Follow America’s fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices.
On the fourth day of a legal proceeding initiated by a coalition of six Colorado voters, which seeks to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 presidential ballot, Congressman Ken Buck was called to testify by Trump’s defense team.
The plaintiffs are Norma Anderson, Michelle Priola, Claudine Cmarada, Krista Kafer, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian and are represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, KBN Law LLC., and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC.
The case alleges that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which disqualifies any individual from holding federal office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.
Congressman Ken Buck was charged with refuting the January 6 committee’s report which accused Trump of being involved in an insurrection.
On Thursday, he delivered his testimony remotely from his office in Washington, D.C. Buck highlighted various issues with the committee’s approach, such as their lack of cross-examination of witnesses, questioning evidence, and subpoenaing documents that could have disproved the allegations against Trump.
He argued that the committee was politically motivated and had a bias against Trump.
“It’s like going into a courtroom as a prosecutor, not having a defense counsel or a defendant. I think, in order to be able to judge someone’s culpability, you’ve got to be able to hear both sides of the story, and in this case, there was not another side,” Buck said.
Buck’s testimony primarily centered around his experiences from January 6 and his views on the report from the January 6 committee, as reported by 9 News.
“I voted to certify the election. I thought what happened on January 6 was obviously bad. It was a riot in the Capitol building. It was meant to disturb a proceeding, and I felt that the parts of the report that I saw described those things. It went beyond that in other areas and that’s where I think the cross-examination, in terms of the president’s culpability, would have been important,”
“A police officer came to the microphone and said that tear gas had been dispersed. And we were advised that there were gas masks under our seats,…