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
March 11, 2013 09:35 AM UTC

Elected County Sheriffs and High-Stakes Politics Mix Poorly

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We talked today about the last-minute desperation on the part of Republicans and their gun-advocate allies to kill some or all of a package of five gun safety bills that won initial passage in the Colorado Senate on Friday. A key tactic employed by Republicans and allies in this debate has been to flood the field with as any dire allegations about what these bills would do as possible, regardless of factuality. The goal being to keep the outrage bubbling harder than can be debunked–assuming the press even has the time or willingness, which they often don't.

As you know, county sheriffs in Colorado are elected officials–in a very many cases in this state, Republican elected officials who are eager for political advancement. This has made them a fast ally of the gun lobby and Republicans tryint to kill these bills, in marked contrast, for example, to appointed urban police chiefs much more inclined to support them. There are other factors in that divide, but this is the principal one.

This weekend, politicized, elected law enforcement converged with the aforementioned political desperation to kill this package of gun safety bills, and the general atmosphere of truthlessness cultivated by gun advocates.

And the results were not pretty. KRDO-TV Colorado Springs:

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa dropped a bombshell over the weekend claiming Colorado Senate Democrats are threatening sheriffs' salaries because sheriffs oppose gun control legislation. But big questions remain about who the threats came from.

Maketa made the allegations Saturday morning on the Jeff Crank Radio Show on KVOR. He said he got an email from a member of the County Sheriffs of Colorado describing a verbal conversation that person had with someone connected to Senate democrats.

"Basically in that email, it said the Senate majority leadership, the Dems, are very upset with your opposition and testimony on the gun bills and they are stating we should reconsider our positions to gain a more favorable light for salary support from the Dems," Maketa said.

In a nutshell: that Senate democrats are delaying a measure to raise sheriffs' salaries because sheriffs are speaking out against gun control…

In a talk-radio setting, something like this coming from a sworn law enforcement officer is going to sound absolutely horrible. El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa's allegation, which he represents as fact even as he throws in that it's second hand information, is pretty nasty. We, and we don't think anybody who reads this blog in either party would condone a quid pro quo arrangement of silence for pay raises, even on an issue we support. That said, things like this probably do happen, and the picture can easily form in the public's imagination.

The only problem? There's no proof of any of it.

After presumably having it breathlessly pitched to him by dozens of outraged conservatives, 9NEWS' Kyle Clark posted this on his Facebook wall last night, explaining why his station hasn't bit on the story:

Here's what we know: We asked Sheriff Maketa to discuss his very serious claim with us and provide a copy of the email he cited. Through a spokesman, he declined to speak with us or make the email public.

Additionally, the County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC), through which the alleged threat was communicated, says it has no knowledge of the issue.

Sheriff Maketa called for an investigation by the Attorney General. We spoke with AG John Suthers directly. He said he has no knowledge of the sheriff's request. [Pols emphasis]

Here's what Sheriff Maketa said the supposed threat from Democrats consisted of on Jeff Crank's radio show:

And there is another bill, that has been put off and put off, and that is Salary Commission which makes recommendations to the legislature for the pay of Sheriffs and other county elected officials. As you know, Jeff, my pay is actually set by the legislature. Well, Governor Ritter, under his tenure, created a commission that would study these salaries and come forward with fact-backed recommendations. Now this salary bill has no effect on me. But the Dems have been dangling it out there and refusing to follow their own created commissions’ recommendations. They’ve put it off now for two years.

And basically in that email it said you Sheriffs, um the Senate Majority Leadership…, the Dems, are very upset over your testimony in opposition on the gun bills. And, um, they are stating that, um, basically, um, we should reconsider our position to gain a more favorable light for salary support from the Dems...

Of course, Senate President John Morse denies all of this. But one thing is right, there is no bill on raising the salary of county sheriffs before the legislature this year. That's not the result of politics, though: presently a "Category I" county sheriff in Colorado, such as El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, makes over $111,000 a year: more than the Attorney General, or even the Governor. As we've discussed many times, there is a disconnect between salaries paid and caliber of candidates expected for elected office in this state. For whatever reason, though, that does not hold true in the case of Colorado's elected county sheriffs.

Unless Sheriff Maketa some hard evidence to back up this totally unsubstantiated allegation, or at least has it corroborated by someone, we're filing this with all the other distractions and falsehoods from the GOP in this debate. Maketa should be ashamed for engaging in factually evasive misinformation as a sworn law enforcement officer. And even though it wouldn't help the term-limited Maketa personally, this is a terrible way to ask for a raise.

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “Elected County Sheriffs and High-Stakes Politics Mix Poorly”

    3. Elliot Fladen has three heads, but he usually retracts two of them into his shoulders except in private, where the extra pair come out and sing Justin Bieber tunes. I refuse to substantiate this in any way or produce any evidence. Fladen denies it. But that doesn't make it necessarily false or even off-topic.

      1. I thought you would put something funnier….like what I just PM'd you. 

        In any event, I recognize the "can't disprove a negative" point, but it's one thing to say you CANNOT disprove a negative and another thing to say that you have SUCCEEDED in doing so.  I interpret the OP of doing the latter. 

          1. Aristotle – 
            I think you mean burden of proof.  And remember – failure to meet your burden doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means you didn't meet your burden.  

  2. You could consider submitting a CORA and see what turns up (NOT LEGAL ADVICE).  My point is simple: on what you got right now, you don't know if the allegation is either false or a distraction. 

    1. This is an example of your worthlessness. Under what code of reason is a completely unsubstantiated allegation to be taken at face value? None.

      If Maketa knows something, he better show it.

  3. Aristotle,
    Did I say it was to be taken at face value?  I'm pretty sure I didn't 😉

    Instead what I said was "Just because you feel something is not adequately substantiated hardly makes it necessarily false or even a distraction."

    This in turn was in response to the OP's original post where it was stated: "Unless Sheriff Maketa some hard evidence to back up this totally unsubstantiated allegation, or at least has it corroborated by someone, we're filing this with all the other distractions and falsehoods from the GOP in this debate."
     

    1. Either your post means precisely what I said, or it's meaningless. There is no reason to say such a thing if you don't believe it's upon Pols (and everyone else) to consider Maketa's allegations without proof.

    2. You really are worthless.  If the sheriff had anything to back up what he was saying, he would have produced it.  Ergo, those of us who know something about the law and logic are entitled to draw the inference that it is false.  Prove me wrong.  Give me another reason to question my judgment.  But do not say that we have no reason to conclude that what he said was false, because of course, we do.  That's why 9 News isn't publishing the story.  They're doing their job, for once in their lives.  Congratulations.

  4. Aristotle,
    The OP suggested Maketa's allegations were false because they were not sufficiently substantiated to the OP's liking.  There is a big difference between (purportedly) unsubstantiated and false.  I'm saddened that you do not seem to understand this. 

    1. I believe I understand it better than you understand the use of the "Reply" link.

      Politics is to be regarded as a court. Something IS false until it's shown to be true.

      Come to think of it, Reason works on the same principle. The opposite is cant, an area in which you demonstrate a remarkable proficiency.

      1. Aristotle – a person isn't proven "innocent" they are proven "not guilty."  Again, you are generally missing the distinction between insufficient evidence and evidence that demonstrates an opposite is true. 

        2. So every conservative conspiracy needs to be treated seriously?

          If you guys didn't have conspiracy theories you wouldn't have anything to cling to.  What a bunch of losers.

        1. Craig has already informed you about this but let me take a crack at it. The El Paso County Sheriff is a police officer. Therefore he knows what the terms "documentary evidence" means.

          He said he has an email that substantiates what he said about a threat from the Senate Democrats over the pending gun legislation. That's documentary evidence.  In this case the alleged email isn't covered by a legal privilege. It can be divulged at any time.

          However, the facts as we know them at the moment suggest he isn't telling the truth. The news media asked for a copy and the sheriff refused to give them one. The sheriff's association who allegedly received the email has stated they don't know what the El Paso sheriff is talking about. Therefore, it is logical to conclude the El Paso sheriff is not telling the truth. Because he won't divulge the email, he is creating a presumption that he isn't telling the truth.

          Bottom line: This is real simple. All the sheriff has to do is produce the email. He either has it or he doesn't.

          2. while he is at it…let him produce his birth certificate to prove he is even an American citizen and therefore has a right to an opinion and a right to be a sheriff. That's the new standard…right?

    2. You can't prove a negative.

      You say you're trying to prove a limited point, but this is not limited at all. It's actually the linchpin of Maketa's contention. And your point fails because of that fact.

      1. Actually, I never said I was trying to prove Maketa was correct.  I even suggested you could do CORA (not legal advice) if you wanted to figure out was going on.  Instead, I was pointing out that you don't have evidence yet that this is false.  

        1. Roasted cabbage

          quarter a head of cabbage and remove heart from the best looking quarter. Save the heart and the other 3 quarters for your dogs. They will love it lightly steamed.

          Place your chosen quarter in enough reusable aluminum foil to wrap

          put on sun dried tomatoes, pieces of bacon or ham, pieces of carrot and broccoli.

          drizzle with olive oil

          wrap and bake at 400 for 15 minutes, open and broil for 5 minutes or until cabbage begins to brown

                1. EF- You really have no standing to take part in a civil, intelligent discourse. You display an inability to grasp key elements of the conversation, have nothing positive, constructive or progressive to offer, AND have absolutely no self awareness as to your deficiencies.

                  That said, I believe you have, along with the rest of us, a God given ability to grow and correct your defiecinces. I want to wish you good luck and God Bless. Everyone deserves a chance.

                  1. Hmmm….I'm pretty sure that I have not once said anything along the lines of suggesting that a person eat their genitals in lieu of ham or bacon.  But apparently suggesting this stuff of the sort is what you guys here term as civil, intelligent discourse.  I disagree, but hey – to each his or her own. 😉 

                    1. really never heard that kind of talk before? You have been a very sheltered individual. Thats the way buddies talk

                    3. I'm just finding this comical
                      Step 1) Criticize Elliot for not adding to conversation
                      Step 2) (after Elliot makes points) tell him to either fuck off or to eat a dick
                      Step 3) (after Elliot points out the above don't add to the conversation) – say Elliot has no sense of humor.  

              1. @ Elliot, again, no reply button there. Elliot, you made no points at all. Except that you did get a LOT of sympathy when you said you don't eat pork, smoke weed OR drink, So, you get ALL your pleasure from argumentation with folk that eat your lunch. Sad life.

                1. Gray, from the very beginning of this discussion I have had a single point: namely that unsubstantiated isn't the same as false.  That's it.  It was a limited point. 

                  1. 6 words that I and most would agree with "unsubstantiated isn't the same as false". And then, unless trying to be a nudge, one shuts their pie hole

  6. Emails are released. No smoking gun in the exerpts published in the Denver newspaper. Sounds like whining from those wishing a raise during a not sparkly economy

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

177 readers online now

Newsletter

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