They’re pretty much ruling with Coffman on the facts, but add their own explaining on perceived reasons that might have been a contributor to those facts.
Fact: Jason Crow represented crooks who stole from “schools and pensions, and even defrauded veterans.”
We’re paraphrasing here, but the media’s excuses are basically that Crow was young. We would add, and stupid at the time, and was more interested in making money as a lawyer than preserving some integrity for a future in politics.
Like, for instance, the VA official accused of defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Fox Channel 31 says “Crow was a junior associate at Holland and Hart when he represented these clients. The Truth Check acknowledges that young attorneys have little say in which cases they take.”
Really, then why was Crow advertising for just those sorts of clients?
As a matter of additional fact, Crow tried to hide his lawyerly past before running for office, scrubbing online ads targeted the white collar criminals some are trying to excuse him from choosing or agreeing to represent.
Here’s an archived page that shows Crow was in the market for clients who were part of government investigations, accused of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, foreign asset control, sanctions, and international trade regulations.
Do voters really want to elect a man to the U.S. Congress who seeks to defend those accused of foreign corruption, or are so in dutch with the U.S. government they’re bound to sanctions and foreign asset control?