has stated they are not involved in any aspect of this.  This was an attempt to defame through innuendo. You used of party funds and resources to further your personal agenda and caused significant damage within the party.
• You told many people that both Ted Harvey and Kim Herzfeldt threatened the Attorney General. A friend contacted the Attorney General and was told that was false.

In all of these instances and others, your behavior exposes the party to substantial legal liability. Additionally, the state party cannot tolerate the chairman engaging in character defamation of any person or using party resources for a personal agenda.

Personnel

No one wishes to second guess the hiring of Tyler Hart or the retention of Shana Kohn. However, significant concerns have been raised by your handling of employment discussions with other individuals.

• You promised Ted Harvey the Executive Director’s job in front of others. Almost immediately after your election when this decision was questioned, you posted on Facebook that no one had been promised a job.
• You continued to string Ted Harvey along with promises of the Executive Director’s job at a later date.
• You mischaracterized the position of the Attorney General to explain why you rescinded the job offer to Ted Harvey. When called on it, you resorted to defaming Harvey.
• You also have represented that on June 15, Tancredo, Coffman, and Mizel demanded you hire Harvey on the state party staff.  This is untrue; the discussion of Harvey concerned the slanderous statements you made about him.
• You told at least 3 members of the transition team, who expected to be paid, that no pay would be forthcoming because of the serious nature of the party’s debt. You then paid 2 of the 3. Not only did you pay 2 of the 3, but this contract labor was not disclosed to the Executive Committee nor disclosed in the budget.
• Because of your conflicting communications, there is confusion about who is on the state party payroll, who may have a side deal, and who may speak for the party.

In all of the above instances and others, such behavior exposes the party to substantial legal liability. Additionally, the party cannot tolerate the chairman engaging in character defamation of any person, particularly in the context of employment denial.

Untruthful statements concerning your extra-marital affair and unethical reaction to exposure

Everyone has a right to privacy in their personal life. You made your extramarital liaison with a Colorado Springs woman the fodder for unseemly gossip and public scrutiny, now implicating the reputation of the party. Your false and proactive denials of the affair to the press escalated your private unprofessional and duplicitous behavior to a public level and created an unnecessary specter of scandal marring the party’s reputation.

• Your involvement in the affair has not been discreet or separate from party business. The affair was known in wide enough circles to generate inquiries and investigations from the press, including at political events where you were representing the party.
• You denied an affair which is unquestionably true and the source of distractions in your official capacity.
• We understand that at your direction, Adams County Vice Chair John Sampson contacted the woman involved. She followed your demand that she deny the affair on an audio recording Mr. Sampson made. When the chairman engages in this level of duplicitous and unethical behavior, such tactics escalate the scandal and increase damage to the party’s reputation. It is impossible to separate your private actions as an individual and the actions you were taking to purportedly protect your official position.

Ongoing indiscretions and lies about those indiscretions can only result in further injury to the party.  We refuse to knowingly allow such indiscreet behavior to become ammunition for our opponents in the 2016 elections.

Summary

While we could list many additional seriously damaging examples and complaints from volunteers and donors, the above examples alone are more than enough to have shattered our confidence in your ability to lead this party in crucial years. The party’s goals cannot be met if our members, the Central Committee, the Executive Committee, and Colorado voters have lost confidence in our chairman. We therefore ask for your immediate resignation. We wish to avoid the process to involuntarily remove you from office, but we will pursue that if needed.

We regret the necessity to take this action.

cc: Exec Comm
County Chairs
Reince Priebus

In a Facebook post Monday, GOP activist Marilyn Marks called on a Republican Party committee to “due diligence to inform themselves of what matters the state party has referred to prosecutors.”

Responding to Monday’s article in the Colorado Statesman, stating that a “Republican Party spokesman said on Friday that the state party’s attorney had contacted prosecutors about ‘another matter,’ though he declined to specify what that was,” Marks wrote on Facebook:

Marks: The party says (in the article below) that they have referred “another matter” to prosecutors, implying that it is not the matter that they previously claimed they had referred to prosecutors apparently targeting Coffman, Tancredo and Mizel. Now House says that he NEVER THOUGHT he was being extorted or blackmailed. If that is true, did he go to prosecutors falsely alleging a crime?

I urge Executive Committee members to conduct appropriate due diligence to inform themselves of what matters the state party has referred to prosecutors.

In the comment thread, Marks observes that House is now saying he was not subject to extortion or blackmail, yet something had been reported to prosecutors.

Marks: I hope that someone on the ExComm or a reporter will try to get to the bottom of this, and what matters have been reported to the prosecutors. If [House] did not think it was blackmail, where is the apology to [Cynthia] Coffman, [Tom] Tancredo and Becky [Mizel]?

A good suggestion.

The three-day Western Conservative Summit, which recently drew six GOP presidential contenders and over 4,000 participants to Denver, featured debates, galas, and speeches by high-profile conservatives.

But outside the media spotlight, the gathering offered 30 “Citizen Action Workshops,”  most focusing on nuts-and-bolts tactics that conservatives believe will help them advance their agenda. Examples: “Social Media Secrets for Winning Online, with American Majority,” “Run for Office with Victory Guaranteed (Almost), with American Majority,” and “How to Deal with the Media, with Tea Party Patriots,”

In one such workshop, titled “Energize Your Church for Civic Engagement,” Gayle Levin, Associate Director of Salt and Light Council, outlined ways conservative churches can organize to make a difference in the public sphere.

“We’ve had a one-two punch from the Supreme Court, and there’s only one place to turn, God,” said Levin, after presenting a video to workshop goers lamenting that “homosexuality” is considered “normal” in America, abortion is “accepted” and, generally, the Bible has be set aside is by secular society.

“If churches would rise up, we could turn things around in one election cycle,” continued Levin, adding that her anti-choice organization, founded by, among others, Mathew Staver of the right-wing Liberty Council, trains pastors and churchgoers in 23 states.

Levin said her group helps pastors craft two-minute messages designed to be delivered “from the pulpit,” and pastors are asked to encourage church attendees to stop by a Salt and Light table, as they leave the service. At the table, church volunteers get instructions on how to take action on the pastor’s message from the sermon.

For example, in 2012, Levin said, her organization worked with churches whose members were directed to other organizations which, in turn, sent them to rallies, organized by the Liberty Council and other organizations, in swing states.

The Salt and Light Council also encourages churches to provide voter guides, organize candidate forums, and to register and transport voters to the polls. And if a church runs afoul with the law or needs anything else, the organization will provide “legal and background support,” said Levin.

Though IRS rules limit political work by religious entities, both left- and right-leaning groups encourage political involvement by the religious community. Left-leaning organizations, such as Sojourners, organize with allies across the country.

The conservatives American Renewal Project and right-wing activist David Lane has set up meetings with pastors and GOP presidential candidates in swing states, including Colorado.

Also here, conservatives have organized a July 12-15 conference in Colorado Springs, called Breaking the Silence, which features prominent right-wing evangelicals from across the country.

Some right-wing conservative activism focuses on church practices. One conservative organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, has published a guide, titled Protecting Your Ministry from Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Lawsuits, to help churches and institutions use loopholes to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Here’s an excerpt from the manual:

A new concept – that “sexual liberty” trumps religious freedom – has begun to impact churches, ministries, and individual Christians across this nation. This concept has led to the passage of sexual orientation, gender identity ordinances (SOGIs). SOGIs elevate sexual special interests over our cherished fundamental freedoms, especially religious freedom. These ordinances place terms like “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” in the same category as race or religion. But they are not designed for the innocent purpose of ensuring all people receive basic services. Rather, their practical effect is to legally compel Christians to accept, endorse, and even promote messages, ideas, and events that violate their faith.

Those promoting these ordinances use public sympathy – gained through misleading rhetoric about “discrimination” – to silence dissenting voices. And no ministry will remain immune if they remain true to Scripture’s teachings about sexuality and gender. Alliance Defending Freedom created this manual to help you prepare for the legal intrusions some of your fellow believers and Christian leaders around the country have already faced, and for other threats on the near horizon.

At Denver’s Western Conservative Summit, Levin discussed a number reasons churches reject help from her organization, ranging from, “The rapture is coming,” and “I don’t want to scare people away,” to, “You’re being too political,” and, “Separation of church and state.”

“We do need to stand up,” said one workshop participant, Pastor Mark White of Park View Bible Baptist Church in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, referring to recent Supreme Court decisions. “It is our fault, as Christians, that we are in the state we’re in.  We’ve sat on our hands too long.”

“This [Western Conservative] Summit is here for a reason,” said Levin. “We are looking for who will stand for god.”

Though most of the workshops offered at the Summit focused on developing practical skills, like the one on church organizing, others were broader or agenda-driven. These included, “Young Voters Meet Team Carly, with Fiorina for President (under-30s only),”  “Lessons from the Left, with Americans for Prosperity,”  “Trump the Race Card, with Frederick Douglass Republicans,” and “We’re the Millennials, Give Us a Look, with Turning Point USA.”

Those of you who’ve been following the strange public downfall of State Sen. Ellen Roberts will thoroughly enjoy her interview last week on KNUS 710-AM.

If you don’t know, Roberts quickly went from being a rarity in Colorado, a Great Republican Hope to defeat Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet, to being just another common Colorado Republican implosion, in the tradition of Ken Buck, Scott McInnis, Bob Beauprez, etc, etc.

Now Roberts is saying everyone made too big a deal of her contemplation of a U.S. Senate run, especially the Durango Herald’s Peter Marcus, who first broke the news that Roberts was “in the process of thinking” about challenging Bennet. Roberts told KNUS radio-host Krista Kafer last week:

Roberts: I had honestly answered a question to my local hometown reporter after the session ended. He said, “You know, your name keeps getting floated out there as a possible candidate for the Republicans in the U.S. Senate race.” And he said, “So, are you going to think about it?” I said, honestly, thinking of the average person’s definition of ‘thinking’ — not a Hillary Clinton ‘no-I’m-not-thinking-about-it-while-you’re-developing-your-whole-campaign-years-ahead — actually meant I was going to go home to Durango, unpack my boxes, reintegrate with my family and my community, and think about whether that was a choice that I would make. And from there it went gangbusters, because he put it in the newspaper and the Democratic machine went – and I would say, ‘the Democratic nasty machine’.

…And apparently, just by thinking about whether I might get into the U.S. Senate race was enough to send people to the moon and back. So, yeah, it was a – it hasn’t been a pleasant experience

He put it in the newspaper! Can you believe it? A leading Colorado Republican tells Peter Marcus she’s “thinking” of running U.S. Senate, and the stupid journalist actually tells us!

God knows what trick Marcus will play on Roberts next time he interviews her.

And there’s more there, as you can see. Roberts is trying to make us believe she wasn’t serious about a Senate run, and she’s implying Marcus’ lede paragraph, stating that Roberts was “seriously considering a run for U.S. Senate,” was somehow misleading.

But all you have to do is read Roberts’ own statements in Marcus’ article to see that she was definitely serious about running, as you’d hope would be the case if she’s telling one of the state’s few remaining political reporters about it.

She told Marcus she 1) was worried about surviving a primary, 2) pointed out that she’d have to file paperwork before making an official announcement, 3) lashed out at Bennet, indicating she’d thought about the campaign’s end-game, and 4) said nothing about not being serious, such as, “Hey, Peter, I’m telling you all this but I’m not serious about it.”

Then she went on to tell The Denver Post’s John Frank:

Roberts: “I’m not ready to announce yet, but I’m certainly exploring it pretty closely or I wouldn’t be talking about it.”

Then she seriously told KNUS radio’s Dan Caplis, “I’ve never called myself pro-choice as a politician.” Then ColoradoPols posted a video proving this to be false, and Roberts soon said she was no longer considering a U.S. Senate run.

Or, as she told KNUS last week, “I would say I have since stopped thinking. So, because I publicly said I’m not thinking about it anymore, all of a sudden it has magically disappeared from the Democrats.”

That’s almost as surprising as a reporter who actually takes notes when you say  you’re thinking about running for U.S. Senate.

At least Roberts is not progressive blogs for factual errors.

Roberts: Well, when I said on the radio show, as a politician, I don’t—I’ve never called myself pro-choice, I forgot that in 2011 in the heat of battle, I did said that because I was trying to drive home a point to the Democrats. Well, within twenty-four hours, the blogs had pieced together that time in 2011 and the radio show clip to say that I was wishy-washy, or flip-floppy, or whatever.  As far as I’m concerned, put me in category number three.

Whatever. That’s the category Roberts now wants to be in. That’s fine, but hopefully she won’t claim that her new”whatever” category is the radio’s or media’s fault. The media were not responsible for any of the catastrophes we witnessed during Roberts short, but serious, contemplation of a U.S. Senate run.

UPDATE: In response to the request of a commentator on ColoradoPols, I asked Crank if he still holds the opinion below, which he expressed over two weeks ago. Here’s his response.

CRANK: Yes, I still believe that Cynthia Coffman should welcome an investigation by an independent authority.  I don’t know if what she did rises to the legal definition of blackmail or extortion.  Only a legal expert would know that.  There should be an investigation and, if she is cleared, she should apologize for using bad judgement.  If the investigation finds that she participated in an effort to extort or blackmail, she should resign.

I try to hold the same standard regardless of party.  That is more than those on the left usually do.

Amazes me that the folks on the left who are calling for Coffman to resign were eerily quiet about Eric Holder’s gun running operation and the IRS targeting people based on their political views.  Perhaps you should write about that too, unless that just cuts too close to home.

——-

Some of my friends might throw stones at me, but, love him or hate him, Colorado Springs radio-host Jeff Crank tries to hold the Republican Party to basic standards.

When Crank, a Republican, ran for Congress back in 2006, Crank was the victim of GOP shenanigans himself, so he seems to really hate it when the Republican knives come out behind the scenes.

Shortly after the news broke that Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and others had allegedly threatened House in an effort to push him out of his position as state GOP chair, Crank took to the airwaves with this:

CRANK: “Now, to me, if that happened, that’s blackmail,” said Crank, who’s worked over the years for Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, during his June 20 KVOR show. “Could it be extortion? I don’t know what the law says about the threshold for extortion or blackmail, but I’m pretty sure that the Attorney General shouldn’t participate in it. I’m pretty sure of that. In fact, I’m pretty sure that an Attorney General would want to prosecute rather than participate in an effort to blackmail the chairman of the Republican Party.

Now, I just say this. If this happened, Cynthia Coffman, the Attorney General, needs to resign. She’s a Republican, and she needs to resign. Because if this happened, she either at worst, participated in it, and at best, was a witness to it, in her office – in your office, in the Attorney General’s office of the state of Colorado. It’s uh — this is what needs to be investigated. Not whether Steve House did this, that, or the other thing. What is really troubling here to me is that the Attorney General of the state of Colorado, who already played politics once and took the opposite side of her husband in supporting someone for Party Chairman, now shows up and decides that that’s, all of a sudden, — he needs to go because maybe he hasn’t hired somebody. But participates in a meeting like this – was either a witness to, or participated in blackmail. There you go.

Who in the world do people think they are, walking into the Chairman. The Chairman was duly elected as the Chairman of the Republican Party. He can hire or not hire whoever he choses as his Exectuvie Director. Tom Tancredo, who again, has been a friend of mine, supported me when I ran for Congress when he was a member of Congress. I appreciate his support. Tom, of all people, was the guy that everybody in the Tea Party hated because he ran against Dan Maes, left the Republican Party, ran as an Independent, and now he’s trying to tell the Chairman of the Party who he has to hire as the Executive Director. And it’s all unseemly.

But here is the biggest problem I have with this: Cynthia Coffman is the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Colorado. And it’s lonely when you’re a Republican calling out another Republican. And I’m sad to say that. […] But I will say this: I have built a career doing that, and I will call you out if I think you’ve done something unethical, if you’ve done something wrong. And I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. And I think that’s what people respect about the positions that I take—is that I take them and I hold firm to them. And I’ve got to tell you, I need to know more about what Cynthia Coffman’s role was here. If she participated in or saw an attempt to blackmail the Chairman of the Republican Party, she needs to resign. Because if that’s the case, if that happened, she is Eric Holder of the state of Colorado. And I can’t think of anything worse to say about somebody than being the Eric Holder of the state of Colorado. She can’t just sit silently. There has to be an investigation. There should be an ethics complaint filed.

Barring a sentence or two, Crank actually sounds like a real attorney general here, unlike the one we have now.

Former KLZ talk-radio hosts Ken Clark, Kris Cook, and Randy Corporon resigned after KLZ management banned Tom Tancredo from the KLZ airwaves, at least temporarily.

Now the trio is set to take the air again, as substitute hosts on KNUS 710-AM.

As reported by Ken Clark on his Facebook page, here’s the trio’s scheduled KNUS appearances over the next few days:

Ken Clark: ·

The Liberty Lineup is riding the airwaves again! Here’s when we’ll be on 710 KNUS ( www.710knus.com ) in the coming days:

Thursday, 7/2, around 10:15-ish – Kris will be on with Chuck Bonniwell when he fills in for Dan Caplis
Friday, 7/3, 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. – Ken and Randy will fill in for Peter Boyles
Saturday, 7/4, 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. – Ken will fill in for Chuck and Julie on Weekend Wake Up
Saturday, 7/4, 9 a.m. to Noon – Randy will fill in for Craig Silverman

I hope you all will listen in, share with your friends and ask *them* to listen in, and especially, if you can, CALL in!! The studio line is 303-696-1971.

The three hosts have been at the center of efforts to air out grievances against Colorado GOP chair Steve House.

You gotta give KNUS credit for giving these people a platform to air out whatever more they have to say–including whatever interviews they want to conduct.

Denver talk-show hosts should release a multi-page document, apparently prepared for last week’s Republican executive committee meeting, detailing concerns about Republican State Party Chair, Steve House.

Tom Tancredo told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles Monday that House refused to let him or Pueblo Country GOP Chair Becky Mizel distribute the “three-to-four pages” to committee members, even though Mizel sits on the committee.

On Saturday, former KLZ 560-AM host Randy Corporon told KNUS 710-AM’s Craig Silverman that he’d emailed what sounded like the same document to Silverman prior to his interview on Silverman’s show.

Corporon told Silverma on air: I sent you a four-page letter of the problems. You probably haven’t had a chance to see it. Neither did the executive committee, by the way, because Steve House did not allow anyone to distribute the four-page letter of concerns about Steve House for the executive committee (at 56:40 Hour 3).

But neither Corporon nor Silverman responded immediately to my requests for the document.

In the name of transparency, Silverman should place the accusations on the KNUS website post haste.

Corporon should read the document on the KNUS airwaves Friday, when he is guest-hosting beginning at 5 a.m., along with Kris Cook and Ken Clark, the other two KLZ talk-radio hosts who resigned after KLZ management refused, at least temporarily, to allow Tom Tancredo to appear on KLZ.

Since she left her job as communications director for the Jefferson County Schools, Lisa Pinto took the highly unusual step, for a low-level public relations professional (alleged), of actually whining about her tenure at Jeffco and drawing media attention to herself.

In an June 19 op-ed in the Colorado Statesman, and an earlier interview on KNUS 710-AM’s Kelley and Company, Pinto slammed the community activists, the teachers’ union, and other villains for making her job miserable and undermining public education in Jeffco. She’s relieved, as she told KNUS below, to now be playing golf and not thinking about politics. (And, she adds, she’s a good golfer!)

Of course, one of the worst aspects of conservative talk radio is its one-sided nature, so I thought it would be worth spotlighting a counter op-ed that appeared in the Colorado Statesman yesterday, by Jim Earley, a Jeffco community activist.

Earley: There is no question that Lisa Pinto’s short tenure as chief communications officer for Jeffco Public Schools was troubled from the start. From the flawed interview process and dubious qualifications, her connections to school board member Ken Witt and others through the Leadership of the Rockies program, her subsequent decision to hire known conservative media consultancy Novitas Communications for $50,000 to assist in what should be her core job duties, to a series of mind-boggling social media debacles, and culminating in a PR disaster when the district refused to host the governor for a bill signing, there’s little doubt that Pinto was not a good fit for the job.

Pinto’s resignation should have been the end of it. Yet, in a guest column published by The Colorado Statesman last week, Pinto combines what can only be considered as sour grapes about her time in Jeffco, with the standard, party line, union-as-thug rhetoric. It stands to reason that with so much controversy surrounding Pinto’s tenure that a little self-reflection ought to be the order of the day; perhaps, as Pinto herself noted, “a CT scan” would do to introspect on what really went wrong.

“… a billion-dollar professional services corporation is going through a necessary turnaround while under attack by a guerrilla group …” Pinto fails to recognize that many Jeffco residents do understand what is happening. Using terms like “guerrilla group” as a connotation for the JCEA is debasing, and serves no purpose other than to vilify teachers, and many Jeffco residents aren’t buying into the petty name-calling.

“This was a lesson for me, not having an ego, trying to do the right thing,” says Pinto at the end of her radio interview. “And I realize there are some things that can’t be fixed.” Not by her. She’s right there.

Listen to Lisa Pinto on KNUS 710-AM on 6-17-2015

After being banned, at least temporarily, from KLZ 560-AM last week, Tom Tancredo’s familiar voice spiced up the airwaves on KNUS 710-AM this morning, as he chatted with Peter Boyles about the (as of now) failed attempt to oust Steve House as GOP Party Chair.

Tancredo said more high-ranking Republicans want to oust Steve House than you might think, judging from the Colorado GOP’s Executive Committee’s 22-1 vote Friday to retain House as party chair.

Tancredo said he talked to members of the Executive Committee who were scared of “retribution” if they voted against House during the open vote of the committee on Friday.

Tancredo: “There was a motion, as I understand it, to make it a closed vote because people are, you know, let’s face it, the chairman is sitting right there, you’re maybe intimidated to some extent to vote openly,” Tancredo told Boyles, adding later (Listen @7:45 below), “No, truly, we talked to people afterwards who said, Hey, I just couldn’t do it, man. I was scared to do anything. Retribution.”

Boyles: No, they were afraid!

Tancredo: These fantastic jobs these people have, you know? No pay. Yet, it’s their own little bit of heaven, you know?

Republican activist Kathryn Porter, who joined Tancredo on Boyles’ show, agreed, saying:

Porter: The 22-1 vote, I don’t believe that’s how those people in that room felt for one minute. I believe that vote was a mask. It was a façade to give the impression of Party unity. And I can tell you for a fact, we do not have that.

Tancredo told Boyles that the committee refused to review the full accusations against House. Tancredo said he had “three-to-four pages” of concerns about House, with no mention of the alleged affair, ready to distribute to the executive committee, but he was not allowed to hand it out. Neither was Pueblo Country Chair Becky Mizel, who sits on the committee, Tancredo told Boyles. (Alleged tweets about the affair were detailed by Craig Silverman on KNUS Saturday.)

But one of Tancredo’s concerns is, apparently, Steve House’s attacks on former Sen. Ted Harey.

Tancredo: “These are big problems. You call say a senator, I’ve forgotten how many years Ted [Harvey] served — you go to people in the media and to the attorney general and tell them that he’s going bankrupt, that his family is leaving him, and that you’re afraid he might embezzle money. I mean this is a guy of sterling qualities. You might not agree with Ted on stuff. But the reality is he’s an honest guy with a wonderful family. All this was concocted. You say this about people, and you can get yourlself sued, get the Party sued. These were the issues we were bringing to his attention.”

Listen to KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles discuss the GOP coup attempt with Tom Tancredo and Kathryn Porter June 29, 2015

Reporters covering the Western Conservative Summit did a good job spotlighting the gay bashing that permeated the event over the weekend.

The Denver Post got the money quote for irony from Sen. Bill Armstrong, president of Colorado Christian University, which sponsored the summit.

“I do think that the homosexual agenda in part is to shut down further discussion of the [morality of the gay] issue. That will not happen,” he told The Post.

Who’s shutting down the discussion? Armstrong is the guy who refused to let the Log Cabin Republicans have its own booth at the event to discuss the issue with participants, saying the pro-gay organization doesn’t fit well with his group.

The Post reported that Rick Santorum, who’s again running for President, shared Armstrong’s views during his Summit appearance.

“Why are we losing the public debate? You can’t win an argument you don’t make,” Santorum said. “We have been bullied into silence, in not standing up for the truth and here’s where we are.”

Of course, the anti-gay side of the discussion was well represented at the event, with presidential hopefuls slamming last week’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

And, as I reported today for RH Reality Check, the official registration packets for the Summit contained a booklet titled, “Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,” published by the Family Research Council.

The “myths” included that “homosexual conduct is not harmful to one’s physical health,” “children raised by homosexuals are no different than children raised by heterosexuals, nor do they suffer harm,” and “homosexual relationships are just the same as heterosexual ones, except for the gender of the partners.”

Summit organizers did not shut down the pro-gay side of the debate completely. They allowed the Log Cabin Republicans to share a table with the Colorado GOP, and progressive bloggers covered the event. And The Post reported that younger Republicans at the event supported the Supreme Court’s decision.

Still, if you attended the Summit, and opened you ears, you heard gay bashing.

“I have nothing against gay people,” Ben Carson said at one evening session, adding, “Like everybody else, they don’t get extra rights. And they don’t get to change things for everybody else.”