Readers may recall that former President Donald Trump was sued in 2017 by critical Twitter users he'd blocked on the platform. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump, as a public official, had unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment rights of those blocked users, only for the whole case to later be dismissed on appeal by the Supreme Court as moot after Trump was banned from Twitter.
The Supreme Court just ruled on two more cases involving public officials blocking users on social media, and the new ruling could impact Trump's social media habits if he wins re-election to another term as president in November, according to The Washington Times.
In a unanimous ruling, the high court established a new two-part test for such instances of public officials blocking users on social media that is largely dependent on specific circumstances and, on the one hand, provides flexibility for officials speaking in a private capacity while, on the other, holds them liable for violating the First Amendment if acting in their official capacity.
The first of the two cases, Lindke v. Freed, involves Port Huron, Michigan, City Manager James Freed, who operated a "mixed-use" Facebook page that was predominately used for personal matters but occasionally was also used for official purposes.
During the pandemic, city resident Kevin Lindke posted comments on Freed's posts critical of the city's response, which initially led to Freed deleting those comments before ultimately blocking Lindke from his page. Lindke sued under the First Amendment, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but both a district court and the 6th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Freed as it was determined that his Facebook page was predominately managed in a personal capacity.
The second case, O'Conner-Ratcliff v. Garnier, involved two California school board trustees, Michelle O'Conner-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, who operated primarily official Facebook pages that were deluged with spam posts from a couple, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who had children that attended schools in the district and were highly critical of the board of trustees.
The two trustees initially deleted the comments before blocking the Garniers altogether, which resulted in a First Amendment lawsuit under § 1983 and both a district court and the 9th Circuit Court ruling in favor of the parents that the two officials were liable for violating their right to free speech on official posts.
That split at the circuit court level, as well as the disparate means by which the differing opinions were reached, compelled the Supreme Court to take up both cases and settle the dispute on when public officials can be held liable for First Amendment violations when blocking other social media users from their pages.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous 18-page ruling in Lindke v. Freed that, in effect, created a new two-part test for courts to follow in dealing with First Amendment disputes involving public officials blocking critical users on social media platforms.
"When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private," Barrett wrote on behalf of the court. "We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media."
To be sure, the court acknowledged that some cases won't be straightforward and would require the courts to review the particular circumstances of a social media block to determine whether it was made in a personal or official capacity.
In the end, the 6th Circuit's judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration under the new test. Likewise, in an unsigned three-page order that referenced the Lindke decision, the 9th Circuit's ruling in the O'Connor-Ratcliff case was similarly vacated and remanded for further consideration.
CBS News, in reporting on the two rulings, noted how former President Trump had been similarly sued by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of blocked Twitter users, and how a district court and the 2nd Circuit Court had ruled in favor of the blocked users, only for those judgments to be vacated and the entire case dismissed as moot by the Supreme Court after Trump was banned from Twitter in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot of 2021.
Now, in response to the new rulings, a senior fellow for the Knight First Amendment Institute told the outlet, "We're gratified that the court recognized that public officials must comply with the First Amendment when they use their personal social media accounts to carry out their official duties, as former President Trump did with his Twitter account," and added, "The Court was also right to hold that public officials can't immunize themselves from First Amendment liability merely by using their personal accounts to conduct official business."
Democrat-aligned legal experts have been highly critical of every move made by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed presiding judge in former President Donald Trump's classified documents criminal case.
Judge Cannon just rejected one of Trump's motions to dismiss the charges, but did so in a way that her critics say was a mistake and "nightmare scenario" that only grants Special Counsel Jack Smith a "temporary victory" and sets Trump up for a possible win with dismissal at a later stage of the proceedings, according to left-leaning Salon.
A hearing was held Thursday on two motions to dismiss, including one asserting the "unconstitutional vagueness" of the Espionage Act statute under which former President Trump was charged for his retention of classified documents after leaving the White House.
Later that same day, Judge Cannon issued a two-page order rejecting that motion "without prejudice" -- meaning it can be raised again -- and wrote, "Defendant Trump seeks dismissal of Counts 1 through 32 of the Superseding Indictment on the ground that the statutory phrases 'unauthorized possession,' 'relating to the national defense,' and 'entitled to receive' appearing in 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) are unconstitutionally vague as applied under the facts presented, in violation of due process and the rule of lenity."
"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," she continued.
The judge added, "For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."
Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, in a Substack post, wrote, "The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak “legal” as our native language," and accused Judge Cannon of writing her order in a "deliberately dumb" manner.
"The good news here is temporary. It’s what I’d call an ugly win for the government," she continued. "The Judge dismissed the vagueness argument -- but just for today. She did it 'without prejudice,' which means that Trump’s lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial."
"If the Judge had ruled against the government today, the Special Counsel could have appealed. But that’s not the case if, after today’s ruling in the government’s favor, she permits Trump to resurrect the motion at trial," Vance wrote. "She could grant the motion to dismiss the case then and at that point, with very rare exceptions (that the Judge would be in a position to prevent), the government can’t appeal."
"That’s because once a jury has been empaneled, double jeopardy 'attaches' and prevents the government from retrying the defendant on the same charges if he’s acquitted, which is what would happen if the Judge granted a motion to dismiss at that point and before a jury rendered a guilty verdict," she added. "That’s the nightmare scenario here."
Over on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," legal analyst Lisa Rubin accused Judge Cannon of taking "a bunch of swipes at the special counsel" with the parsed "language" in her brief order that only temporarily rejected the dismissal motion and "kicked the can down the road" to be raised again at a later date.
"She didn’t give Donald Trump what he wanted," Rubin said of the judge. "On the other hand, she made it difficult for anyone to appeal this, and just sort of held it in abeyance. I don't think it's a victory for the special counsel's office."
Later, on host Joy Reid's MSNBC show, Florida prosecutor Dave Aronberg said of Cannon's order, "Although it seems like Jack Smith won today because she didn't boot the entire Espionage Act claim, she postponed her decision. She denied it without prejudice, meaning that Donald Trump can bring it up again in the middle of the trial."
"And if Judge Cannon agrees, in the middle of the trial, then double jeopardy attaches, and Jack Smith won't be able to appeal it to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then Jack Smith is done on that claim," Aronberg added. "So, it's a temporary victory -- a victory for now."
Former President Donald Trump just dropped another hint about what he is looking for, or more accurately what he is explicitly not looking for, in a prospective vice presidential candidate.
In a recent interview, Trump revealed that he had ruled out from consideration as his running mate a few prominent names that, in his view, haven't "behaved properly" toward him, according to The Washington Times.
That makes sense, as loyalty is widely believed to be the top attribute that he is looking for in whoever he ultimately chooses to be his VP.
During an interview this week with Newsmax host Greg Kelly, the topic of who former President Trump might pick as his vice presidential candidate came up for discussion, at which point he revealed that he'd already crossed a few names off of his list.
"I'd probably have a couple of people -- that you may know very well -- some people that I didn't think behaved properly," Trump said. "Yeah, I think I've ruled some people out, but I've ruled a lot of people in."
"And we have a lot of great people in the Republican Party. And they'll do a terrific job, I think," he added. "But certainly, I have people that I wouldn't want as a vice president."
Former President Trump also used that interview with Newsmax's Kelly to address some of the false narratives and reporting from the "fake news" media and even suggested the possibility that he might pick a liberal or Democrat to be his running mate, though he acknowledged the strong likelihood that his eventual choice would be "really conservative."
"I get a kick out of watching the fake news media say, 'Nobody wants to work with him; nobody wants to be vice president; nobody wants to be secretary of state,'" Trump said. "Everybody wants to be in these positions."
"There's is not a person in politics that doesn't want it, and that includes Democrats. If I wanted, I'd have a Democrat; I'd have a liberal; I'd have ... anybody I want," he continued. "But we're going to pick somebody that's really good, really conservative; loves law and order, low taxes, low interest rates, borders. We have to have the border. The border is killing our country."
As for the ongoing VP selection process, Trump said, "It's the formal processes in my brain," and added, "I look at the same people that everybody else is looking at. We've had some really great people."
The former president also addressed the constant media coverage about his eventual choice of a running mate, and said, "The press covers the people that are being thought about. It's unusual that you pick somebody totally out of that, and there are 15 people they talk about, and that list grows every day."
Emblematic of what former President Trump referenced was a recent Axios report that highlighted the top 12 potential candidates to be Trump's VP pick, with the top three most likely choices being Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH).
A second tier of possible but less likely picks included former HUD Sec. Ben Carson, Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake, business entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
Rounding out the remainder of Axios' list were Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley -- though it is likely a safe bet that some of those names, especially Haley, are among those that Trump has already "ruled out" from his list.
By all accounts, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is a genuine and likable guy with an upbeat attitude and quiet demeanor -- though that hasn't translated well in his current position, as he seems to lack a commanding presence and his leadership thus far has been somewhat uninspiring.
That likely contributed to what some are calling a failed annual House GOP retreat this week, set this year in West Virginia, as less than half of the conference showed up and much of the time was spent addressing chaotic infighting instead of unifying around a common agenda, according to the Washington Examiner.
The Examiner reported that attendance at the House GOP retreat in West Virginia this year was "paltry," with only around 100 members of the 219-strong conference making an appearance, and a variety of excuses from others for not showing up.
Some of the absences were understandable, to be sure, such as the 21 Republican lawmakers -- so far -- who are leaving Congress to retire or run for another office, with an unnamed aide for one of those departing members saying the event would be a pointless and a "waste of time" for them.
Other excuses, some more plausible than others, included a desire to spend time with family or with constituents in their home district, or to attend campaign events or prepare for upcoming primary elections.
Yet, the retreat's poor attendance should not have been unexpected, as CNN reported earlier in the week that many members had already signaled their plans to not show up.
Beyond the public claims of scheduling conflicts and election-related activities, the outlet noted plenty of quiet grumbling about frustrations with leadership, the constant bickering with other members, fatigue with last year's incessant leadership chaos, and a general lack of enthusiasm.
Axios reported that a key and repeated theme of the two-day retreat were pleas by Speaker Johnson and other leaders to members to cease the infighting and stop campaigning against each other so that the conference could come together and present a united front against their Democratic opponents.
In one particular meeting, for example, an unnamed source told the outlet that Johnson "just excoriated those who are campaigning against other GOP incumbents in their districts," and added that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) "seconded what Johnson said. There's no reason to be campaigning against each other."
That was exemplified by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who skipped the retreat to instead campaign in support of outsider candidate Brandon Herrera, who is involved in a primary runoff against Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX). When asked by the Examiner why he was campaigning instead of at the retreat, a spokesperson for Gaetz replied, "House Republicans have been in a state of constant retreat. Congressman Gaetz is on the advance."
One member who was in attendance at the retreat and supported Speaker Johnson's call for an end to the "dumb" infighting and campaigning against one another was Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI), who told the Examiner, "I’m appealing and asking my colleagues to please get over themselves."
"And let’s have the focus be on winning a majority so that we can actually affect the country," he continued. "I do think that Donald Trump’s going to be the next president. Would that not be a whole hell of a lot better for him and the country if we had a Republican majority."
One unnamed senior aide suggested to the Examiner that the low attendance was reflective of the poor morale among GOP members, and said, "The only retreat that matters is the one leadership has done over the last few months to the old swamp tactics that we’ve seen for decades. Backroom process, massive uniparty spending bills, no changes to Washington business as usual."
Yet, in the view of Huizenga, that low morale might have been improved by a stronger showing at the retreat, as he explained, "It probably would have just been healthy to have people around, not in their various camps but actually trying to figure out how we’re going to make this 'family' functional," with an emphasis on "family" in quotes.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who represents Colorado's competitive 3rd District, made plans to run this year in the state's solidly Republican 4th District represented by Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) after Buck announced last year that he would not seek re-election and was widely presumed to serve out the remainder of his current term before retiring.
Boebert's plan was just upended, or at least made substantially more difficult and risky, by Buck's abrupt decision to resign early, which triggered a special election to fill his seat that the congresswoman can't run in and win without also resigning her current seat, according to Fox News.
In addition to upsetting Boebert's plans and potentially ending her congressional career, Buck's surprise revelation this week appears to have caught House Republican leadership, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), entirely off guard and unaware.
Rep. Buck, who first announced in November that he would not seek re-election, revealed in a Tuesday announcement that he now planned to "depart Congress at the end of next week" rather than serve out the remainder of his term.
That same day, Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis issued a statement that praised the outgoing Republican congressman for his "years of public service," wished him well in his unspecified "next chapter," and set a date of June 25 -- the same date as the state's primary elections -- for a special election to fill the 4th District's impending vacancy.
"To ensure that Colorado has the representation we deserve in Congress, and to minimize taxpayer cost, I plan to take swift action to set the date of the special election to fill the vacancy created by Ken Buck’s resignation to align with Colorado’s primary on June 25th," the governor explained.
Needless to say, that development frustrated and infuriated Rep. Boebert, who asserted in a fiery X post on Wednesday, "Ken Buck’s announcement yesterday was a gift to the uniparty. 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," she continued.
"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."
Boebert's point about 4th District voters being confused by the dual election on June 25 is valid, as is her annoyance over the scheduling of the special election, given that she'd have to vacate her current seat -- which would possibly be picked up by a Democrat in a subsequent special election -- if she were to run and win.
Newsweek reported that Speaker Johnson and other House Republican leaders were "blindsided" by Rep. Buck's unexpected early resignation -- which reduces the already slim majority to 218-213, meaning the GOP can only lose two votes and still pass legislation -- though a spokesman for Buck insisted that the outgoing congressman left Johnson a voicemail and spoke with House GOP Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) shortly before he made the announcement.
Newsmax reported that Johnson told reporters, "I was surprised by Ken's announcement. I'm looking forward to talking to him about that. I didn't know."
According to Axios, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) was also caught by surprise by Buck's abrupt resignation, and similarly told reporters, "I haven't gotten to talk to him. He wasn't on the floor but I'm curious to see why he's leaving early."
The outlet further quoted several other House Republicans who largely lamented the further diminishment of their slim majority, but also included a cryptic comment from Buck that suggested more early resignations could be forthcoming, as when asked if he was "facing heat" over his decision from GOP colleagues, Buck replied, "I think it's the next three people that leave that they're going to be worried about."
Former President Donald Trump and his attorneys were in a South Florida courtroom on Thursday for a hearing on two previously filed motions to dismiss the criminal charges pressed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in Trump's federal classified documents case.
Unfortunately for Trump, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon tossed out one of those motions, which argued the charges should be dismissed for "unconstitutional vagueness," according to The Hill.
Judge Cannon has yet to rule on the other motion addressed during Thursday's hearing, that the charges should be dismissed based on Trump's authority to declassify documents under the Presidential Records Act, nor has she made decisions on the remainder of the nine total dismissal motions that Trump's attorneys have filed on the docket.
On Feb. 22, former President Trump's attorneys filed a 20-page motion to dismiss counts 1-32 of the charges against him based on the "unconstitutional vagueness" of the underlying federal statute.
At issue is the language used in 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), which stated in the relevant part, "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes ... or attempts ... the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it," violates the law and is subject to punishment.
The motion called attention to the vagueness and disputed meanings of the statutory phrases "unauthorized possession," "relating to the national defense," "entitled to receive," and "willfully," and as such argued that the court should dismiss the charges based on the statute under the judicial "vagueness doctrine" and "Rule of Lenity" that generally favors a defendant when laws are ambiguous or unclear.
The Hill reported that during Thursday's hearing, Judge Cannon seemed skeptical of the arguments put forward by former President Trump's attorneys about the vagueness of the statutory language and even went so far as to say at one point that it would be "quite an extraordinary step" for her to strike down that law on vagueness grounds.
That response came after Trump's attorney Emil Bove told the judge that "The court’s obligation is to strike the statute and say, 'Congress, get it right.'"
She did, however, make it a point to question prosecutors over why no other former president has ever been charged under that statute despite numerous examples of others also mishandling classified materials, though prosecutors countered by insisting that there had never been any other situations that were even "remotely similar to this one."
In the end, Judge Cannon decided to rule against the "unconstitutional vagueness" dismissal motion, though she notably did so "without prejudice," meaning former President Trump's attorneys can raise the issue again at a later point in the proceedings.
In her two-page order, the judge wrote, "Defendant Trump seeks dismissal of Counts 1 through 32 of the Superseding Indictment on the ground that the statutory phrases 'unauthorized possession,' 'relating to the national defense,' and 'entitled to receive' appearing in 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) are unconstitutionally vague as applied under the facts presented, in violation of due process and the rule of lenity."
"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," she continued.
Cannon concluded, "For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."
It remains unknown at this point how the judge will rule on all of the rest of Trump's dismissal motions, which according to the docket include claims under the Presidential Records Act, presidential immunity, the unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Smith, and selective or vindictive prosecution -- all of which are opposed by the special counsel.
Famed Hollywood actor Pierce Brosnan, who is arguably best known for his prior portrayal of the iconic British special agent "James Bond," was in a bit of hot water for violating the rules at Yellowstone National Park last year.
On Thursday, Brosnan pleaded guilty in a federal court in Wyoming to a misdemeanor offense for walking off a marked path and standing on a fragile geothermal feature and was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine, according to Wyoming's Cowboy State Daily.
The guilty plea stemmed from a Nov. 1, 2023, visit to Yellowstone with his sons and some friends, during which he stepped off the boardwalk and posed for a picture, one of several he later posted to his Instagram account but shortly thereafter deleted, on a snow-covered geothermal feature in the Mammoth Hot Springs area of the park.
Per the Daily, Brosnan had initially pleaded not guilty in January to the federal charges of foot travel in a thermal area and violation of a closure order, but the Irish-born actor appeared to have changed his mind and agreed to a plea deal with prosecutors ahead of Thursday's hearing at the Yellowstone Justice Center in Mammoth.
The deal with prosecutors included Brosnan pleading guilty to the foot travel misdemeanor, dropping the closure violation, a $5,000 fine, two years of unsupervised probation, and a two-year ban from Yellowstone National Park.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie A. Hambrick accepted the deal but altered some of the terms in light of Brosnan's expressed remorse for what had occurred, and ultimately only sentenced the famous "007" actor to pay a $1,500 fine -- $500 to the U.S. Treasury and $1,000 to the Yellowstone Forever Geologic Protection Fund -- while dropping the probation and ban as unnecessary.
For his part, Brosnan, who appeared in court via Zoom, shared how "highly embarrassed and ashamed" he was over what occurred and apologized by saying, "It was a foolish, foolish, impulsive thing to do with my sons. I wasn’t fully aware then, but I am absolutely 100% aware now."
He went on to explain that he had been "so engrossed with the beauty of the landscape" that he didn't notice the warning signs against wandering off the boardwalk path, and insisted, "If I had known or seen that sign, I never would have done it."
USA Today reported that at the time of the incident, Brosnan had been in neighboring Montana to film an as-yet-unreleased movie titled "The Unholy Trinity" co-starring Samuel L. Jackson and David Arquette.
The outlet further noted that Brosnan posted a public apology to his Instagram account that said, "As an environmentalist I have the utmost respect for and love of our natural world."
"However, I made an impulsive mistake -- one that I do not take lightly -- when entering a thermal area covered in snow in Yellowstone National Park to take a photograph," he continued. "I did not see a 'No Trespassing' sign posted that warned of danger nor did I hike in the immediate area."
"I deeply regret my transgression and offer my heartfelt apologies to all for trespassing in this sensitive area. Yellowstone and all our National Parks are to be cared for and preserved for all to enjoy," Brosnan added along with the hashtag "#StayOnThePath."
A Justice Department press release noted that the National Park Service "reminds Yellowstone visitors that the ground in thermal areas is fragile and thin, and scalding water is just below the surface. Therefore, trespassing on thermal features is dangerous and can harm delicate natural resources within the park. Additionally, the park was established primarily to protect these hydrothermal areas. NPS encourages visitors to exercise extreme caution around thermal features by staying on boardwalks and trails."
Courthouse News reported that the warnings of danger are there for a reason, as at least 20 people have been killed over the years, and countless more seriously injured, by falling in or even just being too close to any of the roughly 10,000-plus geothermal features in the park like geysers, hot springs, and pools that reach boilingly hot temperatures.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) announced in November that he would not seek re-election in Colorado's 4th District, with the logical presumption being that he would serve out the remainder of his term before retiring, but he then surprised everyone by announcing on Wednesday that he would resign early from his seat in Congress next week.
That triggered a special election in June that, in the view of some, was purposefully intended to hamper the political future of the 3rd District's Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who previously planned to run as Buck's replacement in the 4th District but won't participate in the special election, according to the New York Post.
If Boebert were to run in and win the 4th District's special election, she would be forced to resign her 3rd District seat, setting up another vacancy and special election that might be won by a Democratic candidate, further decreasing the already slim House majority that Republicans currently maintain.
Rep. Buck on Tuesday announced that, rather than continue serving until the end of the current term, he would resign early and "depart Congress at the end of next week."
Though he has not revealed his future plans, the Post noted that rumors indicate the moderate Republican has lined up a job as an on-air commentator for CNN -- likely as one who will be outspoken in his criticisms of former President Donald Trump and his supposed fellow GOP colleagues in Congress.
Buck's announcement prompted the release of a statement from Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis that thanked the congressman for his "years of public service" and revealed a plan to fill the vacancy with a special election.
"To ensure that Colorado has the representation we deserve in Congress, and to minimize taxpayer cost, I plan to take swift action to set the date of the special election to fill the vacancy created by Ken Buck’s resignation to align with Colorado’s primary on June 25th," the governor said.
To say this move from Rep. Buck disrupted Rep. Boebert's plans would be an understatement, and her fury at the unexpected development was evident in an X post on Wednesday.
"Ken Buck’s announcement yesterday was a gift to the uniparty," Boebert wrote. "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," she continued.
Boebert declared, "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."
"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," the outspoken pro-Trump congresswoman added.
According to Colorado Newsline, the combination of the 4th District special election and primary election on the same day will prove confusing for many voters, as it remains unclear right now which of the nine Republican candidates who were already running in the primary to replace Rep. Buck, if any of them, will also be the GOP nominee in the special election.
Given how solidly red the 4th District is, compared to the more competitive nature of the 3rd District after the last round of redistricting, whoever ultimately wins the special election will have an incumbency boost over any other competitors when the general election is held in November, and while it remains possible that Rep. Boebert will win both the primary and the general, it is also plausible that she won't win that primary and then be forced out of a job in Congress next year.
Former President Donald Trump and his attorneys were in a South Florida courtroom on Thursday as part of their efforts to dismiss the classified documents case brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith, according to ABC News.
The two-hour hearing was centered on two separate motions to dismiss the criminal charges -- one of which argued that Trump had the authority to declassify certain documents under the Presidential Records Act, and the second which argued that charges filed under the World War I-era Espionage Act were "unconstitutionally vague" as applied to Trump.
Judge Aileen Cannon was reportedly "skeptical" of some of the arguments put forward by Trump's attorneys and further suggested that it was "premature" to discuss certain aspects of the case, and ultimately ended the hearing without rendering a decision on the motions, though she did state that she would be "ruling on them promptly."
Up first for discussion during the hearing, according to CBS News, was the motion that called for the dismissal of the "unconstitutionally vague" charges against former President Trump for his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents that pertained to national defense information.
"Why are we having this as-applied discussion now given the chance of disputed facts," Judge Cannon asked at one point, suggesting it was better suited for during the actual trial, which is tentatively scheduled to begin in late May but will almost certainly be delayed until later in the summer or even next year.
Trump's attorney, Emil Bove, argued that the applicable statute was vague because it did not specifically address one way or the other whether or not a president was authorized to declassify defense-related materials, which triggered a back-and-forth between the judge and attorneys on both sides about the definition of "unauthorized" and the timing of when any presidential authorization might end.
Bove insisted that the charges should be dropped for vagueness, but Cannon observed that "declaring a statute unconstitutionally vague is an extraordinary step."
The second half of the hearing, per ABC News, addressed the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and its relevant language that permits a sitting president to determine whether certain records are "personal" and can be retained as compared to which are "presidential" and must be turned over to the National Archives for safekeeping.
Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, argued that all presidents going back to George Washington had kept certain documents after leaving office, but pointed to more recent examples -- including Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden -- of classified materials that were retained after leaving office without criminal charges being pursued, and argued that "The only time that the government has taken a different position ... is President Trump. Period."
CNN reported that federal prosecutors pushed back during the hearing and asserted that the records retained by Trump were "nowhere near personal," that the PRA didn't give presidents "carte blanche" to declassify whatever they wanted, and, in response to a defense argument that the PRA only allows for civil instead of criminal remedies for violations, said it would be "absurd" for the National Archives to not be able to seek Justice Department assistance in settling disputes.
Unfortunately for Trump, Judge Cannon told defense attorney Blanche about his PRA arguments, "I am not seeing how any of that leads to a dismissal of the indictment" -- at least, not at this point in the proceedings.
To be sure, while Judge Cannon seemed to express some skepticism toward the defense team's arguments for dismissal, she did not outright reject them either, and as mentioned said that she would "promptly" issue a ruling soon.
CNN noted that this hearing only dealt with two of nine total motions to dismiss that were filed by Trump's team, and while no hearings are currently scheduled to address the other seven filings, it remains possible that Cannon could decide she needs further clarification from either side before fully addressing some or all of them.
Judge Cannon had initially scheduled the classified documents trial to begin on May 20 but has strongly signaled that the date will be pushed back. ABC News reported that Special Counsel Smith has suggested a new trial date at some point in July, while CBS News reported that Trump's team has suggested that it begin no sooner than August or September, if not be pushed back until after the 2024 election is completed in November.
Former President Donald Trump is facing criminal prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith over his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents after he left the White House in January 2021.
Yet, in a Wednesday interview, Trump insisted that he "legally" retained the classified documents in his possession under the authority of the Presidential Records Act and "wasn't hiding them" from federal investigators, Breitbart reported.
Trump also highlighted the substantial disparity in treatment between himself and President Joe Biden, in that he is being aggressively prosecuted for keeping classified documents while Biden, who was also found to possess without authorization numerous classified documents from his time as vice president and senator, is not facing any criminal charges.
"I was dealing with them. We were dealing fine. And then all of a sudden they raided this house. They raided Mar-a-Lago. These are corrupt people," former President Trump told Newsmax host Greg Kelly during an interview Wednesday in his South Florida resort residence.
"But they release Biden. What Biden did, he wasn’t protected by the Presidential Records [Act] because he wasn’t president. He took them when he was a senator," Trump continued.
As reported last month by NBC News, Biden was found to have numerous classified documents dating from his time as a senator and vice president, which he had no authority to keep, that were stored in several different unsecured locations, including the garage of his Delaware home and an unused office space in Washington D.C., among other places.
However, following an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Hur, it was determined that even though Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials" to others without authorization, which "present serious risks to national security," he would not face criminal charges due to the belief that a D.C. jury would feel sympathetic toward the "elderly man with a poor memory" and refuse to convict him.
"There’s something going on because they’re going after me viciously," Trump told Kelly in the Newsmax interview, per Mediaite. "Then all of a sudden it comes out that Biden took 10 times the number of documents that I did."
"And I took them very legally and I wasn’t hiding them. We had boxes on the front of the -- and a lot of those boxes had clothing and a lot," he continued about his leaving the White House. "We’re moving out, ok? Unfortunately, we’re moving out of the White House. And because we’re moving out of the White House, our country’s going to hell."
"But we weren’t hiding anything," Trump said, per Breitbart. "He was, and then you see him in with his Corvette. Nobody ever mentions the one though that’s the worst, is he had them in Chinatown, and those were boxes that were used. If you take a look at those boxes, those boxes were -- there was a lot of activity in those boxes, they show pictures of them. These were boxes that were used.
"In Mar-a-Lago, we had the Secret Service, we had all sorts of security. We had everything. And what he did was far more egregious," the former president stated. "I mean, I had protection, I had the right to do it -- in my opinion, and my lawyers' opinion and everything else."
"But when you see the way they released him, and they say we're gonna release him, it was egregious what he did," Trump said while also mentioning how his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton similarly dodged accountability for her own scandalous retention and destruction of classified materials on an unauthorized and improperly secured private email server.
"So, when I look at this, Greg, I say there's gotta be something. You know, it's very interesting when they were going after me viciously, raiding my house, everything else -- because Jack Smith is an animal," Trump told Kelly, according to Mediaite. "He's a total animal. He's a -- he's deranged. He really is, he's a deranged person."
"The other gentleman," Special Counsel Hur, "who went after Biden, it was a weird kind of a conclusion because he said he's competent to be president but he's not competent to stand trial," Trump concluded. "That's sort of a strange thing. I don't think people are going to buy that very much, because certainly it'll be used during the campaign."