A judge declined Friday to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the case against former President Donald Trump.

Judge Scott McAfee found that the defendants had “failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor.” However, he said that the record “highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team,” stating that Nathan Wade must either withdraw or Willis and her whole office can choose to step aside to solve the problem.

McAfee wrote that disqualifying Willis was not necessary “when a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available.”

“The Court therefore concludes that the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options,” he wrote. “The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. See O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.”

Trump co-defendant Michael Roman alleged in a Jan. 8 motion that Willis financially benefited from awarding her romantic partner Nathan Wade a lucrative contract to work as special prosecutor on the case when he took her on vacations using money earned from his position.

Willis and Wade both denied the relationship began before he was hired, though a long-time friend of Willis, Robin Yeartie, testified that it began in 2019. They claimed the expenses were split roughly equally, with Willis paying him back in cash.

McAfee wrote that an “odor of mendacity remains” about the testimony of Willis and Wade.

“The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court,” he wrote. “Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.”

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead defense counsel, said in a statement that they will “use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.”

“While respecting the Court’s decision, we believe that the Court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis’ extrajudicial MLK ‘church speech,’ where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism,” Sadow said.

McAfee’s ruling addressed other grounds defendants used to call for disqualification, including Willis’ failure to disclose gifts from Wade on her financial disclosures and a church speech she gave in January blaming the allegations on race.

He called the speech “legally improper,” noting that this kind of public comment “creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into.”

“The time may well have arrived for an order preventing the State from mentioning the case in any public forum to prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity, but that is not the motion presently before the Court,” he wrote.

As for witnesses, McAfee found Yeartie’s testimony raised doubts about the testimony of Willis and Wade but “lacked context and detail.” He found that he could not “place any stock in the testimony of Terrance Bradley,” Wade’s former law partner.

Texts revealed Bradley, who said on the witness stand that he “could not recall” details about their relationship, shared many details with defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant, even suggesting witnesses she could subpoena to confirm them.

“His inconsistencies, demeanor, and generally non-responsive answers left far too brittle a foundation upon which to build any conclusions,” McAfee wrote.

McAfee issued a ruling Wednesday dismissing six of the counts in the indictment that did not offer defendants “enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently.”

NOW READ:

Judge Cannon Denies Trump’s Bid to Dismiss Classified Documents Case — for Now

Judge Aileen Cannon did not dismiss the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump based on ‘unconstitutional vagueness,’ but hinted that the case may nonetheless be dismissed for other legal reasons.

On Thursday, Judge Cannon denied the motion to dismiss based on phrases in the statute that Trump’s legal team claimed were “unconstitutionally vague,” including the terms “unauthorized possession,” “relating to the national defense,” and “entitled to receive.” Cannon has yet to rule on the other motion presented during the hearing, which seeks to dismiss the case under the Presidential Records Act.

“Although the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the Motion,” the ruling stated.

NEW: As expected, Judge Cannon just denied Trump's motion to dismiss on unconstitutional vagueness of Espionage Act motion, one of two motions debated today.

She repeatedly asked whether some of the unclear definitions instead should be resolved in jury instructions pic.twitter.com/068JhzKgcx

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024

According to CNN, Cannon questioned if it would be “premature” to dismiss Trump’s complaint under the Presidential Records Act when there was still a dispute over whether papers were designated as personal.

During the hearing, Cannon also questioned why Trump is the only president to face charges for his handling of secret material, citing Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on sitting President Joe Biden.

As reported earlier, Hur’s report showed that Joe Biden not only willfully and intentionally mishandled classified documents, stored them in multiple insecure locations, and procured them while Senator and Vice President, but he also misled federal investigators, obstructed justice, and divulged national security secrets.

Biden’s leaks of classified information are deemed to be so serious that the Intelligence Community is now performing a “damage assessment” to ascertain the extent they compromised national security.

Judge Cannon on Thursday took a wrecking ball to the Department of Justice’s case against Donald Trump, as reported by Julie Kelly.

Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins–she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act.

January 20, 2021, the day he left office pic.twitter.com/BTiEo3WLce

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024

“Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room,” Kelly noted. “The term ‘arbitrary enforcement’ used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon.”

“Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information–which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith’s indictment,” she continued.

“Prediction: Cannon won’t dismiss the case based on the motions debated today–vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act,” she added.

“But it’s very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her,” she stated.

Kelly provided more information on the courtroom developments.

“Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the ‘crime’ of willful retention of national defense information begins–she noted the date in Jack Smith’s indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act,” she said. “January 20, 2021, the day he left office.”

“Jay Bratt, representing special counsel office, confirmed the ‘crime’ began that day because as a former president, he was entitled to retain the documents,” she also noted.

“Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none.”

“She added ‘vice president’ on numerous occasions for a reason–Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges,” Kelly went on. “Trump is the only one who has not.”

“Cannon: ‘Arbitrary enforcement… is featuring in this case’. Cannon also addressed the ‘foreseeability’ as to Trump’s awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information,” she added.

“Given the constellation of what happened before”–meaning no criminal prosecution of former presidents including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and vice presidents–Cannon suggested Trump could have reasonably expected he was in the clear,” she went on.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Donald Trump is thus in peril of being dismissed for other reasons, such as “selective and vindictive prosecution.”

NOW READ:

House Judiciary Committee Threatens to Hold DA Fani Willis in Contempt

The House Judiciary Committee has notified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis that her cooperation is required in their probe into charges of her misuse of federal funds in the course of her Trump racketeering case.

Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) filed a subpoena to Willis on February 2, stating that she had “failed to comply voluntarily” with the committee’s demands for information connected to her office’s receipt and use of U.S. Department of Justice funding.

Jordan also accused Willis of firing an employee who sought to prevent the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office from utilizing a federal grant for items such as travel, laptops, and “swag” linked to the establishment of a Center of Youth Empowerment and Gang Prevention.

In response to Jordan’s claims, a spokesperson for the Fulton County District Attorney told FOX 5 that the allegations were false and that the terminated employee was from the previous administration and was fired for cause. Any potential lawsuits over the termination were dismissed as “baseless litigation.”

In the follow-up letter to Willis, the committee acknowledges receiving a “narrow set of documents” in response to the Feb. 2 subpoena, but considers compliance to date “deficient.”

The committee is demanding that Willis and her office provide all documents and communications related to the allegations of federal fund misuse, including communications with the Justice Department, communications with Fulton County District Attorney’s Office employees about federal grants, grant applications and agreements, and grant performance measurement and progress reporting documents.

House Judiciary Letter to F… by Kyle Becker

Furthermore, the letter noted that, while Willis had asked the committee to “engage” with the Justice Department to get the sought papers, her request did not relieve her of her legal responsibility to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

The committee also rejected Willis’ argument that the subpoena was “overbroad and unduly burdensome.”

Willis was given a deadline of noon on March 28 to meet the conditions. Failure to do so, the committee warned, might result in additional sanctions, including contempt of Congress charges

On Wednesday, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed a law that allows a state panel to begin acting with the authority to censure and dismiss prosecutors, which poses a threat to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ trial of former President Donald Trump.

“This legislation will help us ensure rogue and incompetent prosecutors are held accountable if they refuse to uphold the law,” Kemp said before signing the bill, flanked by Republican legislative leaders. “As we know all too well, crime has been on the rise across the country, and is especially prevalent in cities where prosecutors are giving criminals a free pass or failing to put them behind bars due to lack of professional conduct.”

Though Kemp signed legislation establishing the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission last year, it was unable to function because the state Supreme Court declined to accept regulations limiting its operation in November. The law might see similar litigation attempts to shield Georgia prosecutors from state oversight.

NOW READ:

House Republicans Publish New Report on Fani Willis’ Collusion with J6 Committee

Former President Donald Trump appeared in a Florida courtroom on Thursday to appeal his classified documents case, while citing Special Counsel Robert Hur’s decision not to bring charges against sitting President Joe Biden.

Hur’s report showed that Joe Biden not only willfully and intentionally mishandled classified documents, stored them in multiple insecure locations, and procured them while Senator and Vice President, but he also misled federal investigators, obstructed justice, and divulged national security secrets.

Biden’s leaks of classified information are deemed to be so serious that the Intelligence Community is now performing a “damage assessment” to ascertain the extent they compromised national security.

Judge Cannon on Thursday, as reported by legal analyst Julie Kelly, took a wrecking ball to the Department of Justice’s case against Donald Trump.

Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins–she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act.

January 20, 2021, the day he left office pic.twitter.com/BTiEo3WLce

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024

“Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room,” Kelly noted. “The term ‘arbitrary enforcement’ used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon.”

“Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information–which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith’s indictment,” she continued.

“Prediction: Cannon won’t dismiss the case based on the motions debated today–vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act,” she added.

“But it’s very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her,” she stated.

Kelly provided more information on the courtroom developments.

“Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the ‘crime’ of willful retention of national defense information begins–she noted the date in Jack Smith’s indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act,” she said. “January 20, 2021, the day he left office.”

“Jay Bratt, representing special counsel office, confirmed the ‘crime’ began that day because as a former president, he was entitled to retain the documents,” she also noted.

“Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none.”

“She added ‘vice president’ on numerous occasions for a reason–Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges,” Kelly went on. “Trump is the only one who has not.”

“Cannon: ‘Arbitrary enforcement… is featuring in this case’. Cannon also addressed the ‘foreseeability’ as to Trump’s awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information,” she added.

“Given the constellation of what happened before”–meaning no criminal prosecution of former presidents including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and vice presidents–Cannon suggested Trump could have reasonably expected he was in the clear,” she went on.

That is as clear a signal that the Trump classified documents case is in peril as could have arisen out of the day’s courtroom proceedings.

While both cases may contain elements of technical illegalities, Donald Trump’s case is far less egregious than Joe Biden’s, given the fact Trump was a sitting president with ultimate declassification authority; he stored the documents at Mar-a-Lago, his authorized presidential office away from the White House; and he has further protection by the Presidential Records Act.

Thus, in the event of a “guilty” verdict in the Trump case, it will be a case of “selective and vindictive prosecution” — as blatant a case of election interference in U.S. history.

A Trump guilty verdict would thus be a political outcome subverting the will of American voters. It would be the true “attack on democracy” that the Democratic Party is dishonestly protesting about, while it interferes in America’s elections and compromises institutions such as the rule of law.

If Judge Cannon dismissed the Trump classified documents case with prejudice, it would be a true victory for “democracy.”

NOW READ:

Hunter Biden Could Face Trial for Federal Gun Charges Before 2024 Election

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed a law on Wednesday that allows a state panel to begin acting with the authority to censure and dismiss prosecutors, which poses a threat to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ trial of former President Donald Trump.

“This legislation will help us ensure rogue and incompetent prosecutors are held accountable if they refuse to uphold the law,” Kemp said before signing the bill, flanked by Republican legislative leaders. “As we know all too well, crime has been on the rise across the country, and is especially prevalent in cities where prosecutors are giving criminals a free pass or failing to put them behind bars due to lack of professional conduct.”

Though Kemp signed legislation establishing the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission last year, it was unable to function because the state Supreme Court declined to accept regulations limiting its operation in November.

The justices expressed “grave doubts” about their competence to control district attorneys’ activities outside the profession of law. The legislation eliminates the need for Supreme Court approval.

The measure is expected to encounter more legal challenges. Four district attorneys withdrew their prior case against the commission when the Supreme Court overturned it.

The bill would force district attorneys and solicitors general, who prosecute lower-level charges in some counties, to consider each case individually rather than declining to pursue groups of violations. Opponents argue that this would limit prosecutors’ discretion.

Democrats, on the other hand, claim that Republicans are attempting to overturn voters’ decision and are encouraging misuse by forming a commission without having another body examine its regulations.

Willis and Wade both testified at a hearing last month that they were in a romantic connection, but they denied that Willis unjustly benefitted from it, as attorneys for Trump and other of his co-defendants claimed. Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court has yet to rule whether Willis and Wade may continue with the prosecution.

McAfee dropped some of the counts against Trump and others on Wednesday, but the remainder of the massive racketeering indictment remains in place. He dismissed six counts in the indictment, three of which were against Donald Trump, the expected Republican presidential contender for 2024.

However, he left other counts in place, including 10 against Trump, and warned prosecutors might file a fresh indictment to attempt to reinstate the ones he dismissed.

House Republicans Publish New Report on Fani Willis’ Collusion with J6 Committee

According to a House report issued on Monday, the J6 select committee shared information with Willis and her office, including allegations made against the former president and his aides about the 2020 Georgia election results.

Willis requested access to any Select Committee records relevant to her investigation into President Trump’s actions to challenge the 2020 presidential election, including “recordings and transcripts of witness interviews and depositions, electronic and print records of communications, and records of travel,” according to a letter she sent to the committee on December 17, 2021.

Apart from the House Administration Committee’s findings, other House Republicans have pressed Willis in recent months. Last month, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated that his staff had met with a “whistleblower” who had “raised concerns that Ms. Willis was not following the rules of grant dollars in an appropriate manner.”

Jordan issued a subpoena to Willis a few weeks ago to acquire documents linked to potential abuse of taxpayer funds in her case against President Trump and more than a dozen other co-defendants.

The letter stated that Willis was “required to produce the following items in your possession, custody, or control, from the period of September 1, 2020, to present in unredacted form.”

Previously, the district attorney’s office criticized House Republicans’ proposals as politically motivated. Last year, she stated that Congress had no constitutional authority to “interfere with a state criminal matter.”

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s new law may put an end to this fiasco once-and-for-all.

NOW READ:

Judge Delivers Big Blow to Fani Willis, Dismisses Six Counts in Trump Election Case

Hunter Biden may stand trial in Delaware on federal gun charges as early as June, during his father’s reelection campaign.

U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika set the preliminary date during a brief teleconference session Wednesday, but she is still considering various defense arguments to dismiss the case against the president’s son, which may delay any future trial, the AP reported.

The trial is scheduled to begin June 3 and may last up to nine days. A separate trial on tax allegations against him in California is now scheduled to begin later this month.

Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, has pleaded not guilty to lying about his drug usage on a document to purchase a rifle in October 2018 and keeping it for roughly 11 days. He admitted to using crack cocaine during that time, but his lawyers claim he did not breach the law, and a nonviolent, first-time offender would not have been prosecuted.

He was indicted after a plea arrangement that would have ended the issue without the spectacle of a trial fell apart in July 2023 when a judge who was meant to accept it instead voiced a number of concerns.

Hunter Biden’s attorneys have subsequently tried to have the case dismissed, claiming that prosecutors caved to political pressure after the accord was publicly criticized as a “sweetheart deal” by Republicans, including former President Donald Trump.

They also claim that the original deal’s immunity terms still apply, a point that defense attorney Abbe Lowell emphasized with the judge Wednesday.

Noreika stated that she had not yet decided how she would handle the case’s four current requests to dismiss, but she wanted to make sure that time for any trial was available on her schedule.

Prosecutors have stated that there is no indication that the case is politically motivated, that the evidence against him is “overwhelming,” and that the immunity bargain collapsed along with the rest of the plea agreement.

Hunter Biden has also pled not guilty to unrelated tax charges in Los Angeles, which include a four-year plot to dodge paying $1.4 million in taxes while living a lavish lifestyle.

His father Joe Biden was found in a Special Counsel’s report to have violated multiple federal laws against mishandling classified documents, repeatedly misled federal investigators, obstructed justice by lying about the security of these documents, and divulged state secrets, but remains uncharged because prosecutors did not believe that a jury would convict him because he is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

NOW READ:

Gov. DeSantis Deploys State Guard to Stop Flood of Illegal Migrants Fleeing Haiti’s ‘Bloody Revolution’

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is deploying the state guard to protect against a potential influx of illegal Haitian migrants.

Haiti is currently in a state of turmoil as violent gangs have seized control of the nation’s capital city and crippled its infrastructure and economic stability. In light of the amplified threat from Haiti, DeSantis is sending 250 additional Florida State Guard forces and law enforcement officers to the state coastline to prevent a surge of illegal Haitian migrants, the governor announced on Wednesday.

“For quite some time, the State of Florida has been dedicating significant resources to combat illegal vessels coming to Florida from countries such as Haiti,” DeSantis said in a statement on Wednesday. “Given the circumstances in Haiti, I have directed the Division of Emergency Management, the Florida State Guard, and state law enforcement agencies to deploy over 250 additional officers and soldiers and over a dozen air and seacraft to the southern coast of Florida to protect our state.”

“No state has done more to supplement the (under-resourced) U.S. Coast Guard’s interdiction efforts; we cannot have illegal aliens coming to Florida,” DeSantis said.

Florida has struggled to combat a surge in Haitian migrants given its proximity to Haiti. Migrants have fled Haiti embarking on a nearly 700-mile journey across the sea to reach Florida’s shores, according to Politico.

Illegal immigration has soared under the Biden administration, including the number of Haitian immigrants who have attempted to flee to Florida. There were 626 Haitian migrant apprehensions at Florida’s borders in fiscal year 2021, the first year President Joe Biden took office. That number grew to 69,435 apprehensions in FY2023 and 44,955 in the first four months of FY 2024.

“Illegal immigrants feel empowered to enter the sovereign territory of the United States because of the federal government’s refusal to diligently enforce our immigration laws and protect the integrity of the border,” DeSantis’ office said on Wednesday. “When a state faces the possibility of invasion, it has the right and duty to defend its territory and people. Under Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida will act.”

The situation in Haiti has worsened in recent weeks. Gangs are upsetting order in Port-au-Prince, seizing control of the capital city’s main port, breaking prisons open, forcing international airports to shut down, setting fire to police stations and storming the national palace. The Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry announced his resignation on Tuesday after the gangs demanded he do so.

“We won’t lie to people, saying we have a peaceful revolution,” Barbecue, a Haitian gang leader, said on Tuesday, NBC News reported, citing Reuters News Agency. “We do not have a peaceful revolution. We are starting a bloody revolution in the country.”

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

Judge Delivers Big Blow to Fani Willis, Dismisses Six Counts in Trump Election Case

The racketeering case against former President Donald Trump could be further delayed if prosecutors choose to file a superseding indictment, legal experts said Wednesday.

Judge Scott McAfee issued a decision Wednesday dismissing six “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer” counts in the indictment against Trump and his co-defendants that did not offer them “enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently.” The ruling means prosecutors will now have to make a choice about how they will move forward, which could impact the timing of the trial, legal experts said.

“This means that [Fulton County District Attorney Fani] Willis will have to decide whether she wants to appeal, go forward as is without those counts as to those defendants, or to take the entire case back to the grand jury to seek a superseding indictment that fixes the defects,” Atlanta-based defense attorney and legal analyst Philip Holloway told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Trump was indicted in August for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia along with his co-defendants. Three of the six counts McAfee dropped Wednesday were against Trump.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that McAfee’s dismissal of six counts “presents a difficult question for the prosecution.”

“If they try to secure a superseding indictment to correct the earlier mistakes, it will make it difficult to try the case before the election,” he wrote. “The defense is allowed discovery and time to prepare for the new alleged crimes. That will take time off the clock. The court has indicated that they can still rely on the underlying conduct to make out the general racketeering charge. However, that theory was already thin soup and it just got a bit thinner.”

…The defense is allowed discovery and time to prepare for the new alleged crimes. That will take time off the clock. The court has indicated that they can still rely on the underlying conduct to make out the general racketeering charge. However, that theory was alreadly thin…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 13, 2024

McAfee’s ruling noted that the state can bring new indictments if it chooses. Trump’s lead defense counsel Steve Sadow still called it a victory, saying that the prosecution “failed to make specific allegations of any alleged wrongdoing on those counts.”

Atlanta-based defense attorney Andrew Fleischman told the DCNF that it “may create a serious delay” if the state opts to appeal or file a superseding indictment.

“If Fulton County simply accepts the decision and moves forward, it should have very little impact,” Fleischman told the DCNF. “Much of the same conduct is covered in the RICO count already, it doesn’t have a meaningful impact on punishment, and frankly, it was already really hard to prove that Donald Trump intended to cause elected officials to violate the constitution.”

In January, a co-defendant filed a bombshell motion alleging Willis financially benefited from appointing her lover, Nathan Wade, to work as a special prosecutor. McAfee is also expected to rule this week on the motion to disqualify Willis.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

Lauren Boebert Gives the ‘Swampy’ Reason Behind Ken Buck’s Sudden Retirement from Politics

Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert announced on Wednesday that she won’t be competing in the special election to replace GOP Rep. Ken Buck, whose district she’s running for in November.

Buck decided on Tuesday that he’d be leaving Congress earlier than previously announced by the end of next week, prompting a special election to temporarily fill his seat on June 25 — the same day as the already scheduled primary for the district. Boebert opted to run for Buck’s seat rather than seek reelection to her battleground district in late December, but wrote on X that she won’t “further imperil the already very slim House Republican majority” by running in the special election.

“Ken Buck’s announcement yesterday was a gift to the uniparty,” said Boebert. “The establishment concocted a swampy backroom deal to try to rig an election I’m winning by 25 points. Forcing an unnecessary Special Election on the same day as the Primary Election will confuse voters, result in a lameduck Congressman on day one, and leave the 4th District with no representation for more than three months. The 4th District deserves better.”

“I will not further imperil the already very slim House Republican majority by resigning my current seat and will continue to deliver on my constituents’ priorities while also working hard to earn the votes of the people of Colorado’s 4th District who have made clear they are hungry for a real conservative,” Boebert added. “I am the only Trump-endorsed, America First candidate in this race and will win the 4th District’s Primary Election on June 25th and General Election on November 5th.”

After experiencing several personal headwinds in 2023, and being faced with a strong Democratic challenger in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, Boebert decided to run in the 4th Congressional District on the other side of the state that is friendlier to Republicans.

The congresswoman also would’ve faced a competitive challenger in Republican attorney Jeff Hurd for the party’s nomination. Democrat Adam Frisch challenged Boebert for the second time after coming within 546 votes of defeating her in the 2022 midterms.

In the 4th Congressional District, a long list of GOP hopefuls had already announced their candidacies following Buck’s initial retirement announcement in early November, but Boebert quickly became the Republican primary’s frontrunner.

A late February Kaplan Strategies poll found the congresswoman leading the crowded field with 32% support, with no other candidate notching double-digit support.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

Legal Scholar: It is ‘Shocking’ That Joe Biden is Not Being Charged in Classified Documents Scandal