A 35-page Employers Council report detailing 11 allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct said to have been committed by Rep. Steve Lebsock of Thornton has been released to the media by one of the five women who filed the complaints.

Cassie Tanner, a former legislative aide who was one of three women to make public allegations against Lebsock, Wednesday provided a redacted copy of the report to the media.

Lebsock’s name is redacted, as are the name of the five women who filed the complaints.

The investigator, whose name is also redacted, interviewed Lebsock, the complainants and other witnesses between Nov. 30 and Feb. 16.

The allegations and Lebsock’s response

? Although her name is redacted, the first allegation listed is from Rep. Faith Winter of Westminster, based on the facts already made public about a May 12, 2016, end-of-session party at Stoney’s. According to Winter’s allegation, Lebsock propositioned her to come home with him after Winter had mentioned her husband would be out of town. After she declined, Lebsock continued to press the issue, according to the allegation, to the point that Winter said she told him that he was drunk and should go home.

Winter’s allegation is supported by a witness to the encounter, identified in media reports as House Assistant Majority Leader Alec Garnett of Denver. Garnett didn’t hear the exchange but saw Winter’s reaction. “She had a wide-eyed, shocked expression on her face and she looked around for assistance,” and Garnett said he came over and told Lebsock he would call a ride for him. Lebsock reacted with profanity. “He was clearly intoxicated,” Garnett said. The report indicates at least three other people, who also provided statements to the investigator, either witnessed the interaction or heard about it from Winter that night or the next day.

One witness, who isn’t identified, said, “I also heard stories from others at that party that [Lebsock] was drunk, hitting on women, and was trying to find someone to go home with. I was not surprised to hear that [he] was acting this way,” according to the report.

In his response, Lebsock admitted talking to Winter but denied the remarks Winter attributed to him.

The investigator stated that “it does not appear that anyone else was involved in the conversation pertaining to this allegation. As such, this investigator must consider the credibility of the statements made by the parties in order to make a finding on this allegation.”

The investigator found Winter “to be credible, generally and with regard to this allegation … provided specific detail as to the events that occurred at the Sine Dine party in May 2016. Perhaps, more importantly, [she] reported the incident to several people at the time it occurred or shortly thereafter, and provided a similar recollection of the incident to these individuals.” Winter’s “startled” reaction, as described by witnesses, also added to the credibility of the allegation, the investigator said.

Lebsock’s denial, in which he claimed Winter’s allegation was politically motivated and related to her 2018 run for the state Senate, isn’t credible and doesn’t make sense, the investigator wrote, in part because the Stoney’s party took place two years ago, long before Winter had made the decision to run for the Senate and Lebsock’s decision to run for state treasurer.

The investigator addressed Lebsock’s decision to take a polygraph test related to Winter’s second allegation, that he had touched her inappropriately that same night. The investigator wrote that the polygraph service reached out to Lebsock after the news of those allegations broke, and that Lebsock provided the polygraph examiner with his version of the allegations prior to being questioned. His “blanket denials combined with the unreasonable motives ascribed to [Winter] diminish his credibility.”

? Another complainant, who worked with Lebsock as a consultant on his campaign for state treasurer, alleged the lawmaker asked her if she wanted to be a “f*** buddy” in July, 2017. Lebsock called the allegation “utterly ridiculous,” and said that there was a group of people who wanted to “take me down.” He did not provide an explanation of why the complainant would make that kind of allegation if it weren’t true, and did not say that the complainant was part of the group that was after him. For those reasons, the investigator did not find Lebsock’s explanation credible, and wrote that the complainant “did not appear to have a motive to make these allegations.”

? The next allegation comes from a lobbyist who was working on medical marijuana legislation in 2015. Lebsock allegedly made a similarly crass suggestion to her. He denied that he had ever been alone with the lobbyist or made any such suggestion that she have sex with him. The investigator said there were no witnesses to the encounter, so she based her findings on the credibility of the parties involved. The complainant has not gone to the press with her allegation, the investigator wrote. The report also noted similar language used by Lebsock in the two allegations, made by two different women “who do not appear to know each other.”

The investigator said Lebsock “readily admits he is trying to save his reputation as well as his current occupation …. Moreover, [he] is running for State Treasurer, a statewide elected office and wants to continue in his chosen career path as an elected official.” The investigator believed that is his motive for denying the allegation.

? The next allegation involved  Tanner, who has been public about her allegation. The investigator noted that unlike the other allegations, an independent witness verified the interaction between Tanner and Lebsock, in which he talked about how great her breasts looked. A second allegation by Tanner claimed Lebsock unbuttoned the top button of her blouse at a 2015 event.

Lebsock denied he was at the 2015 event, calling the allegation “malicious and recklessly dishonest.” The investigator noted she interviewed Lebsock’s ex-wife about the 2015 event, since she had kept a calendar during that time in preparation for a divorce. The investigator, however, said she asked for an original copy of the calendar in order to analyze handwriting, ink color and consistency. That request was denied, and the investigator said withholding that information made her question the reliability of that evidence.

? A lunch in 2015 resulted in another allegation against Lebsock, in which he allegedly used crude language to proposition a lobbyist. She told her husband and other people about it at the time. Lebsock said in his response that she had initiated a sexually explicit conversation with him.

The investigator wrote that the difference between the two versions appeared to be whether the conversation was “consensual,” that Lebsock said it was and she said it wasn’t. But the complainant told the investigator she did not have that kind of relationship with Lebsock and would not have shared personal details about her sex life, which Lebsock claimed. Again, the investigator pointed out that the language allegedly used by Lebsock is consistent with language he used with other complainants, and that the lobbyist did not have a motive to lie.

? The report also looked at retaliation against the complainants. Retaliation is strictly prohibited in the General Assembly’s workplace harassment policy, yet the investigator noted that Lebsock distributed a 28-page manifesto responding to the allegations. (Colorado Politics declined to publish the manifesto.) Winter said the manifesto and a video Lebsock made about the allegations made it more difficult to do her job. “Every morning I wake up and I don’t know when I am going to have to rearrange my entire schedule to defend myself,” she told the investigator. “I live every day trying not to set him off. I have declined national media requests so as to not set him off.”

The report also noted that Lebsock had threatened to sue Winter for defamation, a statement he made on a recent episode of the CPT-12 show The Devil’s Advocate.

Conclusion

The report’s conclusion states that “it appears [Lebsock] has engaged in the behavior alleged by [the complainants]. As indicated throughout the report, this investigator consistently found the statements of the complainants more credible than statements and perceived motivations of the women involved. In addition, the similar nature and crassness of the language allegedly used by gives further credence to the allegations brought forth by [the complainants]. The lack of motive for each woman, is balanced against the perceived motive of and his desire to keep his legislative seat amidst calls for his resignation. In the end, this investigator was more persuaded by the information provided by each of the complainants than the statements made by [Lebsock].”

On Thursday, the House will hold a rare joint caucus in Room 271. The meeting is being held in a committee room rather than in House chambers because it is possible that witnesses could testify. In addition, House Minority Leader Patrick Neville has asked that the Employers Council investigator attend and respond to questions about the report, although her presence has not been confirmed.

After the joint caucus, the groups will break into their respective party caucuses to further discuss the allegations. On Friday the House will vote on HR 1005, a resolution introduced Tuesday night that seeks to expel Lebsock. A vote of 44 House members, or two-thirds of the body, is necessary for expulsion. It would take most, if not all, of the 36 Democrats (not including Lebsock) and at least eight Republicans to expell him. Neville has not said how he will vote and said that he expects his members to vote their consciences.