CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 24, 2010 04:22 PM UTC
47 Comments
He got an official reprimand so that makes it appear to be something way out of line. Is it?
Probably not bad enough to have any effect on the election, but he clearly made a mistake. Telling a defense attorney that there was an internal memo about the weaknesses of the case is poor judgment. Thinking that the defense attorney wouldn’t use the conversation in the defense is a weak excuse. The fact that the defendants were republican contributors and that one is a current contributor makes the whole episode look worse than it probably ever was. Especially in a race where everyone is trying to claim the mantle of “outsider.”
to run for the senate shows poor judgment by Ms. Norton. Hiring Penry as her campaign manager shows extremely poor judgment by Ms. Norton.
Where the big crime will be whoever first went public with info in a confidential personnel record?
The ATF presents a case which all the career prosecutors think is weak and a waste of their time and taxpayer money. Buck is head of this area, he declines to prosecute and the ATF does not appeal to then US Attorney Solono, who incidentally was recently interviewed and indicated declining the case was an appropriate decision.
Solano leaves and is replaced by a new political appointment, Tom Strickland, who was recently seen floating down the Colorado river in the Grand Canyon as the oil gushed in the gulf.
Strickland tries to get the career prosecutors to file charges. They again decline. He had newly appointed political types file charges against three people and after obtaining a 37 count felony indictment from a grand jury (remember the story about someone obtaining an indictment against a ham sandwich?). Two years later after untold expense, what happens to the three people who were charged? All charges were dropped against two of the three and the third plead guilty to a misdemeanor paperwork violation and was sentenced to one day of probation.
Sometime after the indictment was filed, over the objection of the career prosecutors, Buck apparently disclosed to one of the defense attorneys that there were disagreements within the office as to going ahead with the prosecution and that there were written memos in the US Attorneys Office indicating the weakness in the case. Conversations happen between attorneys analyzing the relative strenght of cases all the time and rarely come up later, except in cocktail consversation.
Strickland heard of the conversation and asked Buck to resign. Buck refused, so Strickland filed a compaint within the Justice Department.
Strickland blames Buck for the fact that the case went nowhere. Professionals called it before it was filed.
Strickland resigned to run for US Senate before the complaint was resolved. He was replaced by Norton supporter, John Suthers, who gave Buck a letter of reprimand in 2001.
To me this shows, Buck was a professional prosecutor who showed discretion and was not a hard ass. He made a mistake in trusting an off-the-record comment would not be followed up on.
It shows Strickland to be a political hack in over his head. It shows Suthers being the likely source of violating Buck’s privacy and leaking info to team Norton.
If this is the smoking gun that Norton had to play, this game is over. It doesn’t seem to do anything to Buck except make him look like someone who was reasonable, but made a mistake.
As to how it makes Strickland, Suthers and Norton, I will leave that to others.
First, Mr. Suthers is a Norton supporter now but he wasn’t one of her supporters when Mr. Buck received the letter of reprimand from the Justice Department. You can’t attempt to undermine Mr. Suther’s judgment the reprimand was proper ten years ago becuase today he supports Norton for U.S. Senator.
Second, it is obvious both a Democratic administered and the subsequent Republican administered Justice Department believed Mr. Buck had committed a significant breach of ethics. The 2010 Senate campaign and which Republican today is supporting either Mr. Buck or Ms. Norton does not undermine the judgment of both the Clinton and Bush administrations ten years ago.
Third, it doesn’t, as you seem to indicate, make Mr. Buck look like a hero. Criminal cases are declined all the time by prosecutors who tell the investigators who brought the case to them that the investigators haven’t developed sufficient evidence for the prosecutor to bring back an indictment. The investigators then go back into the field and conduct additional investigation and attempt to see if additional evidence can be uncovered to satisfy the requirements for an indictment. A case may be turned down many times before a prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence to bring an indictment. However, never is it proper for a prosecutor who isn’t assigned to the case to ever try to undermine another prosecutors case by contacting the defense attorney (or perhaps a Republican state senator in this case – we don’t know whether that happened – but the press should inquire) to discuss how the case was developed. Mr. Buck isn’t a hero in this case and the reprimand proves that.
1) I am not suggesting Suthers was acting on Norton’s behalf 10 years ago. If he is the source of the information to his candidate Norton in 2010, that would violate Buck’s rights.
2) I am not suggesting it was not a mistake. In my view it was less of a mistake than bringing the prosecution in the first place, but nonetheless a mistake.
3) Did I say Buck was a hero? I thought I said he made a mistake. Must be wax in the ears.
Now speaking of making up facts, you suggested that there was new evidence that was obtained. Your factual basis for that is?
Basically, Strickland, who comes off as the political hack which continues to get exposed in his brilliant stint at the Interior department, filed politically-based charges because he wanted to be seen as tough on getting guns off the street. He was advised by professionals that he should not file the charges, went forward and ended up looking stupid. Buck left himself open and he got dinged.
Nothing more, nothing less.
that you can’t seem to answer a question that’s directed at you.
If his judgment’s an issue in the campaign, and he made a mistake but decided to stand by it and take his lumps instead of resigning without anyone ever hearing about it, I’d say he has good judgment. Would Jane have taken the easy resignation to keep her record unblemished? Buck did what he did and stood by it, even if it did leave him a ruler across his wrist. Sounds like one instance of bad judgment and a bigger issue of good character, standing up for what you believe and taking what comes with it.
Besides, he freely opened up his personnel file for public scrutiny so everyone could see that he got reprimanded for making a mistake. Transparency is as transparency does. Did the same thing when his budget as DA was questioned.
SO, how much DOES Norton pay you to come over here and play one song “disclose his personnel file” (paraphrase http://coloradopols.com/diary/… ) over an over again on the post about the Petition lawsuit and “Mr. Buck’s judgment is now an issue”…can’t wait to see Buck’s judgment as her next dead horse to beat.
Average people see it as sticking up for the (innocent) little guy.
That’s an alarmingly blithe reading of what Buck did. And a naive view of what lawyers should do. You don’t throw your own side under the bus, and you don’t expect the other side to enjoy some good gossip without doing anything about it when felonies are at stake.
it’s hard to see how this revelation damages Buck in a Republican primary.
I think this has legs for the general, though.
This diary is a lovely, glossy spin that doesn’t do justice to the facts. And I’m too lazy to write a diary that does. 🙂
I don’t see its legs in the general. The case should never have been filed. Buck made a mistake 10 years ago because he was indoubtably pissed off that Strickland was such a hack and prosecuted people, ruining lives, when everyone in the office knew they had no case. Buck should not have done what he did and took his lumps.
If this is Norton/Penry’s smoking gun (and this is it).
It ain’t smokin’.
Bennet, of let’s bribe Romanoff to get him out of the race fame, leading with this would be comical. Buck could have a commerical with the people wrongfully charged for standing up for their rights when the government was out of control. I am not sure I would open up that can of worms.
And if what you just wrote is the Buck campaign spin on this, expect to be hearing a whole lot more about this in the fall, because your response to this is bordering on pathetic.
And your hypocrisy is not bordering on pathetic it is pathetic.
Isn’t that sort of the point of being a prosecutor?
These three guys, 2 of whom had all charges dropped and one of whom has 1 day probation, spent 2 years in hell and probably spent 50K in attorneys fees so Strickland could look like a tough guy.
Calling him a hack was too kind.
lax controls on sales of handguns through straw men thing is no big deal?
Prosecutors get to pick their fights. If the US Attorneys Office wanted to go after bad guy gun dealers, then get some evidence on bad guy gun dealers. When all the experienced civil servant assistant US Attorneys say this is not a good case to go with and you have never tried a criminal case before in your life, perhaps listening to them might be in order. Or else, you could indict and have a judge properly rip you a new one. In this case Strickland was off for his next opportunity before that happened.
What Buck did was, by all appearances, insubordinate and undermined his boss’s decisions on prosecutions. There are ways to express disagreement with that, but they don’t include slipping inside DOJ info to the targets of the indictment, do they?
cause I can’t seem to find the place where it says he tried to hide it…
failing to be forthcoming before yesterday about the reasons he left the DOJ through two DA campaigns and the Senate campaign … cause I can’t seem to find the place where it says he’s been up front about this until now.
Her lobbyist ties, and then denied them. And she’s tried to hide what she says in her events by not allowing video taping.
Perhaps it comes down to the difference between not mentioning it and trying to hide it. At an interview for a new job, it would be stupid to bring up why you got fired from your job 10 years ago, but if the interviewer asks then you can be forthcoming with it or try to hide it.
I have yet to see any misinformation from the Buck camp about this (like Penry’s mythical internal polling that said exactly the opposite of what was publicly available). I would consider opening up your personnel file and doing an interview with the main CO newspaper about it once it was brought up a very good thing.
How Mr. Buck has conducted himself in previousl public offices is relevant when he is asking us to elect him to the United States Senate.
Second, whether Ms. Norton is trying to hide somthing about her past is not a valid excuse for him to hide his.
Third, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Buck was asked about this issue during the Republican primary for district attorney in 2004 and he refused to divulge his personnel file then.
Who cares what Suthers opinion was. A few short months later your close personal friend Suthers released a guy who wound up murdering three people. Now that is what you call a very experienced prosecutor. Tell that to the victims families. Suthers fed the information from Buck’s case to you and Norton’s campaign. Now let’s see how he weathers the storm on his decision a few months later. I sure am glad Suthers supported Norton. Two peas in a pod. Make that three with you.
please do a search for my handle and read what I’ve said about Ms. Norton since she announced for U.S. Senate. Your implication that I support Ms. Norton is silly.
Second, Mr. Suthers did not feed this information to me. If you have proof otherwise, please state it in your reply.
everyone agrees that this was in his personnel file that wasn’t public knowledge. So how’d you know? Did you work in the office at the time and have some knowledge of it, which would make it hear-say (kinda like it was hear-say when Buck said the case was crap?)? Or did someone who shouldn’t have drop you a line so you’d start harping on it here?
So, how did you know that
http://coloradopols.com/diary/… (comments section)
And don’t say I’m missing the point, cause I’m not. The point is that it’s been aired and no one really cares. The more interesting question is what started you harping on Buck to release his personnel file?
First, Mr. Buck is portraying this incident as one where he was motivated by a desire to help the innocent. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He was angry at Mr. Strickland because Strickland had removed him as chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney’s office and brought in retired District Court Judge Dick Spriggs as the new criminal chief. Prior to that, Mr. Buck had been singing the praises of Mr. Strickland inside the office. As soon as he wasn’t retained as chief of the criminal division he turned on him and began bad mouthing Mr. Strickland.
He sought revenge against Mr. Strickland and this case provided him with his opportunity. He contacted the defense attorneys and fed them information about a case he wasn’t even assigned to handle. How would you like it if you hired a law firm to represent you in a lawsuit and one of the lawyers in that firm, because he was angry at one of the lawyers who was representing you, fed information to opposing counsel in an attempt to undermine your case.
Mr. Buck’s behavior in this matter was despicable.
How do I know this – I was there.
It sounds like you just don’t like the guy personally. And that’s your prerogative given a bad experience working with him. But I have to take that with a grain of salt.
Sounds like office politics to me. And it sounds like you were on the side he didn’t like. You give one drastic story, him feeding them information to hijack the case, and the file and his statements give the opposite of misspeaking and it getting turned against him. I’ve learned that if you’re hearing two extremes it’s a safe bet to land in the middle.
So my take from everything I’ve gathered:
Buck and the other prosecutors, including the then US Attorney, refused to prosecute the case. People got replaced and Strickland picked it up with a righteous fervor, but pissed people off in the course of it. Buck felt he got a raw deal about getting demoted. He said something he shouldn’t have to someone, though he doesn’t think he did anything wrong, just that he made a mistake. Strickland decided to blame Buck for the weak case falling flat, then moved on to higher aspirations before the complaint was even finished. Buck took his lumps in the form of an official letter of reprimand, did the classes he was required to, and moved on to a different job (which hasn’t been proven to be in any way involved in this). Then, when running for US Senate, decided to go public with his personnel file so that no one can accuse him of hiding anything. The only people that care are other bloggers who enjoy this type of thing, and other than that we won’t see much change in the next verifiable poll.
o_O
First, the next U.S. Attorney, Republican John Suthers continued the complaint against Mr. Buck. He obviously thought it was a serious matter as did the Department of Justice.
Second, giving informaiton to opposing counsel in a case is never acceptable and is unethical, and it certainly can’t be characterized as “office politics.”
Whether this incident has an impact on the poll numbers is unimportant. What matters is the fact Mr. Buck is willing to commit acts which any lawyer knows are unethical.
Did John Suthers choose to keep it going, or did he just pick it up where it left off? Was he trying to look good for the Democrats by keeping up his forerunner’s complaint? I don’t know, but John Suthers doesn’t seem to have the best judgement either (read-Scott Kimball).
Office Politics–what you said happened with the demotion, not the conversation with the opposing counsel
Giving information to the opposing counsel or saying something to a friend that gets used against you…not sure which happened, but both stories are out there. the only fact that’s completely verifiable (oh, but you were there) is that he said something to the opposing counsel. You don’t know what his intentions were. If he’d done it to blow the case, don’t you think he would’ve taken the chance to resign without getting reprimanded like Strickland offered?
The poll numbers matter because it tells you what the mistake means to the voters, those people that decide our next Senator is going to be. If the majority of voters see it as unethical, the next poll will show that. If most voters don’t think it’s unethical then Buck’s still at least neck-and-neck with Norton. Again, though, if Buck knew what he did was unethical (which as a lawyer he probably would have) wouldn’t he have backed out as gracefully as possible, i.e. no official reprimand?
Taking the official on-the-record reprimand is where it’s going to hang for most people. He took his lumps, right or wrong, and most people will see that as integrity.
This issue came up when he ran in the Republcian primary for district attorney in 2004 and he refused to release his personnel records from the Justice Department.
He knew now that if he tried that again it would immediately be interpreted as “what does he have to hide” but to interpret this as integrity from my perspective is nonsense. He isn’t showing integrity by revealing this as much as it is a damage control tactic.
As far as Mr. Suthers personal motives in this situation, if any, you’ll have to ask him, but one thing is certain – every individual, Republican or Democrat, who looked at this came to the same conclusion that Mr. Buck had committed a serious ethical violation.
Your comments about the poll numbers are true but I’m not interested in the polls. The bottom line for me is the fact he contacted opposing counsel and gave them information in order to embarras the U.S. Attorney which was clearly unethical and wrong.
Do you even read the words you write? He admitted he made a mistake. Making a mistake when you’re a federal prosecutor operating under ethical rules is wrong. Buck’s ethical lapse was seconded by John Suthers in an official reprimand. He also “went public” six years after these questions were first raised in his campaign for district attorney, which is hardly a model of transparency, but at least he finally put the cards on the table.
read the words I wrote, because words matter. like the difference between mistake and wrong. Ever done something you regretted afterwards because of the consequences, not because it was wrong? That was a mistake.
Wrong requires an intention. And one side claims that Buck intentionally sunk the case. Buck says he didn’t, he was just having a conversation and said something that he later regretted. You and I are probably going to fall on different sides of this for various reasons.
As to his run for DA, I’m not from Weld county, so I know nothing of his DA campaign or any questions he was asked and didn’t answer. I’d love to see a link about it though, if you’d care to provide it (or Republican 36 could, since he said the same thing).
Nice try Penry or Cinamon or whoever is actually the campaign or candidate over there now. Norton is a lifelong insider and is getting her butt handed to her because we don’t need or want some hack or her mouth-pieces. Maybe now Penry can let Norton talk about her own history instead of trying to smear an honest man who was doing his job while others tried to make political hay out of it.
Buck is cleaning Jane/Cinamon/Penry’s clock and will walk away with this in August and then will send Bennet packing in November. We don’t need more of the usual from Jane Norton in Washington.
Ms. Norton was a regional director of I believe HHS for one term.
Mr. Buck worked for Rep. Cheney in the U.S. House of Representaitves during the 1980’s, then for the Department of Justice until the early 2000’s. Its hard to believe he isn’t an insider.
that they’re both insiders?
Of course you would agree 36. You believe at this late stage in a losing cause you would take a half a loaf.
What are you referring to?
Appointed Member or the House? Remember?
Appointed to run as Lt Gov? Remember?
State Head of McCain for President campaign? Remember?
Asked to run by McCain? Remember?
Had campaing domain names reserved by NRSC? Remember?
Selected by NRSC? Remember?
Had NRSC try to take out all competition? Remember?
Raised over $500K in first two weeks from DC fundraiser hosted by Senators and lobbyists? Remember?
Was a lobbyist for years? Remember?
Brother-in-law Charlie Black major DC lobbyist? Remember?
Sister Judy Black DC lobbyist? Remember?
Ex-husband and daughter lobbyists? Remember?
Endorsed by 30 some Senators already on the take from Charlie Black? Remember?
Has received about $500K by now ($350K at end of Q1) in PAC money? Remember?
I could go on, but you would not remember.
It seems that Buck was guilty of serious misconduct. Whether that matters to anyone is something I don’t know.