« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Shouldn’t This Make Him An American Hero?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 28th, 2010 at 09:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It’s the 1990′s. Janet Reno is Attorney General. Waco has happened. Columbine has happened. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is aggressively pursuing cases out west of suspected militia members. The ATF expanded the cases to gun dealers as the Clinton administration wanted to pursue further restrictions on how gun dealers could sell guns. United States Attorneys were using these cases to advance their careers.

Now, imagine you are an Assistant United States Attorney. The Columbine gun shooting happens. The loser in the U.S. Senate race in 1996 gets installed as U.S. Attorney shortly after Columbine and decides to rebuild his political career by aggressively going after gun dealers. The ATF conducts a sting operation on legal gun dealers and arrests several.

But there’s a problem. It’s clear that the U.S. Attorney is pursuing the cases to rebuild his own career and again run for higher office. It’s clear the ATF wants these cases in the headlines as the Clinton Administration begins a renewed push to cripple the legal sales of firearms.

Even worse, internal memoranda confidentially circulating within the U.S. Attorney’s office clearly state that the cases are weak and probably should not be prosecuted.

What do you do if you are the Assistant United States Attorney?

That’s not a hypothetical. Ken Buck faced that exact scenario. And what did he do?

He risked reprimand and told the defense about the memos.

[T]he case was weak enough that only one of the three defendants named in the 34-count felony indictment pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Ken Buck was, in fact, reprimanded. The United States Attorney, Tom Strickland, had left the office by the time Ken Buck was reprimanded and the replacement U.S. Attorney found Ken Buck‘s actions were not intentional.

Tom Strickland went on to run again in 2002 for the United States Senate and, with the collapse of his gun dealer cases (thanks to Ken Buck) and other issues, he lost.

You might know Strickland better as the Obama Interior Department Official who was whitewater rafting as the BP oil spill began to spread

The Jane Norton campaign is attacking Ken Buck for his actions in this case. She and Democrats are all saying Ken Buck behaved irresponsibly and should drop out of the Senate race.

Me? How is it not awesome that a man risked his entire legal career to shut down political motivated prosecutions designed not just to advance the political career of a Democrat hack, but also designed to undermine the legal permitting and purchasing of firearms?

This should qualify Ken Buck for automatic hero status, not pariah status.

It says more about Jane Norton’s campaign that she wants to vilify the man for doing the right thing. Or, I guess it says more about her campaign staff. They’re the ones pushing out this story.

It just makes me like Ken Buck even more.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rdelbov

    I guess I lived just long enough in Missouri to have that “show me” syndrome. I would like to know exactly how Jane Norton is “attacking” Ken Buck. I responded to a Redstate/Buck attack on Norton last week. I thought it was unfair but everyone here told me that politics is like war or is at least a contact sport.

    Here’s all I could find on Norton commenting on this case and it was not is was a note from here”Ken Buck broke the rules and the case speaks for itself”

    Wow what a slapdown? Erick’s own post-in my opinion- is harder on Buck then Jane Norton is. Ken Buck broke the rules by leaking the memo. He went behind his boss’s back and was a whistle blower of sorts. There is no doubt he broke the rules and violated office procedure but it was a courageous act.

    So Jane Norton said “Ken Buck broke the rules and the case speaks for itself” Is there a slam or an attack on Buck in there.

    i grant you Norton also said “She does not need an ethics class to know what is right”. That’s a comment on Buck’s having to take an Ethic’s class as part of his letter of reprimand. I guess fellas that line is testy and I guess there is where “sharp elbows” come into politics. Its not an attack per say but a comment that Jane Norton is ethical. That’s a statement that can be taken in many many ways.

    For instance when Ken Buck says he is “a true conservative” is he he implying Jane Norton is a “true conservative”? Same with Jane Norton is my opinion.

    I might add that Jane Norton -at least as far as I can tell-has not used this incident in any TV-web-radio ads. She issued a letter in response to a Newspaper article. Here’s there’s more please post.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Says this proves Buck is not fit to be a senator.

  • rdelbov

    I still can not find any comment from Norton saying that Buck is unfit to be US senator. There has been that comment from the democratic chairman saying Buck is unfit to be US senator.

    I don’t see where Norton has repeated that comment. There is supposed to be some sort of radio ad–its not on Norton’s website-that goes after Buck. All I have seen is an internet blog note on that. I get cynical about MSM & internet reports of what is supposed to be in an ad.

    I just went to Norton’s site and I can’t find any sort of ad that mentions Ken Buck.

    Let me say that I think Ken Buck would make an outstanding US senator and I think the same of Jane Norton. I don’t see where Jane Norton is attacking Ken Buck— Her comment on Buck’s situation can only be described as bland. That being said if I could see some sort of attack on Buck where she questions Buck’s status I would rebuke her. I don’t think you will see that–I could be wrong but I don’t see yet

    Is the democratic party chief–Yes—Is the Denver Post yes.

  • deano64

    it obvious you don’t want the truth about Norton or at the very least you want it ignored. This is from the link I gave you last Friday. Denver Post remember? It’s the first paragraph. That’s the one at the very top of the page.

    “Colorado Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak and GOP Senate hopeful Jane Norton scolded Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck on Thursday, saying his departure 10 years ago from the U.S. attorney’s office shows he is unfit for office.”

    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_15372557

    Great post Erick. Go Ken Buck. I’ve got both my parents supporting him up there.

  • ralatredstate

    And they all stem from:

    1. Did the defense get the Villafuerte memo? [The internal weak case memo], and

    2. How do we know about Buck’s disclosures?

  • rdelbov

    I read the article very carefully. I read it three times.

    I encourage everyone to read the article very carefully.

    The headline is an absolute lie and I am emailing the Denver post right now.

    Jane Norton may have scolded Ken Buck and I think that it is a judgement call but I defy anyone to show me where Jane Norton calls Ken Buck “unfit for office”

    So the proper headline should be “Democrat calls Ken Buck unfit for office” and Jane Norton scolds Buck over ethics.

    I repeat one more time. All the “unfit from office” comments are clearly made by the democrat.

    Jane Norton never calls Ken Buck “unfit” for office.

    I will gladly eat my words if anyone can produce that quote

  • deano64

    ?Colorado Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak and GOP Senate hopeful Jane Norton scolded Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck on Thursday, saying his departure 10 years ago from the U.S. attorney?s office shows he is unfit for office.?

    Do you see where it says AND? Pat Waak AND GOP Senate hopeful Jane Norton….

    Maybe Norton ought to be contacting the Denver Post to retract it if it’s not true. Don’t you think?

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    But David Fredosso points out he’s gotten all of this *from* Norton’s campaign.

  • rdelbov

    I have been to numerous lefty sites -TPM–Politico–The Hill–national Journal-Swing state-plus several newspaper in Colorado. I have googled up “Norton calls Buck unfit for office”

    I have found nothing.

    These lefties sites love to attack Ken Buck-as do newspapers in Boulder/Aspen. Not a single article is quoting Jane Norton as calling Buck unfit for US senate. If jane Norton said such a thing it would be all over the MSM. I remember earlier this year the Rand Paul/Grayson primary. Now that primary got rough. Even then I don’t recall Grayson calling Rand Paul “unfit”–those are words that are too rough.

    Now don’t get me wrong you see alot of elbow hits or cheap shots in politics. I would urge Buck & Norton to keep this campaign to the issues and avoid personal attacks. That’s one reason I deplore the line of attack on Norton on whether she is smart enough to think for herself. Ditto for Norton for using any sort of attack on Buck on this reprimand stuff.

    So far it appears to me that Norton has been very mild in her comments on this case. I personally thinks its fair for her to say “I have been in public office and have always served with the highest standards in mind”–that’s fair and pretty bland. I would not like her to use Buck’s situation in an ad.

    I do note that Buck has said he was sorry that the incident occurred and to my mind that should end it.

  • winthisone

    She’s doing extraordinarily nasty radio ads. In addition, she’s throwing current AG, John Suthers, under the bus. I will never vote for any candidate who participates in scorched earth campaigning. That includes Suthers.

  • jimmyg

    Buck did something stupid 10 years ago while employed by the U.S. Attorney. If he had revealed the existence of the memo as a result of a philosophical dispute with the prosecution of the gun dealers, as Erick implies, he would have been fired by the U.S. Attorney, and its likely his license to practice law would have been disciplined. It was simply a slip of the tounge on his part to the defense attorney. This mistake on his part does not disqualify him as a candidate, nor is he a hero because of it. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15364174

  • rdelbov

    when you or anyone can.

    I have seen several reference to these ads and would really like to hear them

    I do deplore any and all scorched earth campaigns.

    They destroy party unity.

    I might add that I was shocked to see all the loves and kisses in KY after Rand Paul wins.

  • rdelbov

    and to be frank I think Norton’s response has been mild.

    I would to see ads and new releases from Norton’s office and not what may or may not have come from un named campaign people.

    Buck in my opinion has manned up and admitted he made a mistake. His heart was in the right place but he should have either resigned or begged off on this case.

    Either way it does not hurt his case for being a US senator.

    it was a minor mistake-a one time error in judgement.

    I would be happy to see him as US senator

  • chihank

    The US Chamber of Commerce is backing Jane Norton.

    The Us Chamber of Commerce has not fared well this primary cycle. It backed Trey Grayson, Bridgewater, and now Norton.

  • deano64

    I searched the Denver Post and found this.

    ?Colorado Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak and GOP Senate hopeful Jane Norton scolded Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck on Thursday, saying his departure 10 years ago from the U.S. attorney?s office shows he is unfit for office.?

    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_15372557

  • winthisone

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/files/2010/06/FIT-RIGHT-IN-final.mp3

  • Zaber

    I mean, thats the radio ad that says exactly what Erick is saying, and Jane Norton endorsed the ad with her own voice, but that might not be enough to convince the Jane Norton fan club here.. :)

  • edintexas

    I have worked extensively with Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA), and US Attorneys. Without seeing the actual material, I believe the information could have fallen into the category of Brady material (information which is exculpatory, tends to show a lack of intent or other element of the crime and is supposed to be turned over to the defense). Given ATF’s history of actively ignoring the law* and engaging in entrapment, I believe Buck probably did “the right thing” with regard to this issue.

    It appears that you have “a dog in the hunt” regarding this campaign. You recent posts have been extensive on the Norton/Buck campaign, while your few other recent posts have been neutral and not specifically commenting on any other candidate Eric has supported. This record tends to leave the impression that you are at least a Norton supporter, if not a member/volunteer of her campaign.

    Full Disclosure: I am not a resident of CO and have nothing but a general Conservative’s interest in this race. I have not contributed to, or supported, either campaign in any way (to include any posts/comments on RS favoring, or derogatory of, either candidate or Eric’s support thereof).

    * The government is prohibited from compiling computer records
    of firearms sales and purchasers for active Federal Firearms Licensees (IIRC this is pursuant to a provision of the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act of 1989 prohibiting the establishment of a Federal database of firearms owners). During the time period mentioned above I have personally observed ATF Agents (known to me as such) sitting in a dealer’s business entering ATF Form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record) information into a database on the Agent’s laptop. I asked the dealer if this was normal, since there was a prohibition on doing this. He said it was normal, the ATF Agents came by a couple of times each month. As to the legality of what they were doing, he said without his FFL he could not feed his family.

  • trp878

    “We the People”- Abuse is the only descriptive word for these people. They are only trying to further their own careers and will abuse anyone to reach their goal. Buck, at least stood up to them. However this is their way of trying to besmirch him and his record.
    Look at the past cases, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Alaska’s Senator, Texas”s Congressman, Bork and Thomas of the Supreme Court and who knows how many more. These people are not above the law and should be prosecuted, fined, jailed and stripped of their licenses of any kind so as to never practice again. Maybe they will learn something while digging ditches, or picking fruit by hand. This is the only way to treat these “above the law” thinkers. Rah Rah for Buck.
    “ut sementem feceris ita metes” – (As you sow so will you reap)

  • liberty4all11

    Rdelbov,

    Here is the article on Norton going negative.

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/06/28/norton-goes-negative-in-new-radio-ad/

    Click on the link and you can hear the ad itself.

    If you don’t think this is going negative, then you’re just a Norton shill.

  • wayneepalmer

    You should spend some time in Wisconsin!!

    Its gotten so bad here that last week Rep. Gov. candidate Mark Neumann insinuated that Rep. Gov. candidate and Milwaukee County Board Chief Scott Walker was responsible for killing a child because of his tax freeze efforts after a 30 ton concrete slab broke off a county parking garage.

    Neumann never mentioned that the parking garage was designed under Democrats and built by a Democrat-connected contractor and it has suffered from structural problems for years before Walker took over the county after a taxpayer revolt. He’s won reelection with 80% of the vote in a Democratic county – all BECAUSE of his struggles to hold the line on tax increases..

  • rightwingmom52

    small donation to Buck. The ad obviously spins what happened and Norton’s endorsement of the ad is enough for me. Plus Buck is opposed to abortion except when the mother’s life is in danger. Norton would allow abortions in the case of rape or incest. While those situations are heartbreaking, we’re still talking about an innocent life.

  • taxpayer1234