Jane Norton’s new radio spot smearing Ken Buck is just as reckless as the other negative attacks the Norton campaign has resorted to since going all negative all the time against Ken.
 
Here’s why.
 
The facts presented in the Denver Post story on June 24th speak for themselves. Ten years ago Assistant U. S. Attorney Ken Buck got caught in the crosshairs of a politically ambitious democrat, Tom Strickland, who became U.S. Attorney in between two unsuccessful runs for the U.S. Senate.
 
Coming to the office on the heels of the Columbine tragedy, Strickland set out to build a “tough on guns” reputation as U.S. Attorney. As a result, he wanted to go to trial against an Aurora gun dealer even though his democrat predecessor and the senior attorneys in the office would not go to trial because they felt the government could not get a felony conviction.
 
Ken was among that group. He let it be known that he felt the case could be settled without a trial. He thought justice would be served without an expensive trial. That view put him in the cross hairs of Strickland.
 
The Denver Post story describes the details of what happened as a result. In the process of urging the parties to plead the case out instead of going to trial, Ken made an unintentional error and U.S. Attorney Tom Strickland went on a crusade to make Ken pay for the mistake.
 
Strickland charged ahead with the felony prosecution. The case finally ended up about the way Ken Buck had predicted. Instead of multiple felony convictions, the government ended up with a single minor paperwork misdemeanor conviction requiring one day of probation.
 
After Strickland left the U.S. Attorneys office to again run unsuccessfully for the U. S. Senate his successor, John Suthers, was charged with closing the file.
 
So one-and-a-half years after the fact, Ken received a reprimand from Suthers, who was careful to point out that Ken’s “conduct was not intentional.” He called it, “an aberration in your professional career.”
 
Recently Ken Buck invited the Denver Post to go through his personal files on the incident and write the story. Coloradans can read the story and come to their own conclusions about Ken’s record.
 
Here are comments from a few who have studied the story.
 
Dave Kopel, Independence Institute
Colorado Media Matters
June 25, 2010
 
“By legal standards, he made a mistake in what he said. Everyone makes mistakes in their career at different times, and I think it speaks well of his character that the biggest mistake they could point to on him, was when he stood up, clearly, by the judgment of every career prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s office in Colorado, for a victim of an unjust, abusive, political, malicious prosecution designed solely for the benefit of the political career of Tom Strickland.”
 
Patricia Calhoun, Westword
Colorado Media Matters
June 25, 2010
 
“… Buck actually saved people some time by saying, 'there is nothing really to this case,' which the attorneys in that office had determined earlier before Tom Strickland resurrected it. . . . I think most people in this political season, like people who defy authority and speak truth to power.”
 
Chuck Plunkett, Opinion Writer, Denver Post
June 25, 2010
 
“I haven’t decided how to rate Buck’s past indiscretion, but I’m nowhere near bold enough to throw the rocks (Pat) Waak and (Jane) Norton are throwing. Buck’s contention that he was reacting to a highly politicized situation is worth consideration.”
 
“. . . Waak ought to beware painting with such a wide brush.”