Man Bites Dog - Denver Post Attacks DA Carol Chambers

This essay was easy to write.  I simply copied the comment that I applied to the Denver Post's editorial recommending that DA Carol Chambers not be reelected. 

I find the Denver Post's October 2006 willingness to blow up a minor matter involving a Republican DA into a major story curious when compared to its decision to stop coverage on the much more serious actions of the state court administrator when it appeared that real criminal activity might have taken place:

The Denver Post does not exactly have a sterling reputation when it comes to DA [ Carol ]Chambers.

The public censure that it refers to was the result of a political show trial that the Post was promoting heavily just prior to the 2006 election. The trial could easily have been made more credible by scheduling it two weeks later. Had that happened, there is a good chance that she would have received no penalty as the Republican she was protecting was very much a victim of the legal system. I would hope that she would protect a Denver Post editor who was similarly victimized in exactly the same way.

The Denver Post made it impossible for Attorney Regulation, which normally doesn't punish any attorney for anything short of theft, to avoid issuing some penalty.

The range of possible penalties was much more severe than censure. While the trial was hyped before the election, the results were announced on the deadest news day of the year, Dec 26. Does the hand slap penalty and the timing of That announcement suggest that the Post was way over the line with its coverage?

It is my view that the Post editorial board is very willing to overlook severe misconduct by the legal system that involves Democrats - it stopped reporting on the Supreme Court's handling of former judge Manzanaras the second it became possible that the state court administrator might have been obstructing justice and never called for a criminal investigation - but it hyped Republican DA Chambers political show trial, and still does.

When it comes to reporting on the legal profession, you folks are nothing but enablers. I hope that it comes back to haunt you.

Meanwhile, try to ensure that your own hands are clean before you issue opinions like this. They are not.

Comments

[Norman Vans]

Ms. Chambers is a serial abuser of power. After watching her office in action for several years, and having clients on the receiving end of decidedly unfair, punative and just downright mean form of justice, I whole heartedly agree with the Post's editorial.

I find that Ms. Chambers is arbitrary, capricious and has little compassion. Ms. Chambers is on a vendetta to criminalize numerous social abuses rather than concentrate on real crime in the District. It seems her motivation is to generate revenue for the counties by incarcerating scores of white collar offenders who have no previous record of cirminal activity.

Finally, Ms. Chambers conflicts with the Republican leadership, or stated differently her husbands conflicts with the role of a sitting DA must be remedied. Ms. Chamber is obviously not going to relinquish power, so I suggest that her husband should abandon his role in the Arapahoe County Republican organization.

[A Watcher]

Norman, This wasn't as much a defense of Carol Chambers as a comment on the Denver Post's very curious double standard.

She didn't commit a felony, or even a misdemeanor as far as I can tell. Can the same be said about the state court administrator? No one knows because no one seems to want to investigate. Hmmm. Simple justice requires that if one gets more attention from the Post than the other, it shouldn't be Chambers.