R Congressman Leaves Threatening Message for Couple Who Wrote Critical LTTE

[tblue37]

From The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6781394

Doug Lamborn's voice messages to Jonathan and Anna Bartha
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 09/01/2007 05:52:52 PM MDT

The following is a text of two voice messages that Rep. Doug Lamborn left on the home telephone of Jonathan and Anna Bartha.

FIRST MESSAGE: "Hello, this is Doug Lamborn calling for either Jonathan or Anna. Something very serious has happened. There was a letter to the editor that you both put in your names to the editor of the Woodmen Edition and there is something that is blatantly false in that letter.
"I would like to get together with you and show this to you and appeal to you as a brother and sister in Christ. You didn't give me that opportunity but I am happy to overlook that and deal with you on that level because I think that is the right thing to do and show you where you made a blatant, wrong statement.

"Now there are consequences to this kind of thing, but I would like to work with you in a way that is best for everyone here concerned. So please call me at your earliest convenience. It is now 2:40 (p.m.) on Saturday afternoon.

SECOND MESSAGE: "Hello, this is Doug Lamborn again, I'm finishing up my message from a moment ago. I got cut off. It is critical that you get back to me as soon as possible on this because I'll be going back to Washington here in a few days and I have to make sure that this is resolved one way or another. And like I said I'd rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps, which I would rather not have to do. So please call me. This is essential. Call me by tonight, Saturday night and we can get together sometime Sunday afternoon."

They really do think we deserve to be punished if we dare to criticize them! Oh, and get this: a comment on The Huffington Post says that Jon Bartha is employed by Focus on the Family! Now they are eating their own, it seems.

[Joe Bacon]

1. Gee, doesn't he mean "Brother in ¢hri$t"?????

After all, when you're a Republican, the only thing you care about is how to maximize your own ¢a$h!

[rodeodance]

2. umm.. guess it is a wait and see what happens?

[rocktivity]

3. Uh, Congressman, if there was something in the LTTE that was false

then YOU'RE you're supposed to write a letter to the editor, not track down and harass its authors!

P.S. To the democrat who is running against this guy: he's put a campaign commercial in your pocket!

:eyes:
rocknation

[napi21]

4. Just what "other steps" is he talking about? I thought if someone

read an article or ltte they disagreed with, they wrote a counter argument in response and sent it to the paper for publication. Somehow I feel sure the paper would publish it since it's from an elected official. What's with this personal attack stuff?

[tblue37]

6. I think it is sort of like what was intended by Larry Craig

when he handed the cop his Senate business card and said, "What do you think about that?" The point is "I am a big, powerful Washington player, and I can apply pressure beyond anything you can imagine, so lighten up!"

[JeffreyWilliamson]

5. Hmm..

Looks as though this may be what has wound the guy up.

[tblue37]

7. I bet! But their letter contains not just accusations, but

evidence in support of those accusations, so I wonder what he thinks he can do to them.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

10. Well I'll be darned...

Some Republican somewhere makes some statement supported by evidence. Shocking, absolutely shocking!

My favorite part has to be the opening two sentences:

We are conservative Republicans and believe in the individual freedoms granted to us by our Founding Fathers.

Oh, I'll just bet you believe in them. But, I'll humor you...

However, there are moral limits that caring individuals can embrace without sacrificing the value of personal fiscal responsibility.

Huh?

And what does this have to do with the guy voting against stiffer penalties for dog fighting, as this couple mentioned in their Letter, (not defending the guy here, just curious what this has to do with personal fiscal responsibility).

[starroute]

14. Gambling = lack of personal fiscal responsibility

The fiscal responsibility part wasn't about the dog fighting but about him accepting money from the gambling industry.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

16. Wouldn't...

Wouldn't the liberty our Founding Fathers envisioned include the ability to decide whether or not to gamble?

I do like the addition of the dog fighting part though. It's kind of like they're saying, "He took money from the sinful gambling lobby", and then following it up by adding, "Look, he's just an all around bad person, too".

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Personal fiscal responsibility =no gambling.

He accepted donations from the gaming industry and did not want to crack down on dogfighting, which is after all, all about betting on the outcome.

I think it's funny - a repub politician being slammed by repubs for not being repub enough, who then turns around and treats them as he would treat dems.

Kicks my irony meter right off the scale.

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. Nothing. Precisely, nothing. Why he didn't rebut it in an LTTE, presumably.

Isn't that dog-fight ban no-vote absolutely despicable.

[LiberalFighter]

13. The only Colorado delegation member against stiffer penalties for dog fighting

Accepting contributions from gambling interests.

Not exactly the values that most of his supporters would condone I don't think.


Now I would be investigating to see whether he has any interests in dog-fighting like Michael Vick and whether he gambles at casinos and whether he receives preferential treatment from the industry.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

17. You know...

That's a good point. I failed to make the connection with gambling and dog fighting up there.

[LiberalFighter]

21. As a Democrat leaning very much to the left I would have a problem with those issues too

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Wow, I don't get anything when I click on that link.

I had to google the first sentence, and then the LTTE was only in the cache. I wonder if this guy threatened the paper as well.

If the facts were wrong, then why couldn't he just write a letter to the paper refuting them? If the facts are correct, then he is way, way, way, way off.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

20. Hmm...

The Denver Post's website appears to have "disappeared" the letter. Even when I go back and search for their names again, and am presented the link to the LTTE, the link is broken. Oh well.

A quick googling reveals that this congress fellow wrote a letter to some Republican party dude, saying that the couple lied when accusing him of accepting gambling company money. But oops, looks like public records are calling him the liar.

The whole debacle is laid out here:

http://coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2676

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Link seems to be working again.

I guess I let my paranoia get the best of me. :)

[pscot]

8. The district (CO-5) voted for Bush in 2004

by a 66/34 margin. It would probably take a public restroom event to dislodge this creep.

[msongs]

9. just another christian terrorist nt

[robinlynne]

11. looks like they did the right thing. twice.

[redirish28]

15. Thing is Jonathan Bartha is a employee of "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY"

AND is a sense threaten Lamborn first....


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6782060


I have to wonder if there editorial and the fact that the Gentleman was an employee of "Focus on the Family" was consider threatening to the Congressman... NOT THAT I'M SAYING IT WAS RIGHT for the Congressman to say that... BUT how much is this being hyped by the focus on the family members...


ALSO if they did slander this gentleman's name he would have reason to file a lawsuit...hence the

consequences....


I would love to see what they wrote in the woodman but so far have not been able to find it on the net.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. The link to the letter to the editor is in post #5 in this thread

Here: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6773515

It's a pretty straight forward and well documented letter.

They assert that the Congressman accepted donations from the gamboling industry.
That the congressman was the sole vote against stronger anti-dog fighting legislation
That the congressman ran on family values but then seems to support an industry antithical to family values.

The congressman's reaction is to bully in a round about way.

[rasputin1952]

27. Lamborn has no case for slander. If there is documentation to

back up the allegations, slander is off the table.

He is a remarkably stupid man to call them and leave messages, especially threatening ones, those threats being veiled or not. The posts to the story show me some pretty sane people that are wondering about the sanity of Lamborn...:)

Really, an incredibly stupid man, and he shopld be out of a job in the next election...:)

[MiniMe]

24. Are they sure it was the congressman?

I hate to defend the repub, but almost anybody could call and say they were the congressman. And did they save the messages? I certainly would have if I thought it was the congressman.

[tblue37]

25. Yep--it was him.

In another article, the congressman is quoted about the messages, and he in no way denies having made them:

When asked whether his messages were threatening, Lamborn said: "No, that is ridiculous. My hope, I failed, but I had hoped to meet with them privately and confidentially because lying is a serious matter. "

When asked what he meant when he said there would be "consequences," Lamborn said: "When someone tells a lie, it just has bad consequences."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6782060

[niyad]

26. the ltte was written to the woodmen edition ( a local paper with about 2 dozen readers), not the

denver post, for all those commenting below.

lamborn, for those of you unfamiliar with this idiot, now has the seat formerly occupied by joel hefley. he is such an embarrassment that his own party refused to endorse him in the electin (he is so awful he makes doug bruce--a local anti-government county commissioner, look almost sane)

[CoffeeCat]

28. I am so glad these people went public...

...and revealed that this politicians called them. It's beautiful that
they posted the transcript of his threatening phone call.

These bastard thugs are so used to threatening people (and each other), and
probably blackmailing. It's high time that someone exposed what goes on
behind the scenes.

I am so sick of our current politicians. They're corrupt clowns, and they
have such an enormous sense of entitlement. Every once in a while they
forget who they're talking to. Drunk on their own power, they become
oblivious to just how reckless and egotistical they all are.

Thank God these people didn't take his crap and exposed that jerk for who
he is.

We need a lot more of this. We need more people telling these people to
go to hell.

[tblue37]

29. I so agree with you. In an earlier post on this thread I compared his

messages to what Larry Craig intended when he showed the cop his Senate card and said, "What do you think about that?" His point (like Lamborn's) was, "I am a real big shot and you do not want to be messing with me!"

[tanyev]

30. Oh, my. You can watch the Freeper thought process in real time.

Colo Springs couple says got threatening call from congressman.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890523/posts

Summary first few posts: He must be a Dem.

Post 8: One of the brighter ones, who perhaps knows how to use the Google, says that he is a Republican.

Next few posts: That paper is a liberal rag, the couple must be Dems who are trying to distract from Hillary, and all congresscritters are jerks.

Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth when (if!) somebody discovers that the couple is as RW Republican as they come?