If you just scanned yesterday's Denver Post, with the headline "Nothing incriminating found in Hancock cellphone records: No links to prostitutes found," you might think that Mayor-elect Michael Hancock had officially put the allegations of whoremongering and cover-ups behind him. When we first read the Post story we thought this might have been the tipping point that moved the story back in Hancock's favor.
Then 7News rejected an offer to review the very limited amount of records based on the ridiculous conditions that the Hancock campaign demanded. When CBS4 joined them in their rejection of the investigative handcuffs the Hancock campaign required for access, we knew new battle lines had been drawn in this full blown media war.
Just the fact that CBS4 waded into this battle publicly, and not at all favorably to Hancock, is big news. They have been by far the most skittish outlet about reporting details of this story at all. Here's how CBS4 responded to the campaign demands:
CBS4 News Director Tim Wieland rejected the offer Tuesday afternoon.
“We do have an interest in reviewing the unedited phone records,” wrote Wieland. “However we will not conduct a review under the unusual conditions you have outlined.”
This aggressive posture from CBS4 has transpired while the Denver Post/9News team agreed to wear the handcuffs in the name of access, making it appear as though they've decided to back off the story a bit.
It seems to us almost like a long distance race at this point with outlets taking turns charging this story forward. The big question to be settled is if, or when, the Michael Isikoff of this race, Deborah Sherman of 9News, will take the lead and bring the investigation to a close, one way or the other.
As for the current state of the story, the conditions set forth by the Hancock campaign are so ridiculous and constraining that they just make Hancock look as guilty as his decision to reject access outright did:
• Reporters will be able to review Michael’s complete, unedited and un-redacted cell phone records for March, April, May, September and October in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
• Any reporting/writing will only involve numbers related to Denver Players/Denver Sugar and the allegations that Michael Hancock solicited prostitutes.
• Reporters will share with us the specific phone numbers and names they are looking for just prior to sitting down and reviewing the records.
• If there is a match, reporters will point out those numbers on the spot, with the understanding that no one leaves the room/contacts that number until the records review is complete.
• The records review will occur at the offices of Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck. There will be no photocopying, reproduction or republication of the records.”
The demands give the distinct impression that either Hancock has the world's worst communications team or he is still hiding something. In the court of public opinion, having your high-priced and politically connected lawyers so transparently attempt to tightly control an investigation's scope, and the reporting of that investigation, does not help towards building an image of innocence and transparency.
Beyond the media narrative developing over this scandal, there are also some unresolved disagreements between major outlets over basic facts of the investigation. Even though the Pony Tailed Poet, Mike Littwin, may have been literally in the driver's seat for part of the investigation, there are great investigative journalists working this story. We doubt they'll drop it until these central facts are determined.
Below are a couple of key unsettled basic facts about the story, as well as what Donald Rumsfeld would call "known unknowns" that we think could shake up or kill the story.
FACTUAL DISAGREEMENTS
1. Does a law enforcement agency have Michael Hancock's name and cell phone number in their file? 7News's sources say so. The Denver Post has sources that say otherwise.
1a. Does one outlet have DPD sources while the other federal? The Denver Players investigation has been handled by both the DPD and the feds.
2. What phone numbers can be connected to the Denver Players network? The Denver Post and 9News had a set of 150, but 7News rejected the Hancock demands partly because they refused to share their list of phone numbers with the campaign, claiming it could reveal their sources and research methods.
KNOWN UNKOWNS
1. Will Denver Players or other escort services produce their own phone records? Phone calls are recorded on the call records of both ends of the conversation.
2. What does Deborah Sherman have and will she be allowed to release it?
3. What maneuvers are being made behind closed doors to quash the investigation to protect people much more powerful than Michael Hancock who were Denver Player customers?
4. What are the details of the negotiations that occurred over the weekend between the Hancock legal team and the Denver Post/9News?
5. With the transition coming, and a potential shake up at DPD, will a disgruntled DPD source come forward with more information?
6. Will the Hancock campaign be able to produce conclusive evidence or sufficient access and openness that satisfies all the major outlets, thus killing the story?
As our loyal readers may have noticed, we have not made a claim about the ultimate veracity of the allegations. That is because there are still too many unanswered questions. For us, it's too soon to be sure either way.
It has come to be my understanding that the Denver Players only used real phone numbers as a PIN to validate the solicitation when the call was made. So if this is the case (need help readers), the fact that Han(d)cock’s cell records show nothing means EXACTLY that. He could have requested the solicitation through all KINDS of different ways (adulterer politicians usually aren’t stupid), payphones, land lines, disposable cell phones, etc. and THEN “verified” himself using his REAL number after the call connection was made.
This is not really all that much of a “conspiracy theory”, since I recall reading that at one time (need help w/ citation). Why isn’t that being asked?
http://www.denverpost.com/comm…
I know the story has been updated and my question was the cause for the record request, but finding out HOW Denver Players verified the transaction is a very important aspect of this case. Explaining how Players “verification service” basically worked is one of the greatest known unknowns IMO.
Either way, Han(d)cock has handled this HORRIBLY and should be a one-term mayor (at best), this cloud of suspicion can find it’s way into EVERYTHING he does from now on. Good work Dreyer!!!
Seems like that could be a hard one to answer now that it appears Scottie Ewing has tired of the story: http://www.denverpost.com/poli…
From all the reporting I’ve read it appears that Denver Players usually called the number back that was the PIN at least once to verify ownership. But politicians, especially sitting city councilman, probably didn’t follow the usual method. Even if he did, that call most likely happened outside the months that Hancock released. If only Scottie Ewing or other folks would release their phone records they might be able to prove it.
Also, I hear constant rumors that a news outlet has at least one of the escorts on the record identifying Hancock. But until such an interview is released, it remains just rumors.
To be fair to Hancock, it is hard to disprove a negative. But the fact that the City Attorney and Deb Sherman heard about it in 2008, and then it comes up again now, makes it more than just idle blog rumors.
was used to verify, so they either could have called it or not. If they could simply make sure the line was tied to the john, then that was probably sufficient. It should be noted that Nottingham was brought down by a divorce case, the girls and a driver–not directly by Ewing or the records.
As to the conditions Hancock placed on the release was an absolute joke. No phones or laptops, examination by Team Handcock of any notes, escorts to the bathroom…simply put, does someone who’s being forthright need all those conditions? If his financial records don’t show anything, then this story is on shakier ground. He hopefully shouldn’t have a problem as higher offices require financial disclosures any way (minus transactions). Some might think he went thru a 3rd party, but that’s doubtful. A cash withdrawal is pretty ambiguous, hence why drug dealers don’t take checks or credit cards. The best part for him and Denver voters is his salary is already public knowledge, so his deposits should be consistent, and his withdrawals would show. Unless of course he was taking kick-backs while in office, but that’s another matter.