Hickenlooper’s attorneys warn TV stations that death penalty attack ad is “false;” RGA disputes claim

Article Comments

• We reserve the right to remove any comment we feel is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, or reckless to the community.
• We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.
• Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

• Dano2

  It’s great his Lawyers Are Talking, but he needs to get his face out there and do some Hick Talking, with a red face and angry, stating unequivocally this is a cheap lie. Do some campaigning, Hick, or lose to this second-rater.

  Best,

  D

  • ryecatcher

    Second that!

    • http://www.google.com ThePowerCompany

      Failed to lead as governor, now failing to lead as the Democrat candidate.

      • ryecatcher

        According to who? You? Pretty lame conjecture especially considering it’s your opinion only.

      • JustObserving

        Agreed. Failure to lead on most any front.

      • Dano2

        The Republic candidate is allowing made-up sh– to run in his name. And his base (and I do mean ‘base’) is foaming for more.

        Best,

        D

• ryecatcher

  Mr Beauprez tried to smear Bill Ritter with the same sort of fear and smear campaign and lost by a huge margin. This is the second person to come forward asking the Beauprez campaign to stop using their loss for political gain.

  This should tell us much about he ethics and political intelligence of Bob Beauprez and the operatives running his campaign. Mr Beauprez might be well advised to put a lid on it.

  Beauprez claims he’ll execute Dunlap if elected. He talks a good line but it’s doubtful he would have the authority to do so should he be elected. Mr Beauprez is an extremist and not a very bright one at that.

  • chris

    But it’s OK for Hick to use their loss for Political Gain?

    • ryecatcher

      Yes Chris. It’s OK for Hick to take advantage. Anything else? Bye.

• FocoRigido

  ‘Hickenlooper’s Lawyers’. Lol. Hickenlooper will not be re-elected regardless of how many Mouth-Pieces come to his aide. His political career in Colorado is over.

  Hickenlooper knows it. His Party knows it. Even his Shysters running interference for him know it. His Lawyers, his party, his followers, all powerless to save him. His fate was decided last year during recall.

  Hickenlooper’s day of reckoning is upon him, and like the sniveling, slithering, coward he is, he’s chosen to adopt the same ‘scorched-earth/hunker-in-the-bunker mentality’ his 3 Co-Conspiring (D) Senators who were recalled/forced out of Office last Sept. adopted. It didn’t work for Morse, Giron or Hudak, and it won’t work for their former boss Hickenlooper either.

  Hickenlooper is finished. Good riddance to another arrogant, elitist coward Politician. :)

• IndyThought

  Now Hick is playing the legal card in his desperate campaign to save his sorry political posterior.
  The voters are angry at his threats to give clemency to the multiple murderer if he loses. And now he attempts to threaten again using some faceless lawyers.
  What a loser Hicky is.

• theregoi

  “There is not an error in the RGA ad…” said Gail Gitcho of the RGA.

  I don’t know how Republicans sleep at night. They tell a lie–everyone sees it’s a lie–yet they insist on sticking with their lie. Just like Congressman Cory Gardner insisting there is not a federal personhood bill even when everyone knows there is. Compulsive lying is a personality disorder.

  • Bill R

    Look up the legal definition of clemency. Many different scenarios fall under clemency. I’m sure Hickenlooper does not intend to set him free, but he was intentionally vague when he said it leaving it open for interpretation. It has definitely backfired.

    • ryan cordova

      Here’s the legal definition for clemency in Colorado: “full clemency refers to life in prison with no possiblity for parole.”

      So yeah, pretty obviously a lie to say that Hickenlooper said he could walk when there’s no possible way he could.

      • Bill R

        That’s simply not true. Look up the “legal” definition of clemency. What you have cited is one of many different scenarios that clemency could be interpreted. I am sure that the Gov didn’t mean that, but he didn’t really ever say what he meant.

        • ryan cordova

          I’m quoting the legal definition from the Colorado Revised Statutes.

          If you have a Colorado law that states different I’d be more than happy to see it.

        • chris

          If you quote C.R.S., then provide the number(s) or shut-up!

• bnk11839

  No one really believed that this mass murderer was going to be set free, did they? If anyone as ever seen a 6′ x 9′ foot cell that this guy gets to live in for the rest of his life, one wonders if death is too easy. It’s definitely a lot more costly.

  • chris

    Given what the Dem’s have done in Washington and through out the rest of this “formerly” great Nation, I put NOTHING past them. They’re hell bent on destroying this Country and I am unable to fathom why.

    There is something clearly broken in the mindset of most Democrats.

• Shineon83

  —-Give me a break! The Dem’s Kay Hagan in NC IS running a completely inaccurate ad saying that her Rep. Opponent will create more “Trayvon Martins”—Has the ad been pulled? Nope. In Texas, the DEM candidate for governor has been running ads of an empty wheelchair—pointing out her Rep opponent’s paraplegic status…Pulled? Nope……

  —-Now, a FACTUAL ad (Hickenlooper told CNN he “had tools” he could implement if he lost the election to keep Dunlap from facing execution—What the heck ELSE does that mean???? Now Dunlap’s victim’s COUSIN is weighing in?? Sorry, toots—a father has a far greater right to voice his opinions on his daughter’s death than a dang COUSIN!

  • ryan cordova

    You realize that this isn’t NC, right?

    You do also realize that Colorado specifically has a law against airing provably false ads, right?

    Oh you didn’t? Yeah, you can go home now.

    “Hickenlooper told CNN he “had tools” he could implement if he lost the election to keep Dunlap from facing execution—What the heck ELSE does that mean????”

    Since you don’t seem to understand what the words you’re using actually mean, clemency doesn’t mean that Dunlap will walk but that he won’t be executed.

    That’s the lie, saying that he COULD walk if Hickenlooper is elected despite there being no possible way for that to ever occur.

    But go ahead, keep defending the usage of a tragedy to benefit your sides political cause.

    Really helps define how scuzzy y’all are.

• proudmale

  Those who cannot campaign based on their record are reduced to campaigning via extra-legal attack threats.

  Surely the Governor of Colorado is not telling a citizen that he cannot exercise their 1st Amendment Rights. Didn’t he swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Colorado Constitution?

  What about Channel 9? Are they denying the right of a citizen to make an advertisement using their 1st Amendment Rights? Thought journalists held that sacred. Guess that the liberalism at MSNBC has worked its way all the way down to the station level.

  If the ad is defamation of character, let Hick take them to court. The ad does not appear to be a threat to public safety, is not inciting people to do harm, and does not attack somebody based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other valid reasons for Channel 9 to decline running the ad.

  Well, guess that is what parental controls and station blocking in particular was designed for.

  • ryan cordova

    There’s a law in Colorado about airing provably false ads.

    The idea that Dunlap COULD walk if Hickenlooper were reelected is provably false.

    Do you think the right to lie supersedes the right to accurate information?

    • proudmale

      It has ever since the Supreme Court ruled against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Are you telling me that Colorado law trumps the Constitution? Further, I think both sides, including those I support, are guilty of stretching the truth.

      Nope, I will stand by the First Amendment, something channel 9 used to defend. If Hick thinks it is a lie, then buy adds telling his rationale. For that matter, why don’t you ask slick willy while he is in town about some “Rich” pardons he made his last hour in office.

      • ryan cordova

        So yes, you think the right to lie is more important than the right to accurate information.

        Thankfully the courts disagree with you and things like libel and slander are criminal offenses. P.S. neither slander nor libel are qualified for protection under the First Amendment.

        • proudmale

          Where is the libel? I fought for those liberties, so I am defensive about them.

          I know that Governors have the power to commute sentences. What section of C.R.S. are you looking at that says differently?

          Further, why do you want to deny the father his right to say how disgusted he is with hick.

        • ryan cordova

          You might need to look up the word “commute.”

          Also, I’d suggest you compare the legal terms “clemency” with “pardon.”

          Your side is deliberately confusing the two in order to spread libel.

        • proudmale

          Where in CRS is it stated that the advertisement is illegal. You made the assertion, I am asking for a citation. Unless of course you are stating only your opinion. I gave you the original court ruling on free speech, the under lying act caused the end of the Federalists.

          Colorado Constitution Section 4 Article 7

          The Governor shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons after conviction, for all offenses” except in cases of treason and impeachment. The Governor can place any conditions on a pardon as he deems proper, so long as the condition is not illegal, immoral, or impossible to perform.

          C.R.S. 16-17-101. Governor may commute sentence

          The governor is hereby fully authorized, when he deems it proper and advisable and consistent with the public interests and the rights and interests of the condemned, to commute the sentence in any case by reducing the penalty in a capital case to imprisonment for life or for a term of not less than twenty years at hard labor.

          Unless you have any better information, there is absolutely nothing that I know about in our laws or under our Constitution that would interfere with Hick’s commute Mssr. Dunlap;’s sentence to 20 years.

          We saw with Bill Clinton when he left office, that one of his last actions was to free some of his political cronies. So where is the lie that you see that overcomes our first and most precious Free Speech? It would be most unfortunate for any Chief Executive to deliberately, and callously over trod that right that over 42 million members of our Armed Forces during times of war have fought for and defended with their lives, their formerly intact bodies, and for every single one of us, a heck of a lot of our today’s to defend.

        • ryan cordova

          “Where in CRS is it stated that the advertisement is illegal. You made the assertion, I am asking for a citation.”

          Where did I make the assertion that the CRS says it’s illegal?

          You’ll notice I never did, but here’s the statute that applies in this instance: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251767694839&ssbinary=true

          CRS 1-13-109 (1) (b):

          “Knowingly making, publishing, broadcasting, or circulating in any letter, circular, advertisement, or poster or in any other communication any false statement designed to affect the vote on any issue submitted to the electors at any election or relating to any candidate for election to public office is a class 1 misdemeanor.”

          Also, you need to look up the word “commute” still, as saying that the governor can commute his sentence is not what I’m arguing. He can, just like he can grant clemency.

          That’s not what the commercial is threatening. The commercial is making the claim that Dunlap will “walk free” which would be a PARDON, not a commuted sentence, OR clemency.

          Thus, it’s a lie. A bald faced lie.

        • proudmale

          So you are now recognizing the governor’s authority to change Dunlap’s living conditions by commuting his sentence to 20 years.

          We are now reduced to correcting the grammar of the advertisement. If that is going to be the basis for the courts future, we better put on a few more judges. Hick has the ability to change Dunlop’s life, and his admitted opposition against the death penalty is certainly well documented.

          Only, like with so many of his actions, the little worm occupying the big seat at the State Capitol has put off until after the election his decision. Why put it off? Walking away from a commutation, and letting the death penalty proceed would certainly win him some votes. The only reason is that the little boy Hick has become, does not have his Mommy’s hand to hold onto while he talks to the big bad people in the press.

          Get real. His actions have one, and only one, logical conclusion. I laid out the Colorado Constitution granting him his powers, and the Colorado Revised Statutes covering the 20 year limit. But, since this is a Constitutional grant of power, the statute may be meaningless to an outgoing Governor.

        • ryan cordova

          If you really see the distinction between “he could WALK” and “he could spend the rest of his life in a lesser jail” as a distinction of grammar, then you are seriously desperate.

        • proudmale

          He could be totally free after 20 years worst case. Granted, his actions forever sentence him to a private internal prison, but that is beside the point. Did you not read the 20 years section of the law?

          Further, since the Constitution gives Hick unlimited power to commute with the exception of treason and impeachment, he could ignore the statutes and rely on his constitutional power. There have been plenty of examples of Presidents and Governors attempting to enforce their full constitutional authority.

      • chris

        Actually, YES. Colorado Law DOES trump Federal Law. Go back to the school and re-read the Federalist Papers! The Federal Government was put in place to provide for a common defense and to mediate differences between the States, NOT to tell the States and its citizens what they can and can not do! If you don’t LIKE the Laws in Colorado, find a State where you do and I will pay for your moving expenses!

        • proudmale

          Chris, have you ever taken the time to actually read the United States Constitution? I ask this because it completely riddles your statement. I have developed some respect for a lot of the stuff you say, even when I do not agree with you. In this case, you are way off base.

          The Constitution is a wonderful document that can easily be read in less than 1 hour. The full text is available at Wikipedia, as well as numerous other sites. The Wiki citation is:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

          Prior to getting into Federalist 33 (Hamilton) and Federalist 44 (Madison), let’s take a peak under the hood of the Constitution:

          Article 6, Paragraph 2 is frequently called the Supremacy Clause in that it specifically gives the Federal Government Supremacy. It reads:

          “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. …”

          This is frequently coupled with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, the Necessary and Proper Clause which gives the Federal Government and its Departments supremacy when they are performing duties that are Necessary and Proper; Combined, they serve as the basis for Federal Supremacy.

          Moving along in th Constitution stop at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 — the Commerce Clause. This has been increasingly used over the last 50 years to give the Federal Government the power to regulate just about anything since in our economy it is hard to find something not related to interstate commerce. For example it is this clause giving the Federal Government the right to set a Minimum Wage law.

          The Vth Amendment known as the Due Process Clause. Part of this has been made famous in TV shows where somebody gets their Miranda Rights read to them before questioning. There is another part of this Amendment that gives property owners the right to compensation when their property is taken for public purposes.

          The XIIIth Amendment abolished slavery. That was a Southern economy and lifestyle built upon this terrible system. The Federal Government came in and nullified all of the Southern Laws relating to slavery, and gave them all freedom. A supremacy action that I am sure you will join me in saluting.

          The XIVth Amendment is commonly known as the Civil Rights Amendment. Over the last 150 years it has grown and spread Federal Supremacy far beyond the simple action of giving the former slaves the right to vote and having protection under the law. Again, I believe you will join me in saluting at least most of that growth.

          There are other Sections such as the President being Commander in Chief and therefore able to nationalize the State National Guard Units etc. But the above ones are the main Federal Supremacy standards for our beloved Constitution.

          Now then, it appears you decided to challenge my statement based on the Federalist Papers. Let’s take a look under the hood of Federalist 33 by Alexander Hamilton. Not wanting to be accused of selective editing, I will use his now outdated spelling.

          Wednesday, January 2 1788 — Independent Journal Concerning the Power of Taxation

          “THE residue of the argument against the provisions of the Constitution in respect to taxation is ingrafted upon the following clause. The last clause of the eighth section of the first article of the plan under consideration authorizes the national legislature “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof”; and the second clause of the sixth article declares, “that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made by their authority shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

          These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light, it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers. This is so clear a proposition, that moderation itself can scarcely listen to the railings which have been so copiously vented against this part of the plan, without emotions that disturb its equanimity.”

          http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm

          Hamilton goes on to argue that it is ridiculous to expect the Federal Government to pass laws and to not give them the authority to enforce those laws. He specifically expands this beyond taxation to other areas of regulation as are deemed fit. I admit that the deeming fit is part of the work required for the Supreme Court to offer the final interpretation on, not just the government employee. It shouldn’t take you much longer than 10 minutes to read this paper if you want to capture it’s nuances on your own.

          The other relevant Federalist Paper is Federalist 34 by James Madison. Let’s see his take on Supremacy.

          Friday, January 25, 1788 New York Packet Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States

          This paper is a little longer, and will take you a little over 1/2 hour to read. In it, James Madison goes through the various supremacy clauses of the Constitution and argues for the necessity of each type of Federal Supremacy. For example, in discussing the Supremacy Claus Madison writes:

          “Of these the first is, the “power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

          Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the form of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?”

          His closing statement regarding Supremacy is powerful, yet fairly simple:

          “We have now reviewed, in detail, all the articles composing the sum or quantity of power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, and are brought to this undeniable conclusion, that no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary objects of the Union. The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved.”

          I believe that this fully defends the legal basis of Federal Supremacy, including the First Amendment Free speech rights that led to this side discussion away from the main concept of this article.

          Do you have ANY evidence supporting your position that you would care to post?

          By the way, I can save you a lot of money. Just give me half of the moving costs, and I will start each post with CHRIS DO NOT READ THIS. You save money, I stay in the area I love, and you are spared from reading my posts. What could be fairer.

• GenePH

  What Hickenlooper is actually worried about with this line of questioning is not even mentioned yet. It is the line by one media reporter that made Hickenlooper go white in the press conference after Mr. Clement and Mr. Leon were murdered – he never answered the question and nobody has dared ask it again. It is the prison gang connection and big money, ie. Ebel, to the Saudi rapist and and the Democrat lawyer who represented the Saudi rapist and even federal level connections. Where are the investigative reporters?

• Pingback: New tests, scores fabricate school crisis in Colorado - Colorado Media

• clutch

  After that sleazy ad I think Beauprez’s name should be Sleazbag Bob instead of Blockhead Bob.