U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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 07, 2010 07:18 PM UTC

Golyansky, Ken Buck--And Shawn Mitchell

  • 78 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: We received a screenshot a little while ago from Facebook (after the jump)–state Sen. Shawn Mitchell has apparently been defending Ken Buck regarding this scandal as it’s shared around social networks, which makes sense seeing as how his reputation is kind of wrapped up in it too. Unfortunately, it’s not going very well from the look of this screenshot…

—–

With a new TV spot in heavy circulation today, exposing GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck’s efforts while employed as a federal prosecutor to undermine a firearms case against a Denver pawn shop owner with Republican political connections, we wanted to briefly revisit the key facts of this scandal–for which there has been no significant news reporting since Allison Sherry of the Denver newspaper wrote about it last June. You’ll recall that Buck’s reprimand and subsequent resignation from the U.S. Attorney’s office over this scandal was originally brought to light by Buck’s opponent Jane Norton during the GOP primary.

According to the original report, Buck was contacted by now-state Sen. Shawn Mitchell, allegedly asking for “recommendations” for a good defense attorney for Greg Golyansky. Now, the first thing you’ll find kind of odd here is the idea that a Republican politician (or anyone, for that matter) would call someone who works in the prosecuting attorney’s office, for help finding a defense attorney against a case that same office is prosecuting. That’s a little like asking the opposing team’s coach to help with your playbook, isn’t it? Regardless, Mitchell apparently conveyed Buck’s recommendation of a certain attorney back to Golyansky, and Stephen Peters was retained.

This is where it became a career-jeopardizing ethics problem for Buck: Peters, the defense attorney for the Golyanskys, circled back with Buck before the trial began–and Buck, an attorney in the prosecutor’s office, gave Peters information about disagreements within the office that Peters then used to attack the case against Golyansky. When Buck did that, he committed an ethical violation so grave that his career in the U.S. Attorney’s office was over in all but formality. Think for a moment about the betrayal of trust it represents within a prosecutor’s office, for an attorney on staff to undermine a case by directly colluding with the defense.

And, as you can imagine, several multi-part questions now present themselves:

1. What was now-Sen. Shawn Mitchell’s motivation in helping to defend this pawn shop owner in Denver from gun peddling charges? How did he become aware of this case? What is Sen. Mitchell’s relationship to Golyansky? Now that Golyansky has emerged as the (really horrible) spokesman for several conservative state ballot initiatives this year, theories abound. How long has Golyansky been involved with GOP politics?

2. Why would Mitchell approach an attorney in a prosecutor’s office for “recommendations” on a defense attorney in a case being prosecuted by that office? What else about the case was discussed between Mitchell and Buck when Mitchell asked for this “recommendation,” and what did Mitchell pass on to Golyansky’s attorney before Peters called Buck? Why did this defense attorney feel similarly empowered to call Buck and ask him about details of this case?

3. Maybe the big one–why did Ken Buck fail to disclose anything about this case, and the changes it forced in his career, until Jane Norton exposed it? It’s certainly severe enough–a formal reprimand from none other than John Suthers, followed two months later by a quiet resignation from the U.S. Attorney’s office–that it should have been publicly front-loaded by his campaign if he ever intended to get past it. The opposition should never have been the ones to bring this out, even though Buck’s frank admission that it was wrong after it was exposed was the right thing to do. Perhaps it’s a holdover from his days as a unvetted longshot, but the fact is that Buck was never going to get to November without this being made an issue, even if Norton had never used it.

And like it or not, to the tune of $750,000 in soccer-mom unnerving media buys, it’s an issue.

Tweet
Share

Comments

78 thoughts on “Golyansky, Ken Buck–And Shawn Mitchell”

  1. 1. Shawn Mitchell is an epic scumbag, to learn that he is friends with other epic scumbags is possibly the least surprising thing I have ever heard.

    2. Obviously, Mitchell thought Buck could “help.” And he was right.

    3. Buck has slobbered himself so many times since the primary, it’s obvious he had no clue what he was doing before guys from DC showed up and put him in a soundproof box with Sharron Angle.

    H-man, Beej, GOPweenie: he’s just not that great of a candidate. We Dems always knew it, that’s why we wanted him to beat Norton. The baggage is just coming into view, that’s all. Sucks for you.

    1. With Fen Kuck, Dems have a fighting chance.

      Illegal gun dealers in a state that still remembers the columbine massacre is a democraphic Fenny boy would have been wise to leave alone.

      1. She wasn’t a strong candidate; didn’t have a detailed understanding of the issues. Golyanksy was cleared of all charges except a minor paperwork error. V-ger, I thought you were better than slander.

        2. This election, like all elections other than those limited to the college of Cardinals, will be decided by women.  They are already wary of Buck because of his disdain for “high heels” and his demand that, even if raped, they bear their rapist’s child.  Piss off women, and you’re dead in politics.  Tell me again how being soft on ILLEGAL gun dealers helps Buck?  

          2. According to the PPP poll, Bennet has women 54 – 37. Buck has men 53 – 39. Lots more opportunity for Bennet to take away men than for Bennet to gain even more women.

            Besides, the visual in that ad is lousy. You’re supposed to be afraid of an illegal weapon, but they use a shotgun in that ad that looks a lot like my pheasant gun. And if you’ve ever seen me shoot you know that’s not much to be afraid of.

            With Bennet’s background, personal demeanor, and political allies, it’s only natural to suspect he’s a gun grabber. It’s poor strategy for this outside pro-Bennet group to fortify that belief.

            1. but I can tell you that people who don’t like guns will be afraid of just about any gun you show, except those little lady Derringers you sometimes see in movies.

            2. He’s a pansy. Buck will get many women as the lies are debunked. Interesting that the large majority of his volunteers are women. On the gun grabbing strategy being a poor choice though, you are correct. Colorado is a pro-gun state.

                  1. Or better, try buying a gun if you have a felony conviction on your record.  The sale is illegal.  Only you believe that the 2nd Amendment gives criminals the right to own guns.  The National Rifle Association — and the U.S. Supreme Court — strongly disagree with you.  In fact, the N.R.A., to its credit, has led the fight to crack down on criminals who use guns in their crime.

                    2. You’re either stupid or lying.  Which is it?

                      Once again, your homeschooling is showing.  You absolutely will not admit to being wrong.

                      You think all gun sales are legal, even to convicted criminals.

                       Again, you’re either lying or incredibly stupid.  I have to assume you’re lying, but stupid is certainly possible.

                        By the way, I actually don’t recall a

                      2nd amdement.

                        Is that before or after the 2nd Amendment?

                    6. Hanging in there on that one?  Felons can buy guns?  Run that one by Buck, will you?  Even he isn’t that crazy.  

                      Felons cannot buy guns.  

                      P.S. — google Project Phoenix and you’ll find what the N.R.A. thinks about illegal sales and use of guns.  (They are on the opposite side of you.)  

                2. First, those guns sold at gun shows were never illegal and still aren’t.  They have to undergo a background check just like guns sold at regular brick and mortar shops.  Secondly, a free market argument explains exactly why the law passed much better than your illegality assertion.  Namely, it’s improper to give any seller of goods in a formal setting an unfair disadvantage versus their competitors.  Namely, if brick and mortar shops have to run background checks, so should any other dealer.

                  Yes, in a truly free market the check wouldn’t exist at all, but in a regulated market, it’s best to ensure that all dealers abide by the same rules to prevent the government from picking winners and losers.

                  1. So, voters closed the gun sale loophole because they wanted to erase the competitive advantage private sellers had?  You say this with a straight face and you still can muster enough IQ points to brush your teeth?

                      Prior to closing the loophole, private sellers at gun shows did not have to run background checks.  Only gun shops did (even if they were selling at a gun show.)  So, criminals obviously bought from the private sellers, not the legitimate dealers.

                    ‘   If you are arguing that private sellers at gun shows had to run background checks before the initiative was passed, you are simply lying through your teeth.

                    1. Try backing off the insults and hiding behind an alias because you are too scared to put the words in your own mouth.  Anyone who frequents social networks can easily figure out who I am if they just give it a small amount of effort.

                      If you actually tried to read the content you would have understood that what I said was none of the sales either before or after the “loophole” was closed were illegal. You suggested that the “loophole” was closed because people had a problem with “illegal” gun sales.  Think about your assertion again for a minute and you’ll see why it’s nonsensical.

                      There was certainly a contingent of people that wanted the gun show dealer to be required to run the checks to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals but if you believe that there wasn’t a fair number of people that went along with the idea in order to create an equal playing field for local dealers you’re nuts and really don’t understand free market thinkers at all.

                      What you fail to grasp is that a majority of sellers at those shows are not local guys.  What kind of Coloradan would I be if I supported giving a competitive advantage to an out of state dealer at the expense of my neighbors that legally engage the same sales?  Aren’t you libs always into that buy local stuff?

                    2. Voyageur is the screen name of a well known individual in this state. If you had been around here longer you’d know what it is. He’s hardly “hiding behind an alias,” JLD (if that’s your real name).

                      Try backing off the insults yourself, if only not to appear hypocritical when telling people to do the same.

            3. Many gun owners aren’t, but the real nutjobs will not support Bennet under any circumstances. They have their “suspicions” about him taking their “babies,” and pesky facts and information won’t get in their way.

              It’s always stupid to try to appeal to the crazies. You can’t change their minds except with medication.

        3. Stop reading Deuteronomy (those yellow highlighter marks are getting a bit thick anyway) and buy a copy of Black’s Law dictionary.  Then, look up Slander.

          You’re not even in the ballpark.

                    2. He WASNT convicted of anything but a minor paperwork error. Something like 16 politically motivated counts were thrown out. The truth wins again.

                    4. It meant he messed up on one sheet of paper; nothing compared to what Strickland was accusing him of.

                    5. And this one may have been undercut by Buck’s ineptitude.  I often have seen marijuana sales pled down to possession, for instance, simply because the police botched the chain of possession.  But, however minor, he was convicted of violating the gun laws.

                    5. 9-11 is written using Muslim terrorist numerals!

                      We even use a currency that has Muslim terrorist numerals on it.

                      Our gasoline as octane values in Muslim terrorist numerals.

                      Mathematicians and economists indoctrinate us into everyday use of Muslim terrorist numerals.

                      This means mathematicians and economists are Muslim terrorist sympathizers.

                      Waterboard them all until they admit they are part of a conspiracy of the XIth order.

      2. Bennet’s worst demographic is white men over 35. This is also the strongest demographic of gun owners. Anything reminding people that Buck likes guns and that Bennet does not is bad for Bennet. Bennet should be going hunting or fishing or doing anything to convince people that he’s not a carpetbagging Thurston Howell III who mistakenly ended up on the Isle of Colorado after an ill-fated three hour tour.

        1. I know that Bennet supports sportsmen, he really needs to illustrate that in his next ad.  While, I think it was important to show that Ken Buck’s morals are for sale, the ad is a POS created by some urban lefty that doesn’t understand gun owners—therefore somewhat counter-productive when you’re trying to gain favor in the older, white male crowd.

             

        1. before spouting of DCCC talking points. Strickland was very involved in the whole thing. Pop quiz: why did Strickland push for the prosecution in the first place?

          1. that Strickland isn’t running for anything.

            The fact is, he was involved in an ethically dubious communication with a politically connected defendant his office was prosecuting.

            The fact is, Buck was rebuked for a major ethics violation and quit the US Attorney’s Office shortly thereafter.

            Deflection of this nature means that these questions are hitting close to home.

            1. Strickland pushed the gun case against an innocent man out of political motivation. In the wake of Columbine, he was looking for a way to make himself look tough on crime. Throwing an innocent man under the bus in a quest for higher office is the only real tragedy here.

  2. Shawn Mitchell was Solicitor General for and actively involved in the 1996 US Senate campaign of Gale Norton.  Golyansky and his pals were donors to that campaign and that is where Shawn Mitchell got to know them and why he was so anxious to befriend him when he got into trouble

  3. This is a clear-cut example of a “when did he stop beating his wife” tactic.

    1.  Mitchell is an ardent defender of 2nd Amendment rights.  Golyansky is a gunshop owner.  Neither seems like the quiet and timid type.  It’s likely they have a big spheres of influence and were connected by one or two degrees.

    2.  Prosecuters and defense attorneys, believe it or not, sometimes know one another and even become friends on ocassion!  It’s very plausible that Mitchell had 1-2 recommendations that couldn’t take the case.  So, he calls up his friend and asks for referrals.  Absolutely nothing wrong with this.

    3.  Like any other political candidate who has a political liability, he knew he was going to have to address this.  One strategy would be to put it out there loud and clear in the beginning.  Or, you can wait until asked and be completely honest and up front about it.  Or, you can dodge it and/or equivocate (not recommended).  The point is, there are different, legitimate ways to handle this.  As you point out, this story came out over a year ago, and I’m not aware that he dodged it.

    Sure it’s an issue.  Certainly not career threatening:  he voluntarily left the US Attorney’s office, he became a high profile DA and is now ahead in the polls for a US Senate seat.

    1. If a gun shop owner who had not contributed to Gale Norton were similarly charged none of those staunch 2nd Amendment defenders would have given him the time of day.

      On the other hand the DPS pension deal was also wrong and Bennet should not have done it.

      What a race! Two candidates who play the edge and sometimes fall over it.

    2. Now, the first thing you’ll find kind of odd here is the idea that … anyone … would call someone who works in the prosecuting attorney’s office, for help finding a defense attorney against a case that same office is prosecuting.

      This fact is what puts the whole thing in perspective. Anyone with basic ethics would never have done this, no matter how many other avenues they might have tried first. And no one is saying that they tried any other avenues first.

      Your conclusion is pure spin. Buck was rebuked, then he left two months later. His departure may well have been voluntary, but it sure wasn’t planned. Also, June wasn’t “over a year ago.”

      1. I did civil defense in a fairly narrow field, and often got calls from potential plaintiffs and friends of potential plaintiffs seeking referrals.  I was happy to give them; we went up against the same attorneys all the time, and some of them were awful.  I happily recommended the attorneys who were sensible and not assholes.  

        OK, that said: It would have been a damn cold day in hell before I would have passed confidential information along to the lawyers I recommended.  That’s the unforgiveable offense that Buck committed.  If he thought that the prosecution was unjustified, he should have raised it within the office and let the attorneys who were actually handling the case and their supervisors make the call.  Taking an internal difference of opinion and using it to blow up the USA’s case cannot be justified, cannot be explained, and cannot be excused.  I wouldn’t vote for Buck in a million years because that was unethical and awfully stupid.  We have enough stupid unethical people in DC, and don’t need this one.

    3. Golyansky is a slimy scumbag that sells cheap guns in bulk that wind up in the hands of thugs, murderers, kids and drug dealers. He isn’t quiet nor timid – but he’s a horrible person who hides behind false patriotism to peddles his wares.

      The fact that Mitchell would help this man do anything speaks volumes about his morals, as well.

      Forgive the rant, but it irks me to no end when the 2nd Amendment is raised as a defense for slugs like Golyansky.

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

185 readers online now

Newsletter

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