THE FACTS BRANDON LEWIS LEFT OUT ABOUT DAVID HATLEY

5 Key Takeaways:

• Lewis’s four arguments rely on real facts, but several of his conclusions go beyond what those facts actually establish.
• Tennessee’s closed-primary problem predates David Hatley and has repeatedly stalled in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.
• Hatley’s immigration position is more substantial than Lewis suggests, and Tennessee law itself relies on federal cooperation through 287(g).
• Hatley’s limited voting history includes a period of legal disenfranchisement, making Lewis’s “couldn’t be bothered” characterization incomplete.
• Hatley’s bankruptcy involved serious losses, but the record also shows an attempted full repayment plan, personal financial sacrifice, returning suppliers, and no court finding that unpaid checks alone established fraud.

Brandon Lewis, founder and publisher of The Tennessee Conservative, recently presented four reasons he supports Republican gubernatorial nominee Marsha Blackburn over independent candidate David Hatley during a short interview with Blackburn following a Hamilton County Republican event in Chattanooga. Lewis later published essentially the same case in an October 5 opinion piece.

His arguments centered on closed Republican primaries, illegal immigration, Hatley’s voting history and Hatley’s financial record. Each begins with at least some underlying fact. The problem comes with what Lewis builds on top of those facts.

That matters because Lewis has already publicly stated his intention to help Blackburn “get across the finish line.” In an August 27 interview with Blackburn, Lewis wrote, “It’s my intention to help our nominee get across the finish line.”

There is another connection readers should know. Blackburn’s campaign has created and paid for an opposition website targeting Hatley called DeadbeatDave.com. The site attacks Hatley over his criminal history, voting record, bankruptcy, tax liens and business failures. Many of those same themes appear in Lewis’s case against Hatley.

That overlap does not establish that Lewis was handed campaign talking points. There is no public evidence I found proving that. But it does raise a reasonable sourcing question: did Lewis independently develop the framing, or was he relying, at least in part, on opposition material already being circulated by the Blackburn campaign?

There is another problem. Lewis has interviewed Blackburn directly, while I found no comparable published Brandon Lewis interview with Hatley. When The Tennessee Conservative contacted Hatley in September about opposition research released by Blackburn’s campaign, Hatley responded and expressly invited an interview, telling the publication to “request an interview with me” and describing himself as “an open book.”

Yet Lewis subsequently assigned Hatley positions, motives and even intent without sitting down and asking him. That is where this stops being simply a disagreement over candidates and becomes a question about what the underlying record actually supports.

CLOSED PRIMARIES: THIS PROBLEM DID NOT BEGIN WITH DAVID HATLEY

Lewis argues that because Hatley is running as an independent, he “has no interest” in closing Republican primaries. He has also argued that electing Hatley means another four years of Democrats helping select Republican nominees.

Hatley’s independent status tells us how he appears on the ballot. It does not tell us his position on Republican primary rules. Unless Hatley has actually said he opposes closing Republican primaries, Lewis is assigning him a position based on his ballot status.

More importantly, Tennessee Republicans have not exactly been waiting helplessly for David Hatley to get out of their way. Party-registration legislation has repeatedly come before the General Assembly.

Tennessee Party-Registration Bills That Failed

• 2019, SB 1303 / HB 1398: Would have required voters to declare a party affiliation, with voters declining to affiliate ineligible for a primary. The House version failed in committee, while the Senate version stalled.
• 2023, HB 1045 / SB 1144: Would have required voters to declare a political-party affiliation or designate themselves unaffiliated, while allowing parties to decide whether unaffiliated voters could participate. It failed in the House Local Government Committee on March 7, 2023.
• 2023, HB 121: Would have added party affiliation to voter registration and tied primary participation to that affiliation. It was withdrawn January 30, 2023.
• 2024, HB 2033 / SB 1888: Would have added political-party affiliation to Tennessee voter-registration records. HB 2033 was taken off notice in the House Elections and Campaign Finance Subcommittee on March 13, 2024.
• 2024, HB 1616 / SB 2631: Would have established party-affiliation designations while allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in primaries. SB 2631 failed in the Senate State and Local Government Committee on March 27, 2024.
• 2025–2026, HB 1159 / SB 831: Would have required voters to designate a political party on their registration record to participate in that party’s primary. HB 1159 failed in the House State and Local Government Committee on March 25, 2026.

The recurring obstacle was not an independent gubernatorial candidate. It was the General Assembly.

A governor can advocate for legislation, pressure lawmakers and sign a bill. The legislature still has to pass it. If Tennessee Republicans finally enact party registration with Blackburn in the governor’s office, she may receive political credit for it, but the General Assembly will simply be exercising power it possessed through every previous failed attempt.

So the more useful question is not why Tennessee needs Blackburn as governor before Republicans can close their primaries.

It is why Republicans have not already done it.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: WHAT HATLEY ACTUALLY SAYS AND WHAT TENNESSEE LAW ALREADY REQUIRES

Lewis’s second argument is that Hatley would not seriously confront illegal immigration. He mocks Hatley’s statement that he would work with the federal government, comparing that approach to working with the mafia to reduce crime. He also argues that an independent candidate needs Democratic votes and therefore would not be politically able to enforce immigration law aggressively.

That is political prediction presented as if it establishes Hatley’s policy.

Hatley’s published position says the country needs a secure border, immigration laws should be enforced, and people who are in the country illegally and commit violent crimes should not remain in Tennessee communities. Hatley for Governor. That position may leave details unanswered, but it is not a declaration of indifference toward illegal immigration.

Lewis’s ridicule of federal cooperation is also peculiar considering Tennessee just wrote federal cooperation into state law. HB 2219/SB 2223, enacted as Public Chapter 1015 in 2026, requires each county sheriff by January 1, 2027, to enter an agreement under an available federal 287(g) program. The law specifically recognizes the jail-enforcement, warrant-service-officer and task-force models.

In other words, working with the federal government is not some suspicious substitute for Tennessee immigration enforcement. It is part of Tennessee’s own statutory enforcement structure.

What would Hatley actually do as governor? Would he support Tennessee’s existing 287(g) requirements? Would he sign stronger enforcement legislation? Would he oppose attempts to weaken current law?

Those would be useful questions for Lewis to ask him.

VOTING HISTORY: THE RECORD INCLUDES LEGAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT

Lewis also attacks Hatley for having voted only once, saying he “couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch and go vote.”

Except Hatley had lost his legal right to vote following his felony conviction and did not have those rights restored until 2025, something The Tennessee Conservative itself previously reported.

That does not make Hatley’s sparse political history irrelevant. There are perfectly legitimate questions about when he became eligible to seek restoration, why he waited until 2025, when he became politically engaged and what prompted him to run for governor.

But “couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch” conveniently substitutes ridicule for the rather important fact that for part of that period Hatley legally could not vote.

Many Tennesseans also became far more politically engaged after 2020, when COVID restrictions, executive powers, school policies and government mandates pushed people who had barely followed state government into local and state politics. That happened to me.

Whether anything similar explains Hatley’s trajectory is a question for Hatley.

BANKRUPTCY: CREDITORS LOST MONEY, BUT BANKRUPTCY IS NOT THEFT

Lewis’s most serious assertions concern Hatley’s financial history.

Hatley experienced a major business failure. Creditors lost money. He filed personal bankruptcy. Those facts are not in dispute.

Lewis goes considerably further.

In his October 5 article, he says vendors trusted Hatley to pay them and “you lied to them.” He says he cannot support a man who “takes from others and never makes a personal effort to pay them back.” In the accompanying discussion, he characterized bankruptcy as “functionally the same thing as theft.” Federal bankruptcy law exists precisely because people and businesses sometimes cannot pay their debts. Creditors can suffer substantial losses and debtors can be responsible for terrible business decisions. None of that makes bankruptcy synonymous with theft.

More importantly, Hatley’s own account directly contradicts Lewis’s claim that he never made a personal effort to repay what was owed.

In Tested in Tennessee, Hatley describes buying a competing hot-tub company in late 2007 with approximately $3.5 million in asset-based financing. He admits his due diligence was inadequate and calls the acquisition a serious mistake. After taking over, he says he discovered much higher labor costs, significant warranty liabilities involving products manufactured before the acquisition and an overwhelming dependence on Costco, which represented almost 80 percent of the business.

Hatley says Costco then placed a hold on approximately $2 million it owed him while warranty issues were being resolved. The 2008 financial crisis followed and demand collapsed.

At that point, Hatley says he went to his lender with a proposal: stop lending him additional money, allow the company to continue operating, and he would repay 100 percent of the $3.5 million loan within 24 months. If he failed, he would turn over the company.

According to Hatley, the lender refused.

Whatever one thinks of Hatley’s earlier decisions, that is plainly not “never” attempting to repay the debt.

Hatley also says he sold his Ford GT to fund another two weeks of payroll and ultimately lost home equity, vehicles, an RV and other property through bankruptcy. He does not sanitize what happened to his suppliers. He acknowledges that some lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and recovered pennies on the dollar.

What happened afterward is particularly relevant to Lewis’s accusation that Hatley lied to those vendors.

Hatley says that when he rebuilt and contacted former suppliers, some agreed to work with him again. One supplier, according to Hatley, explained why:

“Dave, you never lied to us. Or disappeared. You picked up the phone and told us the truth. And we respect that.”

That is a remarkable contrast with Lewis’s claim that Hatley lied to those same vendors. According to Hatley, suppliers who actually lost money in the collapse later chose to do business with him again, with one telling him directly, “Dave, you never lied to us.”

Hatley also says nearly all of his former employees returned when he restarted manufacturing. His account is not that nobody suffered. It is that the company failed, creditors suffered losses, he lost substantially himself, and people directly involved in that failure later chose to trust him enough to work with him again.

There is also a federal bankruptcy-court ruling involving one of Hatley’s creditors that further illustrates why unpaid debt should not casually be converted into fraud.

Spa Cover Inc. sought to have a debt involving three checks treated as nondischargeable fraud. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the checks themselves did not establish the false representation required for fraud and that the complaint alleged no separate misrepresentation by Hatley.

A bad check can establish an unpaid obligation. By itself, it does not establish theft, malicious intent or deliberate deception. If owing money were enough to imply theft, every mortgage, business loan and unpaid debt would carry the same implication. What matters is evidence that the obligation was obtained through intentional deceit.

That is why Lewis’s statement, “They trusted you to pay, and you lied to them,” is materially different from saying Hatley made bad business decisions or left creditors unpaid. It attributes intentional dishonesty as fact.

That is not just political opinion. It is an assertion of intentional dishonesty presented as fact. For a public figure, proving defamation requires the higher actual-malice standard, but calling someone a liar without establishing the underlying deception crosses into very different legal territory than criticizing his business judgment.

That dispute was worth asking Hatley about before declaring his intent for him.

THE INTERVIEW LEWIS HAS NOT DONE

Hatley had already invited The Tennessee Conservative to interview him and described himself as “an open book.” Yet Lewis never used that opportunity to test his assumptions against Hatley’s own answers. Instead, he presented interpretations of Hatley’s record as settled conclusions, including conclusions about what Hatley believes, what he would do in office, why he did not vote, and whether he intentionally deceived creditors.

Lewis’s support for Blackburn is not the problem. The problem is presenting conclusions about Hatley’s beliefs, motives and honesty as though the record establishes them, while never putting those assertions directly to Hatley despite his public invitation to be interviewed.

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS

The record is more complicated than Lewis’s four-point case suggests. Tennessee’s closed-primary problem predates Hatley by years and repeatedly stalled inside a Republican-controlled legislature. Hatley’s immigration position is broader than Lewis portrays, and Tennessee law itself depends on federal cooperation through 287(g). His limited voting history includes a period when he was legally disenfranchised. And his bankruptcy record shows serious financial failure and real creditor losses, but also an attempted repayment proposal, personal financial sacrifice, suppliers who later returned, and a court ruling that did not equate unpaid checks with fraud.

The issue is not whether Hatley’s record is spotless. It plainly is not. The issue is whether the evidence supports the harsher conclusions Lewis attaches to it.

The full record matters before intent is assigned as fact.

Report the adverse facts. Report the facts that complicate them. Identify where the information originated. Give the person being criticized the opportunity to answer. Distinguish evidence from inference and opinion from fact.

Then let the reader decide.

TruthWire exists to provide independent investigative journalism that holds Tennessee's political establishment accountable. We aren't funded by corporations, political parties, or large media companies.

We're funded by readers who believe the truth is worth defending.

If this reporting has informed you or helped your community, please consider becoming a monthly supporter.