Some carnival barkers and radio chatterers are saying there was some sort of agreement between the Michael Hancock campaign and The Denver Post that went something like this: The Post wouldn’t print the story about his alleged liaisons with prostitutes, if Hancock agreed to turn over his cell phone and bank records to reporters.

I was glad to hear Denver Post reporter Chuck Plunkett, on the Caplis and Silverman Show yesterday, deny that any such agreement existed, because this obviously would have constituted journalism at its worst.

“We made no such commitment,” Plunkett told Caplis and Silverman. “If we could have gotten, for example, through our other research and other journalistic efforts, some kind of third party corroboration, one way or the other, that was unimpeachable, you bet we would have gone to press with it.”

So Plunkett confirmed on the radio that if The Post had a credible story about Hancock prior to the election, they would have rushed to publish it. But, as Plunkett’s big boss Dean Singleton told Caplis and Silverman June 7, no “reputable” news organization would have published a story based on the information they had on hand at the time.

And here’s the strange part. After a series of front page stories in The Post, warmed with hot air out from some local TV stations, the facts of this story haven’t changed much. A piece of paper with Hancock’s misspelled name povided by a pimp, plus his cell phone number and some dates.

That was’t much then or now.

Yet, the story went from unreportable to the front page because, according to Plunkett, Hancock decided not to honor, as Plunkett put it yesterday, a “gentleman’s agreement,” to hand over his unvetted bank and cell-phone records?

On the radio, Plunkett sounded offended that Hancock didn’t turn over all his records, per the gentleman’s agreement, which Hancock’s campaign manager denies making.

But even if the gentleman’s agreement was broken, that doesn’t make this petty story all that big a deal, if you look at the facts on the table. Giving it so much hype, and assigning The Post’s top writers to it, and continuing to do so, is a journalistic embarrassment.

I’m not saying Hancock’s alleged shift in stance regarding the documents wasn’t news. The Post made the right call to air the story, along with the news that Hancock’s laywers asked for police evidence. There’s a little news there. But this might have merited a few paragraphs because the core of the story remains empty.

Going forward, The Post should take a breath and distinguish between significant advances in this story from next-to-meaningless, but titillating, developments.

There could be potential big news here, like real evidence proving Hancock is lying about paying prostitutes, but spare us the hype.

Last month, Sarah Palin made a joint appearance in Denver with retired Gen. William Boykin, who believes Islam shouldn’t be given the same first-amendment protections as other religions.

Palin came and went, and most major local media didn’t mention Boykin’s anti-Islamic views, which would surely have been reported if Boykin had made similar attacks on Christianity or Judaism.

It’s the kind of omission you might try to forget about and move on, even though it’s classic religious bigotry.

But I listen to a lot of talk radio, and ideas like Boykin’s ooze out all the time.

I know if I were a Muslim, I’d be scared. As a matter of fact, I’m not a Muslim, and I’m scared.

On the radio, the argument reflects what Boykin writes in a Colordo Christian University essay, that the “Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state…with Sharia as the only law of the land.”

Sharia, Boykin argues, echoing what you hear on talk radio, “demands death for those who renounce Islam” as well as “marital rape, female genital mutilation, and severing of hands and feet.”

This leads people like Denver Post columnist John Andrews to ask, “Can a good Muslim be a good American? …the answer is not so simple.”

So I interviewed an expert on Islam, to offer a countervailing view.

“The Taliban takes one bit of the Sharia, the harsh and literal interpretation, and leaves out the most important part, the compassion,” Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University and author of Journey into America, told me. “In Islam, god in the Koran has 99 attributes, 99 names, and the two names that god uses all the time to define himself, and we use to define god, are compassion and mercy. So god’s justice reflects god’s compassion and mercy, which the Taliban overlook in their interpretation.”

Ahmed said that some literalists, like the Taliban, interpret Sharia exactly as written in the Koran, but the vast majority of Muslims believe Sharia should not be interpreted literally.

He cited the example of stoning to death, which he says was inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition, like other brutal laws in the Sharia. 

“Do Christians go around stoning adulterers and so on?” he asked. “They don’t. They don’t use the literal interpretation of the Bible for their law.”

Some Muslim groups, like the Taliban, do rely on the literal interpretation, he says, but this is mostly “tribal.”

 “If you look around the Muslim world, you will see that there is no question of stoning in countries that are on the path to modernity, countries like Malaysia, Egypt, or Indonesia, even Pakistan and Bangladesh. By and large, you will not get people advocating the stoning of women or the chopping off of hands. You will not get that.”

“If you took a vote in the vast majority of the Muslim world, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, and they have a population of 90 to 98 percent Muslim, and if you took a vote on the Sharia, they would overwhelmingly turn it down,” he said.

He told me journalists aren’t reporting enough about Sharia, so the hate-filled and inaccurate statements of talk-show hosts and right-wing extremists like Boykin are defining the term, unfairly, for Americans.

“If journalists take this on, you will see others jumping up and saying it’s time to call a halt to this,” he said. “It’s not being American at all, in terms of the religious pluralism that is at the heart of the American character.”

If you hear a media company promoting itself as, “Crawford Broadcasting, for god and country,” then your bias is to think it’s right wing. But it wouldn’t have to be, of course. Conservatives don’t have a lock on god and country. It could be a progressive station.

But it’s not. It is, in fact, a right-wing outfit. And in Colorado, it manifests itself as Crawford-owned KLZ 560 AM on your radio dial.

The program line-up is mostly syndicated hard-right wingers, but it airs a talk show on local issues as well. The slot used to be hosted by anti-abortion activist Jim Pfaff, whose questioning of Ken Buck caught my attention last year, but he departed from KLZ AM 56o after the election to take a job in Congress.

Now KLZ’s local show is called “Grassroots Radio Colorado,’ and it’s been added to the permanent line-up, after a successful trial period, according to a statement by co-host Ken Clark, reported by blogger Ari Armstrong:

I was told that it could not be done, especially by two guys with zero radio experience and more importantly, in a “major market.” Well, we proved them wrong by hosting the show for over six weeks straight (an audition if you will), after which Crawford agreed to a contract. Now Jason Worley and I are permanent fixtures on 560 KLZ.

“We are the voice of the grassroots liberty movement in Colorado,” Jason Worley said on a recent show.

 That’s the truth. If you want hear and understand the Tea Party, and you want to do it in your breezy car as you head home from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., tune to 560 AM.

As I pointed out last week, Scott Tipton’s May 31 interview on the Cari and Rob radio show raises a number of questions that reporters should put to Tiption. Here’s a transcript of the interview:

Douglas: On April 7th, the following exchange took place between our program and Congressman Scott Tipton.

Douglas: Congressman, I sent to a note this morning and I said in a note that I wanted to give you an opportunity to address an issue that has come before our attention. And that is that your daughter took a job at Broadnet as a government relations specialist in Washington D.C., the same month that you were sworn in as United States Congressman. Can you give us a little background on how your daughter got that job as a government relations specialist.

Scott: What that is, it’s a private company by the way. It does not work for the government. Everybody out here working for private company has government relations specialists that’s on there. She had an internship a year or two years ago with this company. Did a good job. They were opening up the office and offered it to her before the election and she’d accepted it.

Douglas: SO the job offer was made to her prior to the outcome of the election last year?

Scott: Right.

Douglas: Alright, very good.

Douglas: Then last week at the end of the week Allison Sherry and the Denver Post reported in a piece entitled “Colorado Rep. Tipton Apologizes to House Ethics Panel for Improper Emails.” The piece begins like this:

Rep. Scott Tipton may have run afoul of House ethics rules after his 22-year-old daughter dropped his name to land congressional business for her employer, a company that is run by his nephew. Tipton sent a letter late Thursday to the House Ethics Committee apologizing for multiple e-mails his daughter sent to members of Congress. She works as a government relations specialist for Colorado-based Broadnet.

Douglas: Given what took place on our program last April 7th, where we were the first to ask questions asked about the employment of Congressman Tipton’s daughter with Broadnet, and given the further reports given by the Denver Post, Politico, the Associative Press, and a number of other news organizations, both around the state of Colorado and nationally, we thought it only fair to allow Congressman Scott Tipton, someone who’s been a frequent guest on this program, we talk about him being our canary in the coal mines when it comes to following freshman congressman to Washington this term, to allow him to come on our program and address this in some more specificity. Congressman Tipton joins us right now where he is on standby to board a plane back to Washington. Congressman, thank you for joining us on the Cari and Rob program this morning.

Tipton: You bet. Glad to be with you Rob and Cari.

Douglas: Let me focus you on a specific portion of our discussion on April 7th. Please listen to this and I have some follow-up questions for you:

Douglas: Can you give us a little background on how your daughter got that job as a government relations specialist.

Scott: What that is, it’s a private company by the way. It does not work for the government.

Douglas: Congressman, you said there that Broadnet does not work for the government. Did you stand by that statement today?

Tipton: I sure do.

Douglas: How you defining “does not work for the government?”

Tipton: They do not sell directly to the government. They do not sell directly to congressional offices.

Douglas: Okay, so Broadnet has a series of subsidiaries…

Tipton: No, not subsidiaries. Actually I have learned more about this after you broadsided me with that question on the previous one. For a point of clarity when you mentioned Rob out of the open that you had sent me an e-mail as a heads up, I did not receive that. But nevertheless they do not sell to subsidiaries. These are privately held companies that Broadnet, as I have learned, are basically labeled as a technology company. Privately held companies they have no part in lease that technology.

Hermacinski: Congressman, Politico reports that Broadnet provides more than 100 congressional offices with tele-townhall services via various vendors. So I would just have to say to the common person out here, we would say that Broadnet provides services to over 100 congressional offices in return for taxpayer dollars. So I am having a hard time understanding the statement that Broadnet does not work for the government.

Tipton: I am trying to drive correlation there for you can get a sense that you license yours out to privately held radio stations and do they pay you something for that? They probably do. But you have no connection with those privately held radio stations that carry your program. So that’s probably maybe not the best example but it is that same sort of thing where licensed technology that people use that you have no control over these companies or who they sell to and that’s it.

Douglas: Then why would your daughter be writing letters on behalf of Broadnet to your fellow congress people?

Tipton: That is something that Broadnet probably better can answer than I can. But the bottom line is that their job was just to make people aware of the technology company. You know, when we talk about transparency, I think one of the good things that has been coming out are these telephone townhall meetings were people can call in and visit with me directly and ask questions directly. It was creating awareness of that and there are a multiple of these vendors up there. The vendor we use is the same one that John Salazar used and it was the most cost effective.

Douglas: And that vendor works via Broadnet.

Tipton: No that is inaccurate Rob. What that vendor does not work via, they license the technology. That is an important distinction.

Douglas: Alright. Broadnet is owned by your nephew, correct?

Tipton: Correct.

Douglas: OK. You and your daughter share an apartment on Capitol Hill, correct?

Tipton: Mm-mmh.

Douglas: Your daughter went to work for Broadnet officially when?

Tipton: I think she started right after the Christmas [unintelligible]

Douglas: When was she offered that job in relation?

Tipton: It was my understanding, and I can be in error, but it was my understanding, after she had done her internship a year or so ago, that when she was getting ready to graduate from college that they had a job for her.

Douglas: Was there an official offer made to her from Broadnet?

Tipton: I can’t tell you. You know we are getting into the weeds of family business and in her personal business as well. I can’t give you the date because I don’t monitor it that closely.

Douglas: Can you get us that date when you get to Washington?

Tipton: You know, I can probably ask her if she chooses. This has been very difficult on her because she didn’t do anything wrong.

Douglas: Were you aware that Broadnet, through licenses it’s product to subsidiaries that do work was Congress.

Douglas: Was I aware that? Sure.

Douglas: When your daughter accepted the job with Broadnet, a company that is co-founded and run by your nephew, did you ever have discussion with your nephew about the appropriate relationship between Broadnet’s employees and Congress now that you were an elective congressman?

Tipton: No, it’s not my business and they do not sell directly to members of Congress period.

Hermacinski: Congressman, when did you first learn your daughter was using her relationship with you in introductory emails when she was contacting congressional offices? When did you first become aware of that?

Tipton: When a reporter came out. If you really want to get into that. In Washington they have flashcards when you get there to memorize all new freshman’s name and their faces. And when she went in people asked about the relationship and so it was a point of clarity rather than trying to hide something.

Hermacinski: and so how did you first learn about your daughter was using…

Tipton: It was actually through the press. I do not know it.

Douglas: So the press approached you and said are you aware that your daughter has sent e-mails to other offices?

Tipton: And again to underscore that was done innocently as a point of clarity. You know there’s know they are there.

Douglas: In those press contacts, there are a number of the news reports that suggests that there were rumors around Washington that an ethics complaint was going to be filed against you concerning these contacts. Did you learn of those rumors? First of all, did you hear of any of those rumors? Did you learn of those rumors prior to your letter to the ethics committee?

Tipton: Actually, we were proactive. Because when I found out I said it is in your interest not to use my name. And secondly then I was the one who went to the ethics committee, explained it and talked to Congressman Bonner. He said you have no connection to this, there is not an ethics issue, so if you want to send a letter we can get a letter back to you. So I was the one that was proactive on that.

Hermacinski: Congressman Tipton, Politico is also reporting that your spokesperson Josh Green, when asked for a statement on this matter, blamed this on Nancy Pelosi sending her top lap dog to Colorado to engage in some sleazy political attacks on you. So when did you become aware of the fact that Nancy Pelosi and her lap dogs were trying to dig up dirt on you?

Tipton: Well I think anyone with clear vision on it can see this is just politics and its Washington politics and this is the way they do business. Honestly we are going to happen competitive race in the third.
Douglas: What evidence do you have that the Democrats did anything on this?

Tipton: Where did it come from? You were the ones that first raised the question. Maybe you can answer that for me.

Douglas: Well we don’t know. We raised with you Scott on April 7. And the other part of the question that I asked you on April 7th. Let me play that for you as well:

Douglas: okay so the job offer was made her prior to the outcome of the election last year?

Tipton: Right.

Douglas: Alright, very good.

Douglas: That is something would like to get for your office is when she specifically got the job offer. The other question I had Scott is I asked, and I will take you at your word that you did not see my e-mail earlier in the day, but I asked you at the beginning of that what was the relationship between Broadnet and you never mentioned that Broadnet is a family-owned company. Why did not you not mention that?

Tipton: First of all, like I say it was a question that hadn’t even across my mind and I didn’t receive your e-mail to give me a head-up on it to give it some thought. Real honestly Rob, if you want full disclosure, I have got one other nephew that is going to be starting a landscaping business. I didn’t know where all you wanted to go on it and wasn’t aware that I needed to point out every family relationship.

Douglas: Scott, I’m sorry, maybe you think that’s funny but you don’t think that it’s relevant…

Tipton: Given that I didn’t know where your question was going at the very beginning of it which you can probably gather that from my answer. I didn’t realize that I needed to try and connect all of the different dots on it.

Hermacinski: Do think the landscaping business of your other nephew will be provided landscaping services to 100 congressional offices?

Tipton: I don’t know. Cari, we can go on that direction. This is privately held company that does not sell directly to Congress. You can’t you can get away from that very important point. This is licensed out. We have a whole host of vendors that every congressional office has. They do not promote individual vendors. It is just the technology. I think it’s an important role for members of Congress to stay in contact with their office.

Hermacinski: And I want to ask you again. Josh Green, your spokesman, did tell Politico that Nancy Pelosi has sent her top lap dog to Colorado to try to dig up sleazy political attacks on you. What evidence do you have that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are behind this and when did you first become aware of it?

Tipton: Maybe an assumption from the standpoint that I had no personal connection with this issue at all nor did my office. But we have had Steny Hoyer in Colorado soliciting candidates to run in the third. So that was the assumption that Josh made.

Douglas: Okay. It has been announced this morning that Sal Pace is going to challenge you for the third congressional district. What is your reaction?

Tipton: You know, we may have a number of Democratic candidates and that is fine. That is our process works.

Douglas: Alright. Final question Scott. In light of all that has transpired, do think that you were transparent with this show and our audience on April the 7th. When we asked you questions relating to the relationship between Broadnet, your daughter, and her job as a government relations specialist and you said that Broadnet does not work for the government at that time. Do you feel that that was forthcoming and that there was no need to get back to us at some point and let us know that you learned more about how this developed or let our audience know more about how this developed?

Tipton: We’re obviously maybe going to disagree on that. But I think, given that I was broadsided with that question and it is something that we have had nothing to do with, I gave you the information that seemed reasonable as a time. I will underscore again that Broadnet does not sell directly to, they only license out to private companies who then market their product to members. So that was forthcoming.

Douglas: Did you know at that time that their licensees did work with more than 100 congressional offices on the hill?

Tipton: I had no idea. They have been in business for a long time. Long before I got here.

Douglas: When did you start using one of their licensees?

Tipton: Actually we picked up the same vendor that John Salazar used. We have had one townhall meeting.

Douglas: And you did not know that licensee was licensed through Broadnet.

Tipton: You know, we look strictly a price and I found out that they do license it. But that was not a consideration. We were trying to the most cost-effective way of reaching our constituents.

Douglas: Okay, you do live with your daughter on Capitol Hill. Did she ever raised the issue of the letter with you and/or the fact that she was going to mention in the letters that she was your daughter.

Tipton; Yea. I would like to underscore again, it was a point of reference because people queried her about whether or not she was my daughter and she used it as a point of reference. That was her stand on it and when I found out about I said don’t do that and she readily agreed.
Douglas: Okay, final question. Congress will vote tonight on a up or down bill on the debt ceiling. Your vote will be…

Tipton: No.

Douglas: Okay, very good. Scott we know you are just about to board plane at DIA for Washington. Thank you so much for joining us on the program today and look forward talking to you again.

A reader of my blog recently suggested that I ask KOA’s talk-radio host Mike Rosen if his personal investment losses, which made a big splash in the local media a few years back, gave him any qualms about his argument for the privatization of PERA, Colorado’s pension plan for government workers.

In 2009, Rosen told the Rocky Mountain News that he had invested a “seven-figure” sum, roughly 80 percent of his net worth, with the  Boulder-based Agile Group, which invested indirectly with Bernie Madoff. The Agile Group, which Rosen had promoted on his radio station, suspended redemption requests, and Rosen told the Rocky he lost a lot of money.

“I might have to work for more years than I had planned and I might not be able to retire as comfortably as I had planned,” he told the Rocky.

But his own experience doesn’t seem to have affected his view that the government cannot afford to guarantee the pension plans of its workers. Here’s what Rosen emailed me:

The “retirement money” of government employees under PERA isn’t protected by PERA, it’s protected by the taxpayers who are forced to cover any PERA shortfalls; the very same private sector taxpayers who are relying on their own “unprotected” 401(k)s for retirement income.  PERA’s investment portfolio includes mostly private sector stocks, bonds and investment funds.  If PERA switched to a defined contribution plan for future retirees, those government workers would be on equal footing with private sector workers.

Government workers who want more investment security could direct their 401(k) defined contribution plan investments to Treasury bills or FDIC insured accounts which offer lower returns in exchange for more security.  That’s the kind of choice private sector employees on defined contribution plans have to make, including me.  “Guaranteed” defined benefit pension plans are no longer viable.  Future taxpayers shouldn’t be held liable for the irresponsible promises made by past, current or future politicians of guaranteed retirement benefits to government workers.  In Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the US Supreme Court ruled that not even Social Security benefits are guaranteed and can be changed by Congress at any time.     

My personal investment experience hasn’t changed my options.  And no one is guaranteeing me defined retirement benefits.

Maybe the government should guarantee everyone’s investments in anything.  We’ll just add those future liabilities to the national debt.  That’s absurd, of course, but I wouldn’t put it past some budding socialist to demand it.              

In another exemplary radio interview on the Glenwood-Springs Cari and Rob Show yesterday, hosts Rob Douglas and Cari Hermancinski grilled Rep. Scott Tipton, whom they call a House-freshman “canary in the coal mine,” about his daughter’s job with technology company whose licensed products are sold by other companies to congressional offices.

The two hosts were particularly direct with Tipton about the offer and start date of his daughter’s job with the Washington DC firm.

On April 7, on the same radio show, Tipton said the company “offered it [the job] to her [his daughter] before the election.”

To make sure he had it straight April 7, host Rob Douglas asked Tipton if his daughter had started her job “before the outcome of the last election.”

Tipton said, “Yes.”

But The Denver Post reported Friday that Tipton’s daughter started full-time in January, when Tipton took office.

Douglas tried unsuccessfully yesterday to get the story straight.

Douglas: Your daughter went to work for Broadnet officially when?

Tipton: I think she started right after the Christmas term.

Douglas: When was she offered that job?

Tipton: It was my understanding after she had done her internship here a year or so ago, that when she was getting ready to graduate from college, that they had a job for her.

Douglas: Was there an official offer made to her from Broadnet?

Tipton: You know Rob, I can’t tell ya. We’re getting into the weeds of family business and her personal business as well. I can’t give you the date because I don’t monitor it that closely.

Douglas: Can you get us that date after you get to Washington?

Tipton: I can probably ask her if she chooses. This has been very difficult on her because she hasn’t done anything wrong.

Douglas is right to be annoyed by the strange squirrelliness on Tipton’s part. (And he expressed his frustration in greater detail to the Colorado Independent.)

Douglas  should ask Tipton directly if his daughter’s job was tied to his congressional victory. It’s a reasonable question, given that Tipton’s daughter has been using her father’s name in letters to members of Congress.

You might think Douglas is going nowhere with his questions about when the job offer was made to Tipton’s daughter, and you may be right, especially since Broadnet is owned by Tipton’s nephew and Tipton’s daughter had a part-time job with the company before she started work full-time.

Still, it’s a reasonable question and Douglas should stay after it.

My guess is that Douglas will follow-up, especially because his show apparently was the first media outlet to question Tipton, in an April 7 interview, about his daughter’s job with Broadnet.

Instead of crediting the Cari and Rob Show with raising the issue first, Tipton’s spokesperson blamed Democrat Nancy Pelosi for sending a “lap-dog” to Colorado to “fire up the rumor mill with a cheap Washington political attack on a 22-year-old girl,” according to Politico.

Asked by Douglas and Hermancinski for evidence that Pelosi was pushing the story about his daughter and Broadnet, Tipton acknowledged he had no such evidence. “Maybe it was an assumption,” he said.

The Cari and Rob Show’s questioning of Tipton is getting noticed. Last month, Tipton admitted he’s lost trust in House Speaker Boehner, after he agreed to a budget compromise opposed by Tipton.

Tipton later backtracked, saying to a national blog that has confidence in Boehner, but he never returned to the Cari and Rob Show to explain why he has a more positive view of Boehner, despite promises by both Douglas and Tipton that he would do so.

“You are among friends here,” Rick Wagner told his radio guest Scott McInnis Thursday. “No one is going to try to pick at you because I know there is a limited amount you can say about it.”

Wagner kept his promise, stroking McInnis for about 15 minutes, even saying that McInnis’ plagiarism “was brought up by his primary opponent in the election, which of course was The Denver Post. I believe they were running for governor.” (McInnis has also blamed The Post for his downfall.)

Feeling comfy, McInnis told Wagner that last week’s regulatory decision not to strip him of his law license was “kind of bittersweet news” but, still, “gave us complete vindication.”

“Just a little too late,” he said.

Why did McInnis wait until it was too late? Why didn’t he release the emails that allegedly instructed Rolly Fischer not to plagiarize? That’s the question everyone’s been asking, and of course Wagner didn’t ask it.

But McInnis seems to think he had provided proof of his innocence all along, but no one listened!

“And at the beginning, we obviously stated exactly what had occurred, and we were vindicated by the Supreme Court that came out with the same kind of findings,” McInnis told Wagner, who interviewed McInnis Thursday on KFKA’ s Amy Oliver Show (1310 AM in Greeley). Wagner was substituting for Oliver.

Wagner should have pointed out that the report of the state’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, whose record has been questioned by Westword, did not exonerate McInnis. It allowed him to practice law, but it didn’t clear him of plagiarism or of fraud.

As The Denver Post’s Dean Singleton said on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show last week, McInnis is still a plagiarist, even if the plagiarism was  executed by his assistant Rolly Fischer. This conforms with the view of Prof. Bob Steele, a journalism ethics guru, who pointed out last year that even if text is given freely to a writer, word-for-word use of it still constitutes plagiarism. And in McInnis’ case, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs did not authorize McInnis to use his words.

Neither has McInnis been cleared of misrepresenting his water-musings articles to the Hasan Family Foundation, which he described as “original,”  leaving him open to charges of fraud. Seeme Hasan acknowledged on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show that contrary to what the Foundation stated last year, McInnis did inform her, on a fax cover sheet, that he had hired an assistant to work on the water project. But Hasan says the assistant could have been answering the phones, for all she know. She did not know he would be writing the water musings, and she would not have allowed this had she known, she told KHOW.

With these issues unaddressed, it was easy for McInnis to tell Wagner, who’s a conservative columnist for the Grand Junction Sentinel, that “Laurie and I are very thrilled” with the attorney-regulation report.

Looking ahead, McInnis told Wagner that he thinks the attacks on him were so successful that they will be replicated.

“Look at the destruction that it did to us,” McInnis said. “And I think you’re actually going to see this tool utilized even more in the future.”

Is McInnis thinking there are more candidates out there who got paid $300,000 for a two-year fellowship, hired a research assistant to do the job, and didn’t have the time or inclination to make absolutely sure the final product wasn’t copied from a Supreme Court Justice? And then tried to blame everything on his research assistant?

We don’t know, because Wagner didn’t ask.

(Click here for the BigMediaBlog transcript of the McInnis interview discussed above. Contact jason@bigmedia.org for a copy of the audio recording of the McInnis interview.)

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog.

Transcript of Interview with Scott McInnis on KFKA’s Amy Oliver Show(1310 AM in Greeley), May 26, 2011

Rick Wagner substituting for Oliver. The interview starts at about one hour, 37 minutes.

Wagner: I know that you’ve had some kind of good news recently.  I know there are a limited amount of things that you can talk about it because it had to do with regulation counsel, the State Supreme Court dealing with this alleged issue of plagiarism this thing was brought up during the election when you’re running for governor. And frankly you should be governor. But anyway, I am going to give you a chance to say something on its. You are among friends here. No one is going to try to pick at you because I know that there is a limited amount you can say about it. The story is out that you have been essentially exonerated by the attorney regulation counsel and the Supreme Court, which controls attorney licensing and talks about behavior. We are one of the few states where behavior outside of what happens in the legal case or if you break the law influences what can be shaped or done by the Supreme Court.  Pretty much everything that you do can be looked that by the Supreme Court to see if you are a good person to have a license to appear in front of the bar. Scott had this complaint filed and it has taken a long time to get through the system about this issue involving some writings he had done on water law.  And if all you people can remember how this was brought up by his primary opponent in the election, which of course was the Denver Post. I believe they were running for governor. I’m not sure. I want to let Scott just talk to little bit about it. Scott just go ahead.

McInnis: Just a little history to it. I ran for governor. I always considered that the privilege to have the opportunity. We had a great campaign going. I had big dreams for Colorado and where we, as a team, could take the state.  And out of nowhere popped up these allegations in regarding plagiarism. Needless to say we felt very strongly about this, but allegations were filed with the Colorado State Supreme Court as result of this event. And kind of bittersweet news, for over a year we’ve been in an intense investigation and the results of the investigation were just released last week by the State Supreme Court, and they gave us complete vindication.  It supports, obviously, statements and position that I took from the very beginning with this was first, when we first were aware of it. That was about 4 o’clock in the afternoon the afternoon before it was broke, ah put out, by the Denver newspaper. So Laurie and I are very thrilled by the result. We spend most of our time over Grand Junction and although as I said it was bittersweet because it was year-long. Even the people who filed the complaint which was Ethics Watch, which in my opinion is an arm of the Democratic Party, even they acknowledged the investigation of the Supreme Court was very thorough. The findings of the Supreme Court were probably for someone who is kind of an expert of looking at these kind of things, will tell you that the opinion is very strong and certainly terrific news for us. Just a little too late.

Wagner: Well I read several versions of the opinion and the actual letter that I know is out there from regulation counsel.  And it was a fairly strong vindication of you and they brought up some things out there that had not come out during the original piece of this. That you had made it clear that to your researcher that you wanted him to use as must stuff as original possible. Not be lifting anything. And that he believed that some of the comments out there were in the public domain. Probably was not true. That he put in there. And you put the foundation that you were doing the work for on notice that you had a researcher hired. 

McInnis: Well Rick, I can tell you that I have taken a lot of pride over the years. As you know, you and I are both attorneys. Not only did I practice law but I was in the United States Congress. Not only the United States Congress but was in the Colorado House of Representatives where I was the majority leader, and I was also a police officer. Never in my career, never in my career, have I ever had some question my ethics. Or my integrity.  And that is exactly what they tried to do.  They threw everything that they could at us. And at beginning we obviously stated exactly what had occurred and we were vindicated by the Supreme Court that came out the same kind of findings.  Very strong findings because of course they have an investigative arm and they’ve had a year to investigate this. These are professional people.  The Supreme Court and I think anyone out there is going to acknowledge, look,  it probably has more credibility than any investigative group in Colorado. And they should, rightfully.  So we are pleased with the results.  Nonetheless Rick we have been under this kind of…

Wagner: It’s a cloud over a person’s life.

McInnis:  Yes of course it is a cloud so we are pleased with the results. But it was very unfortunate.

Wagner: I’ve told people at my radio show and I might have mentioned it in Greeley when I have hosted to show for Amy when she was out-of-town. I do not like this political sort of regulatory game that gets played.  This happens to involve regulation counsel which I think is especially off-topic for the governor’s race.  If you want to make a point of this and say look this guy did this and we think that is not a good idea for someone who’s running for governor-that’s fine.  But when people start turning the election laws in this case the regulatory counsel as sort of a diversionary tactic from these. Unless there is some major wrongdoing, I am not interested in doing that to political opponents. 

McInnis: Well look what happened Rick. Look at the destruction that it did to us. And I think you’re actually going to see this tool utilized even more in the future. Politics is a tough game. Unfortunately it diverts from the real issues. Some of the shenanigans that have gone on, I think you’re going to see more of it I think in the race. Just in the congressional race we saw this last week in New York where they threw is a straw man to throw the race.

Wagner: We talked about that last hour. We just mentioned it last hour it was my impression that they threw this former Democrat in the race in New York 26. 

McInnis: Not only, Rick, was he a former Democrat, he was a very very wealthy individual, and then he came in and declared, self-declared that he was carrying the Tea Party mantle, and as a result of that, he was able to pull enough votes from the Republican that the Democrat won the race. Now the Democrats like to say that it’s Medicaid, Medicare excuse me. Certainly Medicare is a big issue out there. But, the combination of the fact that the Congressman had to resign in shame—so that’s a disadvantage for the party to start with. Then you throw in there the money that they were able to come up with the straw man. This guy was a Democrat for a long time. He switched to an unaffiliated so we could run as Tea Party. You know, that’s a, it’s not illegal but it’s certainly what I would consider kind of a strategy that is deploying pretty dirty politics. I think you are going to continue to see that. We have a history of it. I mean, clear back to George Washington. You know, ack in those days, it‘s interesting, because having a quote “illegitimate child.” I don’t see how any child is illegitimate. At any rate, back then they would throw that at each other and so on. So, the unfortunate part of it, it cost us dearly, but I hope that it doesn’t discourage people for running for office. It is so critical that we don’t let them beat us down. And I can tell you that Laurie and I are as strong as ever. The results that we saw here were redeeming nonetheless. We just want people continue to have faith in the system. 

Wagner: It makes a person feel better to be redeemed at some point. You can certainly argue something about choices made during the campaign and how you handle stuff, but setting other people’s hounds loose on you to get outside of the questions of the campaign a little bit is something that I just find disturbing.

Wagner: We are back with my guest Scott McInnis and one of the things that I wanted to get Scott in for which is to talk about politics little bit too.He’s interested in politics. [laughs] So I wanted to get his take on a couple of things. Having been in the state Legislature for awhile, what do you think is going on over there in the last year? 

McInnis: Well this is a difficult year for the Legislature because, one, they only did they have their budget situations, but they have a new governor and probably really critical, although it’s not an interest on Main Street, it is the redistricting and reapportionment.

Wagner: Wow, that’s what I wanted to talk about. You are taking my notes and you can’t even see them.

McInnis: Rick, there’s a difference, and it’s easy to confuse. Reapportionment applies to the State House seats. Redistricting applies to the U.S. Congressional seats. 

Wagner: I use them interchangeably but I know that there is a difference.

McInnis: It is easy to confuse them. Interestingly, I saw where, what’s the Congressman? Kucinich. Whatever his name is out of Ohio. I worked for him. Well not for him obviously. I worked with him. He actually is going to be redistricting out of Ohio. He is going to lose his congressional seat.

Wagner: Because they are losing population.

McInnis: Yes he is now talking about moving to Washington State to run as a Congressman out of Washington State in a very liberal district up there. It’s interesting. He was on the news last night. Another thing is that, in Colorado there is, contrary to popular belief, there is no restriction that a state has to elect Congressman out of a particular district. You can elect your Congressman statewide. Now that doesn’t happen in Colorado, and it’s never happened Colorado. But what we have to be particularly cognizant of here in Colorado; how they carve out these districts and what happens.  As you know the Democratic Party took the official position, and they were down here they put together a bill that would split the Western Slope.  Now the only way you can split the Western Slope for example and have enough population to have the two congressional districts is the population would have to be a big community or a big city on the other side. We don’t have big cities over here.  So there are a lot of political tricks that are going on on redistricting.

Wagner: Our ideological nemesis I call them in the newspaper, Boulder County, was going to be paired up with Mesa County.

McInnis: Yeah, what do we have in common with Boulder? Really, I mean it just doesn’t make sense. So it is a busy year for the Legislature. This will go the courts. That’s, in my opinion, what the Democrats wanted to happen from the very beginning.  They do well in the courts on redistricting. So that’s an issue they’re dealing with. And then at the federal level, of course you asked about the state level, but at the federal level, they have massive deficits that they gave to deal with and the presidential election coming up.

 Wagner: That usually means nothing will get done.

McInnis: Well that’s right. Next year’s session will be very interesting. It will be very short session.

Wagner: Yeah and everyone is going to go home to campaign. You were in Congress for a long time. Ten years I think.

McInnis:  Twelve years.

Wagner: Twelve years. So you see that. You can tell it’s an election year, particularly a presidential election year when there is a lot going on. The business of Congress starts getting truncated right there and everybody tries to get out of town.

McInnis: And now you see it the year before. Next year is the election year. But this year, the Democrats are not going to put up a plan, and let’s delay the hard decisions until after the next election. Which means it will be delayed until after the next election.

Wagner: They didn’t even put a budget up. The Democrats didn’t put a budget up.

McInnis: Reed said he is not going to. Doesn’t intent to. SO the legislature will be out pretty soon.  When is their last day? It’s coming up pretty soon. Isn’t it?

Wagner: Yea I just saw something on that.

McInnis: Unless are called back to special session which I don’t think they will be because they did get their budget done. Then redistricting goes to the court. I’m pretty confident that the court is going to leave the Western Slope…well the Western Slope is defined differently. I’m talking about all the mountains from Vail back. Well because Vail, they stuck it to us. I’m pretty confident. Let me put it this way. I would be totally shocked if the courts decide that the interests of the western Colorado in the community interests and community tie-ins would be better served by splitting the Western Slope.

Wagner: It is supposed to be a continuity of interests. It’s not supposed to be competitive districts which is the Democrat talking points all the time. Our listeners over here in Greeley, the fourth congressional district. They are trying to monkey around with that to, what I read, is that Brandan Shaffer who lives in Longmont can run against Corey Gardner.

McInnis: That is exactly right. Corey Gardner has done a fabulous job by the way. He’s a star over in the Greeley area. But they will look at the rural areas. The two areas, the district on the Eastern Slope and the district on the Western Slope. Which have, by the way, a lot in common. Although their waters are primary aquifer, and so on, and our waters are primary surface, etc. But we have a lot of interests with the rural part of part of eastern Colorado…western Colorado. They are going to do the same thing with eastern Colorado. Try and use it to slice up to benefit the city districts. So Corey has got his hands full. Scott Tipton has his hands full. And by the way the state legislatures, their seats are being realigned too. So they have their hands full.

Wagner: Well it’s going to be interesting and we have to keep on top and pay attention and a lot of it is going to happen in the courts like you said. And then that ends up being done by fiat. The processes is not anything that we see. I know that the folks over in Greeley are worried about how this is going to go. They got a great congressman in there now with Corey, and they need to hold on to him. It’s going to carve that baby up.

It’s one thing for Tea Party talk-radio hosts to assault my ear drums with noise about the federal budget deficit. I can handle that.

But my head starts to spin when they say Colorado has a budget deficit, forgetting the small detail that we have a state constitution that specifically disallows deficit spending.

Last week (5/17), for example, the angry guys on KLZ’s Grassrooots Colorado (560 AM, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.) stated:

Co-host Ken Clark: The state of Wisconsin has a budget deficit. Until Walker took over they were running a budget deficit. Same is true for California. Same is true for Colorado. Same is true for New York. Probably better than 30-40 states are running a budget deficit. There are a very few that are in the black.

Co-host Jason Worley: I think there are between three and five that are in the black.

Actually, a majority of states are in the black, like CO.

So I emailed Worley to ask that he correct his erroneous statement on his next show.

“I’m gonna run with facts as I research them,” he replied via email. “Given, we adjusted spending, but see attached.  Also Tell Sen Heath we don’t have a deficit.”

He sent me a link showing that Colorado and other states have projected deficits but failing to prove his point that Colorado  is actually running a deficit.

I pointed this out to Worly in an email, and he responded:

I noted on the show yesterday that we said budget deficit, not deficit spending.  I get the subtle difference, but it should be noted that if revenue changes in a negative direction all that work means nothing.  We will be more precise in the words we choose.

On the air, Worley said he got a “fact-check” email from me noting that Colorado is not “deficit spending” and that he replied to me by saying, “no, we have a budget deficit; I understand the structural differences between the two, thank you.”

Not exactly the correction and explanation you’d want, but it’s something. I’m waiting for Worley and Clark’s on-air explanation of projected versus actual spending at the state level.

On KCFR’s Colorado Matters last week, mayoral candidate Chris Romer said he wants to “make sure we put sports back into middle schools.”

This surprised me, because I had just watched my son, who plays on his DPS middle-school baseball team, lose badly in the playoffs to the kids from DPS’ Hamilton Middle School. (The loss seemed like a bad dream to my son, and maybe it was, if Romer is right and his baseball team doesn’t really exist.)

Radio Host Ryan Warner, who conducted excellent interviews with both mayoral candidates, didn’t ask Romer how he plans to put middle-school sports back in the middle-schools, when they’re already in the middle schools.

But fortunately I got the chance to put the question to Romer Monday night, during a debate on Colorado Now with Aaron Harbor.

Romer wasn’t bothered at all by his apparent misstatement on the radio, saying he wants to “expand” the middle-school sports program.

Before posing my question to Romer, I had called John Andrew, DPS Middle School Athletics Manager, to find out more about the DPS program

He told me it serves 5,000 kids this year, up from 1,700 in 2003, with teams in 30 middle schools. Thirteen sports are offered, including baseball, proving unfortunately that my son’s repeated strikeouts were real.

Andrew said that DPS has the only program in the nation with funding from all the major sports fanchises (Nuggets, Avalanche, Broncos, Rockies). They cover the entire budget, except fees.

But I knew the program doesn’t cover all the kids who want to play sports, because my son was mercilessly cut from the team the first year he tried out.

So I asked Andrew how his program could be expanded.

He said the size of existing facilities prohibit much expansion, like adding a junior varsity program with games against other schools. He said possibly some sports could be enlarged, but what Denver really needs for kids’ sports is a middle school sports center, basically a b big indoor gym, like the 54,000-sq-foot Gold Crown Field House in Lakewood, which might cost something like $12 million. (Once such a complex is built, no small task but a doable philanthropic campaign, Andrews is confident he could raise funds to pay for programs expenses.)

Another way to expand the program would be to add sports for 4th and 5th graders, in elementary school, according to Andrew, which might cost $800,000 annually.

I told Romer and Hancock of this middle-school need, and they both supported it, without proactively offering any ideas on how to pay for it.

Now that some of the facts are on the table about DPS middle-school sports, which came up because Romer was asked for a specific way a mayor could help the DPS,  Romer should explain how he might pay for it. And Hancock should chime in.

(Watch the Romer-Hancock debate that includes the middle-school ports discussion on Channel 3 (K3 Colorado KCDO-TV) in two parts on Sunday, May 29, from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Part 1), and June 5, at the same time (Part 2).)

 Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog