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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 11, 2011 07:15 PM UTC

Hancock Goes Uncooperative, "Edited" Proof of Innocence Insufficient

  • 37 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

In a front-page story today in the Denver newspaper, the rapidly developing post-election scandal surrounding Denver Mayor-elect Michael Hancock becomes both much worse and, with respect to at least one important detail reported in recent days, the subject of an interesting disagreement between media outlets.

Chuck Plunkett and Jeremy Meyer report today that Hancock has “reneged” on a promise made to them just before the election to produce unedited cellphone and other records that would prove he was not a client of the Denver Players prostitution ring. Our read of this story strongly suggests that it was this promise to prove the allegations untrue in a reasonable timeframe which caused the Denver newspaper, and its TV news partner 9NEWS, to hold off reporting on this story between the Thursday when it originally broke online and Election Day. Needless to say, to backtrack on that promise of unedited records, demanding the right to “redact” information without oversight, significantly reduces the reliability of any disclosure.

Hancock’s spokesman Evan Dreyer asserts that the recent press coverage of the scandal, in particular coverage of the records request from the campaign right before the election, is making them less cooperative with reporters. But he also says they never promised to give up records without “reviewing them,” a point the Denver paper obviously disputes. Because anyone with more than two functioning brain cells already knows what the “edited” record will contain.

About the only thing in this story that you can’t describe as a disaster for Hancock, today’s front-page headline and nervous head shot being absolutely bad enough in the jaded court of public opinion, is one detail toward the end we do consider to be fairly important. 7NEWS reported Thursday night that sources had confirmed the documents with Hancock’s name and phone number do indeed exist in law enforcement records of the case. According to the Denver paper, this “runs counter” to what their own sources have said.

Because the existence of these records in law enforcement files would help confirm their authenticity, at least as far as existing well prior to Hancock running for Mayor, along with the many other names and phone numbers in the records of ex-pimp Scottie Ewing–such as former federal judge Edward Nottingham, who was forced to resign his position before his connection was fully investigated–we expect this question to be answered conclusively. Especially with major media outlets indirectly questioning one another’s integrity.

Something that does concern us, though, and we really want to softpedal this in the interest of not freaking our gentle readers out, is the, uh, funny business that has already occurred here. While it’s impossible to ascribe any responsibility for that incident at this time, or even associate it with certainty to this story more than any other possibility related to the infamous Denver Players, it’s just one of those things…that should compel smart people…to keep their eyes open.

Tweet
Share

Comments

37 thoughts on “Hancock Goes Uncooperative, “Edited” Proof of Innocence Insufficient”

    1. He creates promises to release phone records before the election, then he creates excuses to not release them after he’s elected.

      He’s also creating a credibility crisis.

      1. When you agree to let the union bosses union-up the city and reject all non union reform at DPS, then the  daily beatings on Colorado Pols will cease.

  2. Let’s now begin reading how Michael Hancock violating a transparency pledge designed to punt this story to after the election (which worked) is really an example of The Post (which failed to do its job originally by giving Hancock a pass) is part of the anti-Hancock conspiracy.

    How deep into the rabbit hole will the enablers go?  

    1. “I don’t care if he broke the law by hiring prostitutes.”

      “I don’t care that he promised transparency.”

      “I don’t care that his lawyers tried to block the release of police records.”

      “I don’t care that he promised one thing before the election, then reneged after he was elected.”

      Kool-Aid — Oh Yeah!

  3. All of you that were pissed at Pols and Westword for “breaking” a story with no merit, have been duped by the “mainstream, reputable” paper.

    I am not sure if I am more disappointed that a news paper decides to cheat the voters out of the ability to make an informed decision based on a promise by a politician or by the Politian accused of buying sex.  

    I expect the Politian to lie, and I would expect that the newspaper would report news when they become aware of it, especially if the news is time sensitive.

    Thank you Denver Post for showing journalistic integrity, we appreciate it.

      1. Yeah, why don’t media outlets just print rumors and documents that are handed to them at the last minute without trying to vet them? I mean, it’s hard to win a big libel verdict, anyway. CU was right to shut down it’s journalism department. The people clearly don’t want professional behavior from their media sources. …

      2. Whatever else we may think about the Post, I believe they were being responsible in holding this story until the facts could be determined.

        They only went public because they probably rightly felt the agreement they had with Hancock was abrogated.

        The journalistic bar for the other outlets (including Channel 7, apparently) was substantially lower.  And that’s fine, every organization (including Pols) has it’s job to do and market to serve.

        Re: the Post.  If Hancock is shown to have lied to the Post and 9News, he’ll have no mercy from them for as long as he’s in office.  But if nothing comes of this (even if it’s just an unsatisfactory conclusion that something happened some years ago, but doesn’t rise to the level of prosecution), then it’ll be business as usual for the media and Hancock.

  4. One week into this “scandal,” and STILL all you have is the word of an ex-pimp, a misspelled word at that. The only other “corroboration” — that the cops have the same document on file — is now in very serious question (and sorry, I believe the Denver newspaper before I believe Channel 7). And the cops have confirmed that they have no other evidence in their files, in response to Hancock’s lawyer’s request.

    And as far as the Hancock campaign wanting to review his e-mails before giving them up publicly, well hell, I can’t fathom anyone, let along a mayor-elect, not insisting on that. Obviously I have no idea what Evan Dreyer promised someone at the Post last week (although frankly, I would have said whatever I could to avoid a “Hancock refuses to release e-mails” story before e-day) but as far as the hooker deal goes, there’s nothing.

    Not saying it isn’t true. A week ago I would have sworn Anthony Wiener couldn’t be that stupid. But so far, there isn’t anything remotely convincing about it.

    1. Go to the Post article and watch the video they embedded. Shifting rationalization, retrenchment, deflection, desperation, etc. It’s quite a performance.

      And after all the hullabaloo over “corroboration,” an equal denunciation of Hancock & Co.’s tortured use of “exoneration” deserves even more mockery.

      Also, “Obviously I have no idea what Evan Dreyer promised,” is living in denial. Hancock’s reneged promise is laid out in detail in the Post article.

      Fact is, Hancock’s the one who put himself in the position

      The victimhood card has been played (quite successfully). But the winning chips have been cashed and spent. Enough already.

       

  6. Maybe if we’re lucky, whoever broke into Scottie Ewing’s home to steal the records will forward the documents to Wikileaks.

    That way all the big names (in sports, politics, business, or whatever) that frequented Players get to have their private peccadilloes revealed.  Then we can all get on with our lives.

    My fearless prediction is that unless the DPD has any evidence of wrong-doing, this thing fizzles out, Hancock has a lingering cloud around him, and we all move on to the next political scandal.

      1. The die-hard Romies (isn’t it cute that we can call them the same thing since they act pretty much the same way?) will keep harping on it, the die-hard Hancock supporters will find some rationalization, and in a month I doubt anyone else will really care anymore. Right now Hancock’s best strategy is to propose something controversial to get people arguing about something else.

        1. I’m a die-hard Romie, but, see my above quote, I don’t give dip-squat about the fact the mayor elect may have had sex out of wedlock and possibly even with commercial considerations.  Snore, snore.  Wake me when I give dip squat.

          1. just like not all Romanoff supporters went nuts after the primary. By “die-hard” I meant the people who still support Romer and oppose Hancock even after the election, which doesn’t include you. Maybe that’s not the best word choice.

  7. We are very close to proving that a man actually paid a woman for sex.  This has never, ever, happened in the history of Denver before.  I am shocked to the core of my being.

    Okay, we can gussie this story up by talking about cynicism, lying, transparency, manipulating the media,etc. But at bottom it is this: a man probably paid a woman for sex.

       The horror, the horror.

       I worked hard for Chris Romer, making about 2,000 phone calls since January.  We lost.  And we lost to a guy who may even have paid a woman for sex.

       Will the mountains withstand the shock?

       Will Jehovah dispatch an army of 10,000 angels to destroy Denver for it’s sinfulness.

       Will I, at long last, give dip-squat about this story?

       Nah.  

       Good luck to you, Mayor elect Hancock.  I wish you the best because your success will be success for all of us, including those who worked to elect some one else.

        Now, can we get on to something important, like whether the NFL will ever get this season started so we can talk about the only thing that really matters to Denver’s future, i.e. a quarterback controversy?

      1. I think there will be a public outcry if these allegations are not investigated and Michael Hancock doesn’t face the music. Our elected officials should NEVER be above the law.

    2. It doesn’t bother you that Hancock got the region’s biggest newspaper to hold off on a highly damaging story until after Election Day by promising to release the records that would prove his innocence — but now he’s reneging on his promise to release those records?

      If he lies to the region’s biggest newspaper (Post) and the biggest TV news station (KUSA) to win election, then when should we expect him to tell the truth?

        1. It’s about manning up to the truth.

          If he was having sex with hookers, he could have told the truth when asked before the election. Then all the people who care about the issue, and all the people who don’t care, could have voted with full knowledge.

          Instead, Hancock weasled out by promising to prove his innocence after the vote. And now he’s apparently breaking his promise.

          It’s the lying.

          If, as you and others say, that Denver voters really don’t care about sex with hookers, then why not just come clean about it?

          1. Why talk about Denver’s 100 million deficit when there are hookers to talk about?  Sex, drugs, Rock and Roll!

             The manning up thing is pure hypocrisy, an excuse to pretend you can wallow in sex without getting dirty, because you’re so high minded you’re not really interested in the sex.  

              I don’t believe it for a heartbeat, Iggy.

            Sex is sex and people who always find an excuse to talk about sex are interested in…uhh…sex!

            1. What if his name and cell phone number had turned up on the computerized database of a high-end cocaine dealer? Or weed dealer? Or automatic weapons dealer? Or child porno dealer? I’d still want the answer.

              It’s about the law when you’re on the City Council and it’s about whether you obey it or whether you’re truthful about it.

  9. After his first denial he should have just quit playing.

    “Mr. Hancock, did you go to a hooker?”

    “Nope”

    “Will you produce your phone records?”

    “Nope”

    “Will you produce your bank records?”

    “Nope”

    “Will you feed our maw?”

    “Nope”

  10. the REAL story is that Michael Hancock says that things like LEGAL rights like medical marijuana that the citizens of Denver enjoy are morally wrong while in private he may have been using his $78,000 annual salary as City Councilman to hire hookers which is AGAINST the law.

    Hypocrisy and thinking the law that applies to all of us but not himself is why people are upset

  11. It’s the cover up.

    Trying to hide something bad is always worse than just admitting it and then publicly pleading to god and country for forgiveness. Especially to the perp’s wife and family, begging for forgiveness because the divorce terms can be very harsh.

  12. As a candidate first and then as an elected official, if you could clear this mess up with the media, wouldn’t you do it asap?

    It’s not an important story but it’s not going to go away. Every one in Hancock’s inner circle knows it. This is not the kind of story that goes away. See: Clinton; Weiner; Hart; et al. None of their sex shenanigans were important in the grand scheme but “reporters” of all kinds, from Ken Starr to Peter Boyles, will dig into it like nothing else.  

    This latest backpedaling with the Denver Post throws up a major red flag in the world of scandal management. In about a week, Hancock is going to be the new mayor of Weinerland.

    That the Denver Post staff held off on simply laying out the facts they knew, even with caveats, is as awful as it is predictable. Last week this story was very thin but it was more than a rumor. That stupid paper is supposed to be serving the public not the candidates. If the Post had any legitimate competition, it would have run with the story. Just sucks.

  13. “Being male–once one of the world’s great genders–is now a problem to be overcome. . . . We’re expected to be vulnerable . . . to participate in recreational weeping.”

    But guys can’t. “Guys know nothing about girls except they want one–desperately. We were brought up to adore women–by our mothers. . . . Men can be taught monogamy as bears can be taught to ride bicycles, but it’s not natural.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/19…

    See also — The Book of Guys by Garrison Keillor; one of the funniest books I have ever read.

    (As for me and Mrs. Demar, we’ve been happily married for nearly thirty years.  I’ve never once cheated on her; nor ever been tempted to stray; nor even ever lusted after another woman; and I’ve certainly never, ever pondered spending time with a lady of the evening . . . and I’ve got the cell phone records to prove it all.  And, yes, of course you’re welcome to review them in their uneditied entirety — just as soon as you can pry them from my cold, dead hands.)

    1. can never prove Hancock’s innocence, or guilt. A record of frequent numerous calls to a pimp can lend credence to the assumption that Hancock knew what was going on, especially if those calls are made in the middle of the night.

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

120 readers online now

Newsletter

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