President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 09, 2015 11:53 AM UTC
10 Comments
Could the matters be Harvey related?
Possible. I think that it's more likely to be Harber/ IEC, or campaign finance related. I've been looking at C Coffman's campaign finances, but it's tedious, and I might miss something. Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) bought $2.6 million for TV ad buys for her campaign – if there was coordination, that would be illegal. CORE IEC (Harber's semi-legal $ laundering outfit that got him busted) contributed heavily to the RAGA. There's probably a connection there, if I (or someone!) can find it.
I still haven't figured out why C Coffman wanted Ryan Call out so bad, and House in, then turned on House. There are Republicans posting on here who probably know. Some of it was $$, some of it was political differences and leadership style, but there is still a missing piece that made this worth the risk.
So who can look into it? Eli Stokols has other things to do at Politico. Brandon Rittiman is a good reporter. So is Susan Greene at the Independent. As far as other watchdog agencies:
Matt Arnold, the "Campaign Integrity Watchdog", is very partisan, and very selective about which campaigns and candidates he nails for violations. Basically, he acts as the establishment GOP's enforcer. He went after Thurlow, for example, because Thurlow's moderate gun stances didn't jibe with the Tea Party voters the GOP still needs to win.
Arnold will go after Dems when that's expedient, or fellow Republicans – he went after Tyler Harber and Call's CORE IEC firm because it was about to become a huge embarrassment to the GOP, when Harber got busted in Virginia.
Marilyn Marks I trust not at all. If she is promoting transparency, there is a catch.
So, if I find something noteworthy, I'll Colorado Ethics Watch know. Them, I trust.
When you say "refer to prosecutors" do you mean our AG's office?
Kinda doubt it…
What remains a mystery to everyone but AG Coffman, Ms. Mizel and Mr. Tancredo is precisely what were their complaints about Mr. House. What exactly had he done or omitted to do that was so drastic he should resign after only three months as chair of the Republican Party. It seems to me that if they really had a legitimate case against Mr. House it would have been leaked to the press by this time and the three of them would have made sure that happened as a matter of defending what they did. One can certainly infer from their silence that their differences with him were petty and would make them look very small if they became public.
The Republican executive committee obviously thought AG Coffman, Mizel and Tancredo had no case at all against Mr. House. They spent six hours listening to testimony, including AG Coffman's, which I presume was against House, and then voted 22 to 1 in support of House. That can only be interpreted to mean the committee didn't believe a word Coffman had to say about House. More than anyone else, she needs to come clean and tell the members of the Republican Party and the public why she believed Mr. House should resign and precisely what she said to him and in what context the alleged affair came-up. Regardless of the blackmail allegations, it appears she is stonewalling the Party and the public about what exactly happened at the meeting with Mr. House.
They have a list but they still can't show it. Or leak it. Even though the meeting is over, the actions taken, the matter "handled"and I don't know how House could prevent them from making it public at this point. Maybe they could give their their list to Marilyn so next time she demands to know what matters were reported to the prosecutors she could do an I'll show you mine if you show me yours deal. Of course if the dog ate it… she's got nothing to show.
Republcan 36, lets make sure facts are stated properly. The exec committee didn't spend 6 hours listening to testimony. In fact they never allowed Tancredo to speak and they limited what Coffman's testimony to under 10 minutes. They didn't allow any evidence and while they voted to support House 21-1, they voted to support Coffman 22-0. I interpret that to mean they didn't want conflict and didn't care about the facts so much as stopping the potential lawsuits for slander and libel and with the Western Conservative Summit in town that week, didn't want bad press.
One thing is clear to me, nothing is ever as it first seems.
As I understand it, this was a special meeting of the executive committee called for the specific purpose of addressing this situation. Perhaps not all, but certainly most of the meeting dealt with AG Coffman's allegations against Mr. House.
And again, she hasn't come clean about what she thought House had done or failed to do as chair in only three months time that would justify her request that he resign. Regardless of how either one of us characterizes the executive committee meeting, the answer to that question remains hidden from the public and the party faithful.Since they really believe Mr. House should resign, I think the rest of us should know why.
I don't think we can say she hasn't come clean. She provided testimony to the executive committee who voted unanimously to support her 22-0. They must have felt she was credible and honest or they couldn't have voted to support her. Does she owe an explanation to the public or to the Republican committee since this was an internal matter. Don't get me wrong, I would love to know the backstory on all of this but I'm pretty sure we are in the dark on a lot of political issues both right and left. Politics is a nasty business of sure. It does make for great rumor and speculation and provides intrigue and Pols helps keep us all arguing and talking.
Like the party wants to see their AG under a cloud or forced to resign. Please. And she certainly has not come clean. She and her cohorts keep insisting they have "pages" of complaints and concerns. First they were giving the impression it would all come out at the meeting. It didn't. Then they said House wouldn't let them present it to the committee. OK. So why can't they produce it now? Because they don't want to air dirty laundry? They've been doing nothing but airing dirty laundry since they l failed to kill the King even though the King gave them a pass. So why is the alleged list of grievances still a big secret?