As a rule, members of Congress try to avoid threatening their constituents, especially on tape. It’s one of the reasons a new controversy out of Denver is so bizarre. (via)
A local couple is complaining that U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn left them two threatening voice mails after they wrote a letter criticizing his fundraising.
Jonathan Bartha and Anna Bartha told The Denver Post that Lamborn said there would be “consequences” if they did not withdraw their letter.
“We felt very threatened and intimidated, and quite frankly, scared,” Anna Bartha said. “It was just not anything we would ever anticipate an elected official would pursue or a way that an elected official would conduct himself.”
Apparently, Jonathan Bartha, who works for James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and his wife Anna, were disappointed when Lamborn voted against stricter dog-fighting laws. They wrote a letter to the editor, identifying themselves as conservative Republicans, and noting that Lamborn accepted campaign contributions from the gambling industry.
It prompted Lamborn to call the Barthas personally, leaving a message that said, “[T]here 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.” Shortly thereafter, Lamborn left another message in which he 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.”
FEC records confirm Lamborn accepted the donations from the gambling industry, but the Colorado Republican apparently insists he returned the contributions. The Denver Post added, “He did not say when and The Post said there is no federal record of them being returned.”
One really has to wonder what on earth guys like Lamborn are thinking.
For the record, here’s the transcript of Lamborn’s phone messages.
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.”
It’s one thing to make threatening comments in person, when someone can deny it. But to leave a recorded message?