President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 20, 2006 09:39 PM UTC

Beauprez Responds, Defends "Conscientious Whistleblower" Source

  • 138 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez fired back this morning at the growing crisis facing his campaign over the use of protected law enforcement data in an attack on his Democratic opponent Bill Ritter.

Beauprez said today that the federal agent who illegally provided his campaign with the protected information in question is a “whistleblower” and a “good and decent man,” although Beauprez refused to explicitly confirm that ICE agent Cory Voorhis was in fact the source.

Our source blew the whistle on a policy that Bill Ritter had kept secret for many years. A policy of Bill Ritter’s that included systematically plea-bargaining with criminal aliens, offering them obscenely lenient plea deals for “trespassing on farmland”—in the City and County of Denver—only to put them right back out on the streets when the law called for deportation.

Beauprez’s full press release below the fold.

Breaking News: Beauprez Statement from Press Conference

(ENGLEWOOD, CO) Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez made the following statement today at a campaign press conference.

My campaign is cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation and providing law enforcement 100% of what we know, which we will continue to do, including providing the identity of our source.

Several months ago, we were approached by a source in federal law enforcement who had seen firsthand Bill Ritter’s despicable policy of purposefully putting deportable criminal aliens right back into our communities, only to commit crimes again.

Our source saw a terrible wrong that needed to be made right. And he blew the whistle.

Our source blew the whistle on a policy that Bill Ritter had kept secret for many years. A policy of Bill Ritter’s that included systematically plea-bargaining with criminal aliens, offering them obscenely lenient plea deals for “trespassing on farmland”—in the City and County of Denver—only to put them right back out on the streets when the law called for deportation.

So after this travesty was uncovered—after Bill Ritter’s dirty little secret was brought to light, he complains that the public doesn’t have a right to know about his ridiculous policies that made our communities less safe. Well I disagree.

I think the public does have a right to know that Bill Ritter put a heroin trafficker back on the street who went on to be arrested for the sexual abuse of a child. Bill Ritter has never denied that he did this. Bill Ritter has never accepted responsibly or apologized to the people of Colorado for his failure.

Now Mr. Ritter has embarked on a witch-hunt, demanding that my campaign release the name of our source. Instead of explaining why it is that Bill Ritter put dangerous criminal aliens back into our communities, when they should have been deported, he wants to destroy the life and career of a good man who blew the whistle.

A conscientious member of law enforcement exposed a reckless policy embraced by Bill Ritter and now Bill Ritter is demanding to know his name so he can destroy this person. Well, He won’t be getting it from me.

I’m not going to confirm nor deny whether the agent named in today’s newspapers is the same individual as our source, because doing so would compromise the ongoing investigation. And unlike Bill Ritter apparently believes, I think politicizing an investigation is wrong, and I think everyone deserves due process.

If anyone should understand that, it should be a former DA. Unfortunately, Bill Ritter is more interested in getting elected than preserving due process and explaining the truth.

Here’s what I will tell you. Our source—in my opinion—performed a great act of courage and public service by bringing this story to the public domain. Now there will be an investigation and with all due process the case will be examined and handled by law enforcement. That is the law and I support that. What shouldn’t happen is the destruction of those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us.

That is what Bill Ritter is bent on doing. To cover up his own policy of cutting deals with criminal aliens while jeopardizing the safety of Colorado families, Bill Ritter wants to destroy a person who had gotten a bellyful—saw a wrong and tried to make it right.

It’s typical of Bill Ritter’s entire approach to law enforcement and basic justice—give violent illegal immigrants a break but blame the victims, the police, or the federal government whenever anything goes wrong.

But I will not throw a good and decent man to the wolves just to gain personal political advantage or satisfy Bill Ritter’s desire for retribution or election.

###

Comments

138 thoughts on “Beauprez Responds, Defends “Conscientious Whistleblower” Source

  1. we all know this is not a good, decent citizen whistleblower doing his civic duty, but what else is he supposed to say.  I notice no big Rs are hopping on planes to try and save BB’s hide.  Stick a fork in this one…

    1. So this conscientious member of law enforcement, “broke the law,” to expose Ritter’s D.A. plea bargaining record?  Yet, Beauprez finds no fault with this, or his campaign for using illegal information.

      Beauprez, doesn’t want you to hold him accountable, but rather he wants you to hold everyone else accountable for exposing how lousy his campaign has been run.

  2. This needs to be hit back into BothWaysBob’s face as hard as possible.  This isn’t about whistleblowing – nothing about the DA’s office plea bargaining record is secret.  It’s about political misuse of a restricted Federal database and the willingness of a desperate political candidate to mislead the public for his own power trip.

    1. Beauprez had no problem in June voting in Congress for the GOP attempt to intimidate the media into not reporting whistle blower leaks about unauthorized government surveillance programs.

  3. I suppose the first act of the Beauprez administration would be to pardon this dude.  This press release is so laughable–Ritter never violated a law; even if you could make an argument that what his staff did was unethical or immoral (which it wasn’t), he never broke a law, which this “source” did.

    1. Wow this press release is the most overdramatic piece of crap to come out yet from the Beauprez campaign, which is saying quite a bit.  I love how many different dirty words he used to describe Ritter–maybe one of them will sink in?  That Beauprez is defending this guy is basically sending the message that it was right for him to break the law.  First Amendment rights to protect sources do not apply in this circumstance, and legal experts have said time and time again when asked about this that political campaigns dont have the same coverage as journalists to protect their sources!  “Tough on crime, unless its my ass of course” should be Beauprez’s new campaign slogan.  Stick a fork in him.

  4. Cory Voorhis has violated his oath as an officer.

    Time for Cory to resign and Beauprez to bow out – there’s no way in hell he’ll be elected Governor. I mean, come on, who would trust a governor that would not only ignore the law, but encourage and officer to violate his oath?

    Good grief.

  5. By saying that what shouldn’t happen is “the destruction of those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us”..is he referring his campaign staff that break the law to protect their candidate?

    And when he says, “…I will not throw a good and decent man to the wolves just to gain personal political advantage”, does not that same statement apply to Bill Ritter, whom most people agree is a “good and decent man”?  Certainly Ritter did not break the law, the way this “whistleblower” did.  And isn’t “whistleblower” a legal status, specified in the law?  I doubt there is ANY law under which this kind of pathetic law-breaker would be granted any kind of whistleblower protection.

    Geez, there are too many questions, and none of BWB’s answers look very good to me.

    1. Calling this whistleblowing is an insult to anyone who ever has been threatened or punished for exposing illegal and unethical activity at their workplace. Phoenix Rising makes an excellent point when he says that the DA’s record is public.

      Criticize the case all you like – I for one don’t like the idea that Ritter may have intentionally pled cases down to nondeportable offences. But this ICE chump didn’t give us evidence that this was a policy at the Denver DA’s office. He illegally accessed the records and gave them to BWB’s campaign for political use.

      They must be so dizzy at the Both Ways Bob for Guv office.

  6. I would like to pose some questions that Congressman Beauprez can answer right now that will clear this whole issue up and give the public reassurance that he will obey the laws if he is elected governor.

    Do we want someone like Congressman Beauprez to be our governor who illegally uses criminal databases to obtain informaiton for illegitmate purposes?  His press release above completely misses the point of the investigation and he again simply refuses to answer many obvious questions.

    This morning Congressman Beauprez characterized the federal agent as a whistleblower who just walked into his campaign headquarters to give the campaign the informaiton about this particular defendant that is the subject of his TV ad.  I’m sorry that needs to be checked out.  Beauprez identified 152 cases he wanted to use to attack Bill Ritter and some federal agent just happens to coincidently, on his own, look-up that one case on the NCIC database and decided, on his own, to go to Congressman Beauprez’s campaign with the information, even though the agent was well aware that he was committing a crime by accessing the database for political purposes.  This doesn’t wash with me.  The FBI and CBI need to review the agents access to the NCIC database to check and see if he looked up other cases on the list of 152 that his campaign identified.  If he did, then it will be obvious that someone from the campaign or on the campaigns behalf went to the agent and asked him to use his password to access the NCIC database for political purposes.  Even if the agent initially volunteered to help the Beauprez campaign, did Congressman Beauprez or someone on his behalf then ask the agent to review other files on their list?  If they did then they were actively engaged in a criminal enterprise.  Congressman BEauprez did you ask this agent to review other cases?  The public deserves to know before the election.

    It doesn’t seem plausible that a senior federal agent would risk his job, his pension benefits or the possibility of severe punishment, including conviction of a felony and jail time, unless someone asked him to do this.

    In line with this is Congressman Beauprez’s insistence that he couldn’t reveal his name becasue he promised the source (the federal agent) anonymity.  Why would Congressman Beauprez promise him anonymity unless he had been told that what the agent was doing was illegal?  Congressman Beauprez should be asked did the federal agent tell either the Congressman or someone on the campaign staff that he needed anonymity because what he was doing  is a criminal offense?  If the agent did then the Congressman and his staff knew they were in the middle of illegal activities.  He must answer this question immediately.  And, assuming for a moment that the agent, in fact, contacted the campaign on his own, and requested anonymity wasn’t it the responsibility of Congressman Beauprez and his staff to ask why the agent needed anonymity?  There is only one reason why Congressman Beauprez stonewalled on the identity of the agent, he knew either at the time the agent provided the information or immediately after Bill Ritter raised the issue last week that, in fact, the agent had committed a ciminal act.  At that point, he was obligated, especial as an elected public official, to immediately provide what he knew to the CBI, but instead he chose to stonewall; and whether the CBI had contacted him or not at that moment he had decided to obstruct their investigation.  His statements of full cooperation do not ring true in light of his refusal to open up his records and show that he obtained the information legally.  In fact, its obvious he did not contact the CBI.  He was waiting for them to contact him.  Its obvious he wanted to withhold the informaiton for as long as he could.

    Finally, he seems to be saying that he won’t answer any additional questions because the FBI is now investigating.  That simply doesn’t wash.  For seven days he refused to reveal his source because he said he possessed a right to keep his sources secret like Woodward and Berstein did during Watergate with Deep Throat and now he takes the position that he doesn’t have to answer questions because of the ongoing investigtion.  In short, for seven days he said he had a right to withhold information from the public and now he says he can withhold information from the public not because of a privilege but because a government agency is investigating the case.  He obstructs the CBI’s investigation and the publics right to know because of a nonexsstent privilege and now he can’t answer the publics questions because of the investigation.  He can’t have it Both Ways.

    This investigation is far from over and there are key questions unanswered which Congressman Beauprez should answer immediately because he already knows the answers and so the public can be assured that he will follow and enforce the law, the first and most important responsibility of the governor.

    1. …is how Richard Nixon described the strategy during Watergate.  Tell as little as possible and let it come out in small drips.  Both Ways is executing the 21st century version of this failed strategy. 

  7. Did I read that right: that BWB said “I think politicizing an investigation is wrong”

    Isn’t that why this information is here in the first place – to politicize the issue.  And now BWB thinks its wrong to try to score political points on someone who used illegally obtained information to score political points.

    That’s really having it both ways!

  8. BB has been commenting on this issue for days but never addressing the real issue i.e. the USE of the information from the NCIC database for anything but law enforcement purposes is illegal.  It will be very interesting to find out who – if anyone – was in the middle on this (did someone ask the ICE employee to do this or did he act on his own?). 

    Now, of course, BB is on the attack (what else can he do).  The press release is pathetic.  The news media need to ask the right questions, such as at what point did the BB campaign figure out that the USE of the information they acquired was illegal.  My guess is that BB and his staff knew this all along — it’s one of those “knew or should have known” kind of things.

    1. Since Beauprez doesn’t really want us to hold him accountable, he will throw John Marshall under the bus.

      “Marshall said that he last spoke with the source soon after Ritter called for an investigation and that they agreed they would not speak again. Both have retained lawyers.”

      1. The Post quotes Marshall as saying that he obtained the info from his source and then the campaign confirmed all the info in public records.

        If he can prove that the ads are based on public records and show that the research was done, will that exonerate Marshall and the rest of the Beauprez campaign? :notalawyer:

        1. It seems apparent that is was on-going, and not a one time deal.  Marshall was working hand-in-hand with the person who obtained the information illegally, to which Beauprez ok’d to use as long as it would hurt Ritter’s campaign message. They found no problem using illegally obtained information.  Doesn’t that in anyway seem wrong, and decietful to you?  Shouldn’t Beauprez be held accountable for breaking the law?

          I think Rep. Hefley should come out against Beauprez for running the second most sleaziest campaign in Colorado.

  9. Beauprez’s statement will make a lot of sense to Republican and conservative unaffiliated voters, but it will be trashed by Ritter supporters and defense attorneys.

    Beauprez should have gone the next step and called for reform of the criminal justice system in two ways. First, formalize and set rules for plea bargains so DAs can give the store away. And, second, make all criminal databases at the state and federal levels open to the public on the Internet.

    My question, which I asked a few days ago, is how can the criminal justice be reformed to protect citizens agains violent plea bargained felons? What keeps the General Assembly from imposing reforms, if anything?

    And my next question is, why aren’t any candidates for the legislature promising to work on reforms to control plea bargains?

    Defense attorneys will cry that the system can’t and shouldn’t be reformed, but it’s in their self interest and in the interest of DAs to keep their near secret system in place. It works for them and criminals, if not for the rest of us.

    Where are the newspapers and editorial writers on this issue?

    Meanwhile, BWB and Republican legislative candidates are blowing an opportunity to promise that they will seek legislation that ensures that Colorado will not allow DAs to give illegal ilmmigrants accused of crimes plea bargains that will protect them against deportation.

    If Ritter were smarter and less obligated to his fellow defense attorneys and DAs, he would make these promises, but he apparently is so sold out to ilmmigration attorneys that he won’t promise to protect the state against illegal immigrants. And when he’s elected, he’ll probably sign any bill that protects illegal immigrants.

    And that’s why we need to elect a GOP House in Colorado.

      1. You’re on to something.

        Denver is the Sanctuary City, along with a few others in the state. Ritter is the DA from the Sanctuary City, and he wants to turn Colorado into a Sanctuary State.

        Elect a GOP House to keep Colorado from becoming a Santuary State!

    1. to claim Ritter has sold out to immigration attorneys.

      Could the same be said for every special interest group Beauprez has apparently sold out to? Oil interest, insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, alcohol corporations, the russian mob, etc etc.

      Beauprez was a rubber stamp representative, and he would continue down that path from Governors office by submitting to the before mentioned groups.  You cannot cover up the fact the Republican Party has completely failed us, and Beauprez has been a part of that problem.

      1. I’ll agree that BWB is a lousy candidate and has been a pretty sorry example of a Congressman who thinks for himself if you will agree that Ritter didn’t do his job when he plea bargained illegal immigrants accused of crimes and that he’s showing lousy leadership by not promising to fix a dysfunctional legal system.

        1. How can I agree to something that is not true.  Ritter turned all the information over to the INS with regards to cases dealing with immigrants.  Is it Ritter’s fault that the federal governemtn decided not to deport illegal immigrants? No. 

          I agree with Bill on this, that while the Republicans whoot and holler about immigration reform now, the continually let us down by cutting funding for immigrations programs.  Beauprez has been a part of the problem for years in Congress as a rubberstamp that will do and say whatever it takes to keep a tight hold on the reins.

          However, if you can set policy forward to fix our dysfunctional legal system why not propose it.  Take it to the governor, the legislature, anybody, to fund a solution.  This is a representative government for the people.  Use it!

          1. Ritter doesn’t believe in enforcing our laws.

            He wants to give free tuition to the kids of illegals, takilng money out of the pockets of American citizens. He wants me to subsidize illegals’ health care by forcing the providres to provide free care. He wants to plea bargain with illegals so they won’t face deportation.

            To me, that shows a total lack of integrity.

            1. “[Ritter] wants to give free tuition to the kids of illegals, takilng money out of the pockets of American citizens. He wants me to subsidize illegals’ health care by forcing the providres to provide free care.”

              Got any links (or notes of your sources) to back up these claims? Or can I just dismiss them?

              (I kinda sorta agree with your last statement in that paragraph, though.)

              1. I don’t have a link at the moment, but you can see from what he’s saying what his positions are.

                Do you have a link showing he opposes these measures?

                1. You’re the one saying he supports these things. I haven’t seen it but then again I haven’t followed the debates either. But to the point – if you’re saying he said it, you should prove it.

                  “Do you have a link showing he opposes these measures?”

                  That’s like saying “Ritter is for forcing marijuana on our kids. I can’t prove it but can you show that he opposes it?” In other words if it’s not a policy anyone is proposing then he may not have a position on it either way.

                  But if he said it in debate I’ll await your link.

                  1. and even the most hardened skeptics will think there’s some germ of truth to it.

                    How can we trust Bill Ritter with our money after he killed a man and ate him in Africa???

                  2. On the Rosen show in which Ritter and Beauprez debated, Wednesday, October 11…(I think I have the date right,)  Ritter said he supported granting instate tutition for students here illegally who have successfully graduated from a colorado high school. Beauprez countered that this would be a tax payer supported “gift” which appears to have been outlawed by  the recent legislation passed by the State Legislature in the special session on illegal immigration and that furthermore, this would act aa a “magnet” drawing more illegals to the state.  It was an excellent exchange….perhaps the only one of the campaign. .Ritter had said, during this debate, that he would fully enforce the  new state laws severly restricting illegals access to state funded services.

                2. denver & the west | election 2006
                  Beauprez ’02, ’06 stands differ 

                  Despite his attacks on Ritter, he supported in-state tuition for an illegal immigrant Ritter’s campaign has seized on the change. Beauprez’s office cites the size of the problem and a new state law.
                  By Mark P. Couch
                  Denver Post Staff Writer
                  DenverPost.com
                  Article Last Updated:10/20/2006 02:25:07 AM MDT

                  Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez once supported granting in-state college tuition to an illegal immigrant – a position at odds with his recent attacks on Democrat Bill Ritter.

                  In 2002, Beauprez said he thought the state should make an exception for Jesus Apodaca, an Aurora honor student whom Rep. Tom Tancredo wanted to deport.

                  The Ritter campaign on Monday highlighted the congressman’s changing position as the biggest example of his political grandstanding in the governor’s race.

                  “The hypocrisy of his position – supporting Jesus Apodaca four years ago and completely flip-flopping around this issue for political gain – is shameful,” Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said.

                  “And (it’s) perhaps the most classic ‘Both Ways Bob’ moment we’ve seen in this entire campaign,” Dreyer said. “And we’ve seen a lot.”

                  Four years ago, Beauprez said: “I applaud Tom (Tancredo) for at least identifying the problem” of illegal immigration. “But this case cries for the compassionate conservatism that Republicans like myself try to practice.”

                  Last week, Beauprez was showing far less compassion about illegal immigrants, chastising Ritter for saying during debates that some children of illegal immigrants should qualify for in-state college tuition.

                  On Monday, Beauprez spokesman John Marshall continued to press the case that illegal immigrants are barred from getting in-state tuition by a recently passed state law.

                  “There’s a question of right and wrong here,” Marshall said. “The state legislature passed a law that prohibited taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals, which this most certainly is. And he wants to give in-state tuition to them. You can’t have it both ways.”

                  When asked Monday afternoon about the congressman’s previous support for in-state tuition for Apodaca, Marshall said, “I’m not familiar with that case. I think it would be important to get the congressman on the phone to address that.”

                  Beauprez was traveling the state Monday with Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who supported granting Apodaca permanent residency status so he could qualify for in-state tuition. Beauprez told a reporter traveling with him that he didn’t recall the case.

                  After talking with the congressman, Marshall said, “Bob has become convinced this problem has become so big that it requires somebody to step up and take on the problem head on.”

                  Apodaca was 18 years old in 2002. He was brought here illegally by his parents and graduated from Aurora Central High School, but he couldn’t attend the University of Colorado at Denver because he couldn’t afford the more than $7,000 per semester in out-of-state tuition.

                  A measure sponsored by U.S. Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Colorado Republican, and Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, would have legalized Apodaca’s immigration status, but Campbell eventually withdrew it.

    2. And in tight-fisted Colorado, will any reform get the support it needs? It’s going to cost lots of money, no matter what it is. Will the cheap-ass Doug Bruce, no-on-C-and-D types support anything that isn’t free?

      I do not picture any successful reform of plea-bargaining that doesn’t include one or more of the following:

      More judges (and hence more judicial staff, courts, and so on)

      More jails (and thus more guards to pay and prisoners to take care of)

      Fewer jailable offences (I’m thinking drugs here, but there are probably other victimless crimes we could legalize but probably won’t because they’re “immoral”)

      1. Prove to me that you’d need more jails just because the legislature passed a law that laid out conditions under which DAs could plea bargain and, at the least, barred them from plea bargaining illegal immigrants so they can avert deportation.

        1. But doesn’t it make sense to punish illegals who commit crimes here with jail time here? Why send them back to their home countries to victimize their compatriots?

          1. Why do you want to put criminals back out on the street after they’ve served their terms when we can just deport them and not be at risk of having them commit more crimes and cost our prosecutors and judicial system more money?

              1. So when you or you’re loved one is killed in a hit and run by an illegal, you’re all for supplying them with a public defender at taxpayer expense and plea bargaining down to illegal trespassing on Hick’s garden?

                It’s time we look out for Americans and quit worring about illegals who are trashing our rule of law and our country.

                1. Criminals, legal or otherwise, need to be punished. You propose sending them back to their home countries to victimize the innocents there. I think it’s better to put them away for their offences and ensure they’re punished for what they do to Americans.

        2. how that addresses the problem. If you’re proposing to standardize plea bargains, don’t you think that means that more cases have to go to trial? That’ll cost money.

          Oh, wait, I see what you’re saying. Go to trial, have defendents acquitted. You’re right, no jail time there.

          1. But make them defend themselves with their own money, not public defenders.

            And you’re assuming this would lead to more people going to jail. Not so if they’re deported instead of jailed. Allow plea bargains that put people on planes within 24 hours, minus all their worldly holdings.

            1. “Allow plea bargains that put people on planes within 24 hours, minus all their worldly holdings.”

              Good idea but somehow I don’t see it ever coming to be.

            2. Maybe you only want to reform plea bargains when it comes to dealing with aliens. But BWB (or at least his favorite shill Moonraker) has been making quite the racket over plea bargains in general. I think if this is an honest concern, you have to look at the whole system, meaning dealing with our citizen criminals too. Keep that in mind when reading my posts because that’s where I’m coming from.

                    1. Where does it say that the constitution applies only to US citizens? Where is it codified in law that non US citizens are not guaranteed any rights under the constitution?

                    2. You’re the lawyer. Play prosecutor and come up with an answer, or aren’t you that far along in law school yet?

                    3. It doesnt take law school to realize that the Constitution applies to all who are within the territory of the United States. If a prosecutor were to say that in a courtroom not only would he be laughed out he might even be sanctioned for gross misconduct or malpractice.

        3. The lie being repeated is that ritter’s plea bargining somehow allowed illegals to avoid deportation….any illegal can be deported for being illegal….and  the state does not have the Consititutional authority to deport anyone…it is the Constitutional authority and responsibility of the federal government to deport illegals….

          I think there is something about some kinds  of convictions would make someone more likely to provoke a response from ICE….but so far we have not seen that explained or proved.

          1. to say that illegals could avoid deportation. Unfortunately I think some of the heroin dealers who ended up pleading to AG trespassing were documented.

            1. It’s been said in this (or another) thread that the reason for this plea bargain was because all that he had as evidence was the “word” of a convicted heroin dealer. Of course, in Bob’s (and the Washington crowds) world — and the powers they now have…that would be enough if we could classify him as an enemy combatant.

              1. I don’t know much about the case but I trust Ritter and the DA’s office did what they coud. No one has produced any evidence that offering plea bargains specifically to help legal aliens avoid deportation, but that’s the big lie BWB is spreading. (Actually he’s saying that it helps ILLEGALS avoid deportation but as has been pointed out, illegals can always be deported for being here without documentation.)

      1. Why don’t you want to reform the criminal justice system to the point that DAs can’t plea bargain away the Feds’ ability to deport illegals accused of crimes?

        1. Feds can still deport illegal immigrants.  The D.A. doesn’t strike a deal that gives illegal immigrants amnesty.  That’s one hell of a spin on things.

          Was Ritter supposed to go to trial over 60,000 times at taxpayers expense?

          Again, where is the solution?  More jails? tougher laws? more judges? more attorneys?

          1. If you take BB’s logic to it’s absurd conclusion, we have to try each case, which means every citizen has to do jury duty twice a month, BB will raise our taxes exponentially to hire hundreds of new lawyers (not lawyer-lobbyists though), and dozens of prisons will have to be constructed every year so that “heroin-dealers” will be sentenced to life without parole and never see the light of day again.

            Is this the kind of decision-maker we want as Governor?!

            1. slap criminals wrists and plea their cases down to trepassing?
              How does trepassing have anything at all to do with what this joker was accused of doing anyhow?
              Has anyone asked that question?

              Does that mean that if I was an illegal alien criminal, and was caught committing a felony, I can realistically hope to be convicted of walking on someone’s property without permission? What if I raped someone? Same thing?

              This is what BB has been trying to find out. Why a DA let’s this happen on a supposedly regular basis.

              1. Dense as dense can be.

                Get it through your THICK SKULL: The Feds don’t deport people because they don’t have time, resources, or conern.

                And why don’t they?  Ask the GOP Congress, Bob Beauprez and George W. Bush.

                Geez.

                1. Where the hell did I say he should deport illegals? Huh?
                  Where?
                  I didn’t.
                  I said what the hell does trepassing have to fucking do with heroin crimes or any other crime besides “trepassing”?
                  What part of that can’t YOU understand?

              2. were accused of dealing heroin, right?

                I haven’t seen any details like the amount being dealt, but if these were street types they probably didn’t have much. I also haven’t seen any details like how strong of a case the DA had against them.

                If they were accused of rape something tells me that this kind of plea bargain wouldn’t have happened. Anyone with more facts is free to correct me there.

                1. The issue is, did Ritter and other DAs plea bargain with illegal immigrants to protect them against deportation?

                  Yes they did.

                  And that is wrong. The system needs to be fixed, and BWB and Ritter should say so.

                  1. If it can be done in practice I’m all for it. For me that’s an underlying issue, and the reason why I believe reform will cost us big. If we can’t come up with a solution that makes this reality, we’ll have to ask the hard question of how much of this sort of thing can we live with, because live with it we will have to do.

                  2. Facts. Please. You can repeat the whole line about Sanctuary city, but it is clearly false. So find some facts. Present them. And then we can discuss.

        2. It’s been shown time and time again that the Feds don’t have the time or resources or concern to deport people.

          That’s the truth.

          And the only reason ICE doesn’t have the resources it needs is Bob Beauprez, George W. Bush, and the GOP Congress.

        3. He was by definition deportable without any kind of additional crime; Ritter’s office policy was to call ICE on all illegals – they obviously didn’t come by to pick the guy up, and the U.S. Supreme Court says we can’t hold illegals indefinitely.

          So what’s a DA to do?

          I want reform: I want ICE to come by and pick up illegals when called by the DA’s office.

          But you have to be kidding me if you think Ritter could have gotten a conviction from a jury based on a single piece of testimony by a convicted druggie.  I admire that Ritter even managed to get a plea bargain from Ramo.

          1. You don’t think he should have tried to get the guy to accept deportation vs. trial and jail?

            If the DA had said to all defense attorneys, we’ll plea bargain with you to get the criminal out of the country, but if the defendant won’t leave the country, we’ll go to trial. Try getting paid by the defendant. Defense attorneys would have taken the money and run.

            1. Bob Beauprez could have done something in Congress to maybe help DAs all across the country in this situation?

              Oh, but he didn’t.  Nor did Bush.  Nor did the Republican congress.

              1. Just because Congress hasn’t fixed the system and BWB wasn’t focused on it doesn’t mean Ritter can deflect blame on him for Ritter’s unprincipled management of the DA’s office.

                To try to do so is to attempt to take voters’ eyes off Ritter’s failure to enforce the rule of law.

                1. Sad.  Is that what you call “logic”?

                  Oy!

                  Ritter referred 1,000s to ICE and ICE never did anything.  Plucking 1 case out of 1,000s is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt, just like BWB and the GOP. 

                  Ritter did his job. 

            2. What are you babbling about? 

              So, plea-bargains are bad.  Defense attorney’s are bad.  The legal system is bad.  Do you really hate the 6th Amendment, the US Constitution and those who up-hold the Constitution for that matter?

            3. but difficult to keep them straight.

              As far as I know if someone is arrested in the US they are guaranteed the rights of habeus corpus, fair trial, confront your accuser, discovery…just because they’re here illegally doesn’t demote them in law.

              Deport vs lock up – lock them up and spend thousands of dollars or deport them to arrest them a month later?  Both seem pretty silly to me. Secure the border and that may help the situation.

              Plea bargaining – reform the entire system.  I’m sure Mr. Bradshaw would disagree, but I don’t see how when DAs across the US consistently use plea bargaining (to the tune of 90%+ of the cases) that you’re talking about something that should be done now.  I could list 10 more important things we should concentrate on as a nation.

            4. THE DA CANNOT PLEA BARGAIN FOR DEPORTATION.

              That is the sole responsibility of ICE, and they declined to show up.

              Aside from that, tell me you think Ritter could have gotten a conviction from a jury with what he had.  Honestly, now…

            5. Defense attorneys can recommend that their client take a plea bargining, but they can not make that decision, themselves.  The accused has to make that decision to accept a plea bargin and then, whoa…..a judge has to approve it.  Now, let’s here it for attacking the judiciary…..

              You see, Another Skeptic, in this country we have a Constitution.

    3. it’s called an election.  And Ritter faced a couple of those.  But the Republicans failed to field a candidate against him.  (Craig Silverman unsuccessfully ran as a petition candidate one time against Ritter.)  The state GOP apparently found insufficient cause to oppose Ritter with a candidate.  Or they simply dropped the ball…..

      1. …but the GOP’s Beauprez said he’d like to see Ritter on the Republican bench. He called Ritter a ‘standup guy’ whom he’d like to recruit, explaining: ‘He has some opinions that are consistent  with our party.'”
        Denver Post, August 29, 2001 “Ritter won’t run for Senate DA’s decision a boost for Strickland camp” By Howard Pankratz and Mike Soraghan, Denver Post Staff Writers

         

    4. So you want to “control” plea bargains, eh?  This means, of course, considerably fewer cases being bargained.  Let’s say we turn an average 95% plea bargain rate into an 85% plea bargain rate — I think it might be far worse, but let’s be nice.  Let’s also assume — I think it’s pretty obvious, but perhaps we can check into it if you disagree — that the cost involved in plea bargaining a case is negligible compared to the cost of prosecuting a case.  So you’ve just tripled the required budget for (a) courts, (b) district attorneys, and (c) prisons.

      Can we count on your vote for the tax increase to get this done?

      1. Breaking the law does not constitute one being a whistle-blower.  They used illegally obtained information (which is considered theft) to politicize Ritter’s D.A. record.  That is called illegal.  Not whistle-blowing.

      2. since I’m not a lawyer nor have I read extensively on the subject. But the definition (or more accurately, image) I have of a whistleblower is someone who observes illegal or at least unethical activity at work and reports that activity to the authorities (whoever they may be, given the situation).

        If the ICE agent were really upset that the Denver DA was bending the rules to avoid having to turn felons over to them for deportation, I can see his actions as whistleblowing – IF he had given the info to the press, or someone with prosecuting authority over the DA. But he gave it to said DA’s political opposition for use in a political campaign. In my opinion it ceases to be whistleblowing and instead becomes something more sinister.

  10. Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    What does this say about plea bargaining? Where does it say plea bargaining is constitutional, or not? Where does it say that Congress or state legislatures can’t set ground rules for plea bargaining? I don’t see it, and I don’t know the case law.

    Are there any laws governing the use of plea bargains?

    1. In addition to all the above reasons stated – the criminal justice system in the US would break, IMO, under the weight of the huge caseload without plea bargains.

      Plea bargains allow “speedy and public trials” to occur.  The vast majority of cases that are plea bargained seem to me to be open/shut cases where the prosecutor cuts a deal with the defense attny, or cases where the prosecutor’s case is lacking something and they know going to trial would be a mistake because the defendant could walk due to lack of evidence…

      Plea bargaining is not evil.  Are there mistakes, of course.  Should we reinvent the entire system because of a few cases amongst the hundreds of thousands? No way.

    2. …was regarding the application of the law to non-citizens.  The Constitution is quite clear that ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS get the same treatment.

      Regarding plea bargaining, there are generally no laws restricting it because in most circumstances a plea bargain is a compromise designed to either (a) elicit information that the accused might otherwise withold, (b) save the taxpayer expense while still providing adequate punishment, or (c) trying to salvage a weak case.  All of them require flexibility, though in option (b) less than others.  Ramo’s case was option (c) – weak case.  Had it gone to trial, Ramo probably would have been fully acquitted; a two-year suspended prison sentence and two years of probation was better than nothing but a large bill to the taxpayer.

      Removing effective plea-bargaining ability would be about as sane as voting for Amendment 40.  Complete chaos in the court system.

    3. There is a suggestion in this piece that legislatures can set rules for plea bargaining. Click here.

      The idea that reforming the system is unconstituitonal seems wrong to me:

      From the ABA:

      Plea bargaining is essentially a private process, but this is changing now that victims rights groups are becoming recognized. Under many victim rights statutes, victims have the right to have input into the plea bargaining process. Usually the details of a plea bargain aren’t known publicly until announced in court.

      Other alternatives are also possible in the criminal justice system. Many states encourage diversion programs that remove less serious criminal matters from the full, formal procedures of the justice system. Typically, the defendant will be allowed to consent to probation without having to go through a trial. If he or she successfully completes the probation – e.g., undergoes rehabilitation or makes restitution for the crime – the matter will be expunged (removed) from the records.

      1. Ritter actually implemented some of the alternatives listed above. He deverted less serious cases out of the system and into programs.  He also established drug courts so that addicts would be helped rather than harmed by the system.

    1. There’s an important principle here: how do we run our criminal justice system.

      We can run it like A.S. and other conservatives here have been suggesting: severely limit plea-bargains, change our Constitution to remove limits on holding people as prisoners, and drastically increase taxes to pay for the changes.

      Or we can run it like Bill Ritter and every other DA across the country run it: weigh cases based on the evidence, prosecute those that you can’t plea-bargain to an acceptable level, and presume innocent until guilty.

      Similarly, we can agree to follow the law and not misuse restricted Federal databases for political purposes, or we can agree that political discussions rate umlimited free speech and that your favorite candidates are all serial child murderers.

        1. Or is it the only way a city DA’s office is able to keep up and afford the victims and defendants their constitutional rights?

          Could the process be more transparent or have additional oversight?  Sure – I defer to those wiser than I in the ways of the system.

          1. IMHO, Ritter didn’t abuse the system at all.  In the case at hand, if anything he got a harder sentence than the guy would have received in a jury trial.

            The biggest problem, again IMHO, is that people don’t understand either the system or the cases.  If people stepped back and took a good look at what the DA’s office had on Ramo, they would be accepting of the eventual plea-bargain that Ritter got.  In fact, my guess is that criminal rights advocates would have complained that it was too harsh given the evidence.

            The other problem is that people – including people here on this blog – are avoiding the discussion that everyone’s been avoiding for decades now: INS/ICE doesn’t do a good job at deporting illegal and felony immigrants.  We have an army if ICE on the borders and almost none in the interior; once illegals get past the border, they’re almost home free.  I wonder, too, just how much the Mexican government has to do with ICE’s reluctance to deport; do they give us crap before accepting deportees?

        2. AS, I think pretty much everyone in the criminal justice system (and I mean DAs, judges, cops, as opposed to criminals) would agree that the ability to plea bargain is essential.  But there also is a lot of pressure to over use it.  That pressure comes primarily from lack of resources – in the courts, the DAs offices, the prisons, every link in the chain – to handle the unbelievably high volume of criminal cases in this country.  In simple terms, D.A.’s have to bargain 95%-97% of their cases to keep the system running.  It seems to me if you want to improve the practice of plea bargaining, you either (1) significantly increase funding for every aspect of the criminal justice system, or (2) significantly decrease the number of criminal proceedings.  In practical terms, that means you either signficantly raise state and local taxes, or you end the war on drugs.  If there are other ways to meaningfully relieve the pressure, I haven’t heard anyone come up with them yet.

  11. … this thread is also about whether the ICE agent is a “whistleblower.” I say he isn’t – not because of his beef with Ritter (which could very well be legitimate) but because he gave his info to the BWB campaign to use for political purposes. If he had given it to the press (or some prosecuting authority if this was illegal) I’d say you could call him a whistleblower. But a political campaign? No way.

    1. designed to protect employees from retribution by their employers? What the ICE agent is reported to have done is so far outside the legal (and colloquial) definition of whistleblowing as to render this discussion absurd.

      It’s like calling what Nixon’s Plumbers did “whistleblowing” when they burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in hopes of exposing something fishy about the Pentagon Papers leak.

      The ICE agent wasn’t exposing corrupt practices at ICE. which seems to be the crux of everyone’s complaint, that ICE didn’t deport illegals or felonious legals. Had he been, whistleblower status might protect his job. Has nothing to do with excusing illegal behavior. Nothing.

      What do the BB spinsters float next, that the ICE employee was practicing the time-honored Gandhi-esque tradition of civil disobedience? That’ll fly.

    2. What illegal or unethical behavior was the ICE agent exposing? He released information about an old plea bargaining case, and plea bargaining is neither illegal nor unethical. It is, in fact–something that every DA must do, and many do at a much higher rate than Ritter a necessity–given the way our criminal justice system works. So how can you have whistleblowing when nothing illegal or unethical has occurred?

      1. do you think I’m saying the ICE agent is a whistleblower? Because I’m saying that he isn’t. There could have been a case that he was IF a) Ritter had a policy to always plea down charges on immigrants so that they wouldn’t be deported (and so far that’s not shown to be the case) AND b) if said ICE agent gave smoking-gun proof of this to the press or prosecuting authority (but not Ritter’s political competition). As it is the ICE agent is some schmuck with an ax to grind.

        But, speaking hypothetically, if Ritter had some policy as described above that would be unethical since it would mean he was trying to avoid having criminal aliens deported. But just so you know, I don’t believe that’s the case and I do intend to vote for Ritter. (And even if it were the case, I’d still vote for Ritter because BWB is a flip-flopping opportunist.)

        1. In the post that I responded to, you only mentioned the issue of who the information was given to.

          I agree with what you say here. It’d only be whistleblowing if there was something illegal or unethical being exposed (and a DA plea bargaining on a case like this in the same way that virtually every DA does, democrat or republican, is clearly not illegal or unethical) AND the information was released for the purpose of addressing the wrongdoing (also not the case here, as this is clearly a case of information being used for political purposes).

  12. Oh, wait a minute.  I WASN’T talking about the issues.  I was talking about some stupid dirty tricks scandal Fancy Pants cooks up to blunt his terrible record as DA. 

    As I recall the Democrats cooked up another schedule with another Fancy Pants bloke–this time from the other team. 

    Don’t get me wrong.  I know exactly why the Democrats are relying on a gay pedophile for victory.  When you really have no issues to run on you’ve got to have something to fall back on.  That something is a dirty trick.

    But it’s really unbecoming of a democracy like America.  It’s not proper to be ignoring the issues in an election where the issues are really so very salient.  Instead the Up With Pelosi crowd is devolved into scandal mongering.  If they told the American people what they thought about things, of course they’d be whacked around solidly. 

    And of course if Coloradans were really told about Ritter faux pro-life stances and his support of gay marriage and his embrace of sancuary cities and his wanting of in-state tuition for illegals and his mindless anti-business stance on big labor and his love affair with big education and his apalling lack of experience and his…….and it goes on and on and on.  If Coloradans really knew about this guy he wouldn’t get 40%.  So what do you do?  You run silly ads about FBI investigations and your opponent.  That’s just what you do.

    Win or lose for Ritter, the real loser is the voter.  This is why voters don’t vote in America and why people just don’t care.  They don’t care because it’s easy to get the impression that the politicians don’t care about the issues. 

    Or, at least one party lacks the seriousness for leadership.  And voters can see that clearly.  Clearly enough to shock the pundits and American left. 

    1. Dirty trick eh? Ritter asked how Beauprez got this info because Ritter couldn’t get the same info. Was the dirty trick the fact that he was trying to find the cases in the ad to see if they were true or not?

      By the way, I’m glad that you find compromising a protected national database “silly.” Most of us find it pretty serious.

    2. That’s very brazen of you to claim Democrats don’t have anything to run.  Let’s think this through.  While Dems have been campaigning on Health care, Education, Jobs, Iraq, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Energy, and more the only issue the Republicans are willing to bring up is illegal immigration.

      Republicans have dug their heads in the sand when it comes to any issue other than baiting illegal immigration.  Will Republicans follow through with any of their campaign promises? Of course not, they never have and never will.  They need wedge issues to continually run on, so in order to that cannot fix anything.

      A party that lacks leadership is the current on in power.  They have failed at every step.  They cannot find Osama Bin Laden.  They have turned a country inside out, creating chaos.  They have completed ignored every tradgedy at home, and are more concerned with keeping power by fear by than telling it straight to the voters.

      Republicans have failed. The conservative movement is dead and we can thank Bush for that. 

      1. It lived a short life.  It elected a few presidents and won a couple of wars.  It advanced a few good causes but it’s dead.  It’s dead because it only had wedge issues to run on.  If only it had the vast array of principles that those brave, courageous, and ever-victorious Democrats did. 

        Wow, what a eulogy.  May the conservative movement rest in peace.

        Oh!  What?? You were for real??

        Oh man, I thought you were just playing along about the whole “the conservative movement is dead” business. Sheez, I guess us dead conservatives are really just a whole lot slower than you liberal paradigms of intellectual glory.

        Please, in polls Americans and Coloradans equally identify themselves as conservatives by a 2:1 margin.  Dead?  Yeah, that grave’s already dead. 

        Whose winning elections in this country?  Whose ideas are winning out not just politically but in the public square?  You have seen all of these gloomy books like “American Theocracy” and such that lament the conservative takeover of the nation.  I doubt these books get published if the movement wasn’t alive and thriving.  Look at all the country’s major thinktanks.  Conservative.  The GOP controls the presidency, the Congress, the majority of governorships, and we’ve been able to weed out many liberals from the judiciary.  Dead?  Right now they’re doing the Heimlich. 

    3. “When you really have no issues to run on you’ve got to have something to fall back on.”

      A perfect encapsulation of the BWB’s campaign, IMHO.

    4. I was going to type out a long response pointing out every single mistake and falsehood that you have in there, but I realized something: you are an idiot. Not only that, but a bigoted one. So keep up the good work FFF, because your posts bring a smile to my face.

        1. But you would be wrong. Seriously, you consistently prove that you have no grasp on what is going on. So keep crying about pelosi, the real sadness is in the death of the constitution that your president continues to advocate.

      1. HERE, HERE.  However, it is the neocons in the “We Just Want to Win” camp that have aligned themselves with the RINO’s and created this mess.

        There is more that has gone on the most are totally unaware of that would sink any ship.  Problem is for these folks, bloggers are reporting the inside stories.  Interesting how the press and media (affraid to inviestigate) are piggybacking on the trails of the stories that first appear on the internet.

        What a wonderful thing!!! TYhe internet and bloggers.  Wonder just how many stories would have never been reported if they leaks hadn’t appeared here first.

        Ankaney and Foley, both were widely known about.  both REpublicans suspected and did nothing.  Maybe someone should go and ask Cadman when he first knew that Ankaney was chasing little girls.  Cadman knew in 2000, about the same time that Hastert knew.  How funny, NOT.

        What did the Republican establishment insiders do when they saw Ankaney with a 15 year-old girl at the Young REpublican Fundraiser (Chop House Restaurant) in 2000.  NOTHING.  Who were some of the guests in attendance, Ed Jones, Larry Liston, Sarah Jack, Bob Gardner, Andy McElhaney, to name just a few notables.

        What did they do? NOTHING.  To be a Young Republican you must be at least 18 years-old.  What was a 15 year-old doing with Ankaney at 11:00 p.m. at night?  One could imagine.

        1. Goodness knows I hate to defend Bill Cadman, but there’s a serious difference between: (a) Cadman and other Republicans attending an event where someone shows up with a 15-year-old, who may well have been a relative, and choosing not to pursue the matter; (b) Republican leadership receiving a report that Mark Foley *is* definitely engaging in inappropriate communication with minors, and choosing to ignore it because they fear losing the majority.

            1.   Lauren, Ankeney was a promising, 30-something year old lawyer active in the Republican Party, worked for Bill Owens, ran his campaign in El Paso County, and I think he worked for the state Dept. of Economic Dev. 
                He got busted on a sexual assault charge, but he plea bargained (yes, apparently even Republicans know how to plea bargain) it down to a misdemeanor sex offense.  He apparently got busted again and is sitting in jail awaiting trial. 
                The full lurid story, including the 13 year old victim’s account, is published in Colo. Confidential.  Cara DeGette’s story was in C.C. on 10/4/06. 

        2.   So he went out with a 15 year old, too?  It must have been when he was interested in “older women.”  Wasn’t he busted for getting a 13 year old drunk and stoned, then she woke up with him on top of her? 
            That should get the values voters energized to turn out…….

        3. If you knew all of this, why didn’t you do something?  And by the way, your assertions here get pretty close to being actionable even when they involve public figures.  And your blog name will not be much cover once the subpoena arrives at coloradopols.

          So, why don’t you move on and get a life before you fool around and get yourself sued.

  13. He can hook up with Jim Welcher of Loveland (who has already demonstrated it’s OK to share people’s cell phone records without their permission, get Marshall to manage the office (from jail) and get Cinnamon to keep the books.  Hotline to ICE on the desk, Bank Chic running interference with the clientle — direct line to Rove & Co. on ’08 candidates — man, this could be sweet.

  14. These neo-cons are proud of pushing the idea that they have moral and upright character. But the test of these is not when things are going good, but when they are going badly. What I find interesting, is that nearly all fail in worse shape than an average American citizen and even the dems.

    Watch and listen to the lies and wiggling of W., Delay, Abramhoff, Frist, Tancredo, Beauprez, hastert, Rumsfield, etc. What amazes me more, is that groups such as FOTF continue to back these folks and do not account for such things as firing Hefley from the oversight group.

  15. Beauprez believes every word he said. He distorts the law and undermines the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold.  He believes, as his president  does, that the law can be ignored, twisted and destroyed, if you are doing it for the “right” reasons.  Beauprez is living proof of the success of the right wing propaganda machine over the last ten years.  The real goal of the right wing propaganda machine is to destroy the constitution.  Beauprez is speaking to people who have been brain washed into responding positively to his attack on the law.

    Prediction:  Beauprez goes up not down in the next poll.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

242 readers online now

Newsletter

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