- 2 years ago
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) is questioned by former President Trump's lawyer, Scott Gessler, in the Colorado trial which could rule that Trump is blocked from appearing on the 2024 ballot.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Congressman Buck, can you hear me?
00:17 Just yet.
00:18 I just heard you. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, you heard me great. Okay. Yeah.
00:26 Could you raise your right hand, please?
00:30 Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give this court will be the
00:37 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
00:39 Yes. Great. So we could hear you better when you were kind of pulled up.
00:44 It's not a perfect system, but I think we should be good.
00:49 Okay, I will stay at this distance. Great.
00:55 And just let us know if for some reason you're having trouble hearing or
00:57 anything.
00:58 Go ahead, Mr Gessler. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Representative
01:04 Buck.
01:04 Afternoon. Thank you for being here. Um, I'm going to ask you some questions,
01:10 as you well know, but I'd like to start just a little bit with your with your
01:14 current position and your background. Um, so could you tell for the record
01:20 your current position? Yeah, I'm a United States Congressman for the
01:23 Fourth Congressional District of Colorado. How long have you been a
01:26 congressman?
01:27 Nine, almost nine years and eight years and 10 months. Okay. And when were you
01:34 first elected into Congress? I was elected in November of 2014. Okay. And
01:40 what did you do prior to that?
01:41 Uh, before that, I was the elected district attorney in the 19th Judicial
01:47 District, which is well count. And how long did you serve in that position?
01:53 I served as district attorney for 10 years. Okay. And then prior to being
01:57 elected as district attorney, what did you do? I actually worked for Hensel
02:02 Phelps Construction Company in a non legal position for 2.5 years. And
02:09 before that, I was with the U. S. Department of Justice for 15 years,
02:13 three years in Washington, D. C. And 12 years in the U. S. Attorney's Office
02:20 in Colorado in Denver. And I also taught, uh, at the University of Denver
02:26 Law School in the evenings. I'm not sure the title was adjunct professor, but it
02:30 was something along those lines. I was a I taught at the graduate law program.
02:36 Um, and I also taught for the law school criminal procedure. Okay. Um, thank
02:44 you very much. So I want to direct your attention to the, um, to the events
02:49 around January 6th. Um, and the electoral vote, the electoral count. Um,
02:54 where were you on the after in the afternoon of January 6? I was on the
03:00 floor in the U. S. House. Okay. And why were you there? What was going on?
03:04 There was a, uh, procedure to certify the votes from the November 2020
03:11 election. Okay. And had you had you done that before as a congressman?
03:17 Yes. Uh, so I'm trying to think for the, uh, 2016 election. Um, I was not
03:26 here for the 2012 election. So 2016 and that was my second time. 2020. Okay.
03:31 And can you describe what the process is that Congress follows for the
03:36 electoral vote count?
03:38 Sure. So the vice president, um, presides and he orders the envelopes
03:46 to be open and the clerk in the House opens the envelopes. It's a joint
03:51 hearing. The Senate is in the House chambers and we have a joint hearing.
03:56 The envelopes are opened and the electoral votes from each of the states
04:03 in alphabetical order is announced. Um, but that's not supposed to work
04:09 generally, I guess. Okay. And what? And what role does the, uh, does Congress
04:15 player you merely bystanders to that bystanders? Or does the Congress play
04:20 a role in that process? It depends who you ask. In my opinion, we have a very,
04:26 um, ministerial function of sitting there opening envelopes. I assume that
04:32 at the time the Constitution was written, it was meant to, um, make sure
04:37 that the votes were opened in public so that the public would have some
04:40 assurance of the integrity that of the votes being counted. But we are not
04:46 counting votes and we are not opening envelopes. We are sitting there. Okay.
04:51 And now is there a process for objections? There is a process for
04:55 objections based on the statute passed around the time of the Civil War, where
04:59 people could make objections. Um, again, my understanding is that the statute,
05:06 uh, is there in case there is a dispute of, uh, of electors, certified electors
05:13 coming from a state. Okay. Um, so I want to go back to 20 January 6 2017. Um,
05:21 were there any objections on the floor at that time? Yes, there were. There
05:25 were six or seven objections made to different states electoral count. And
05:34 can you describe what happened? I can. Jim McGovern from Massachusetts
05:40 Congressman from Massachusetts stood up and objected to the votes. I think it
05:44 was Alabama. And then there were five other objections, clear objections to
05:51 particular votes. Uh, then the last objection, the seventh one, Maxine
05:58 Waters, California. Um, I don't know if she objected or she just asked if a
06:03 senator will agree to, um, uh, object with her. So the only way in object
06:10 a proper objection can be made is that a House member and a Senate senator
06:15 both object and in 16 and in years past, frankly, there have never been, uh, to
06:22 my knowledge, a senator who has objected, uh, at least in this century,
06:27 no senator has objected with the House member in the, uh, and in 16 in the 17
06:34 January 6 of 17. No senator agreed to object. So all the objections were from
06:40 House members. All the objections were for House members, and they were not
06:44 heard because it wasn't properly made. Okay. Um, if a senator, just from a
06:50 process standpoint, if a senator agrees to the objection, then what happens
06:55 then? Um, this is based on memory. I have to have the rules by memory. Um,
07:02 the objection then is recognized. The Senate goes back to their chambers. The
07:09 House. There's a I think an hour of debate, a half hour from each side. Um,
07:15 and then there's a vote on whether the objection should stand or not. And, uh,
07:21 then the Senate comes back and convenes with the House and the next envelope is
07:28 open. The process is continued. Okay, let's um, let's go to January 6 2021.
07:35 Um, were there when you were on the House floor? Were there any objections?
07:40 Yes. Okay. Can you describe what happened? Yeah, I know. Paul goes are
07:45 objected to. He is from Arizona. Congressman from Arizona. He objected to
07:50 the Arizona, um, electoral count. And the, uh, Vice President asked if there
07:59 was Vice President Pence asked if there was a, uh, senator who agreed, and I
08:05 believe it was Ted Cruz who agreed on that. And the objection was proper. And
08:10 so the Senate then went back to their chambers to debate, and the House
08:17 started the process of debating that. Okay. Um, so were you in the House as
08:23 part of that debate?
08:25 It was in the House. It was unclear to me whether I would be speaking or not.
08:30 It was during Covid. And so the House had rules on how many seats had to be
08:37 between each member when they're on the house. They were actually members, um,
08:41 uh, in the gallery. So it was people were very spread out. But my guess is
08:47 there only probably about half the members were actually in the House on
08:51 the House floor at the time. Most members were back in their offices, or
08:56 at least maybe not most, but a large number of members were back in. Okay.
09:00 And did anything unusual happen that day? Oh, yeah, it was unusual. I'm
09:07 trying to give you open ended questions. Um, can you describe what happened?
09:12 Sure. The, uh, so I we have were permitted to have phones on the House
09:18 floor by I was not getting a signal, so I didn't know what was going on
09:23 outside the House floor. But the, um, the first thing that I knew a police
09:29 officer, uh, uniformed officer came. Actually, no, I think the first thing
09:35 that happened was a security detail escorted Speaker Pelosi off of the
09:42 um, bias and and she was escorted out. And then, of course, everybody's
09:49 murmuring about what happened. And then, um, uh, it may have been Jim
09:54 McGovern who took over, but a Democrat member of the majority took over and
10:00 was acting speaker at that point. The, uh, a few minutes later, a police
10:06 officer came to the microphone and said that tear gas had been dispersed, and
10:12 we were advised that there were tear gas or gas masks, I guess, under our
10:17 seats, and we should deploy those gas masks. Um, which seems a little odd
10:23 because we continue to have the debate. But she may have also said that the
10:28 capital had been breached. I'm not sure if she said that, but there was clear
10:32 indication that there was a danger at that point. I can remember within
10:38 seconds of that happening, a member from the Democrats side up in the
10:44 balcony area of the gallery, um, yelled out. This is your fault. And I'm
10:50 sitting there without any context for what's going on because I don't have
10:53 anything, uh, text from my staff or or the ability to go online and figure out
10:59 what what was going on. Okay. Um, and then, um,
11:04 did you? It's so we actually debating while wearing gas masks. No, I don't
11:14 think anybody put their gas mask on. And at that time, it was more of milling
11:17 around and trying to figure out, uh, you know what the threat was. Uh, and what
11:24 would happen next? Okay. And then, um, did the security, the capital police
11:29 or security responded any way to a perceived threat? Yes. So after after
11:36 that, and after a few minutes of that, maybe maybe longer, maybe 10 20 minutes,
11:41 um, police officer came back to the podium and and said that we would be
11:49 clearing the House floor. Um, and that's when I saw officers, both uniform and
11:56 plainclothes take positions. I was I sit typically, and that day I was sitting
12:03 near the center aisle on for some context for the court. That's the aisle
12:09 where the president walks down to give the State of the Union address on it.
12:12 Typically divides the two parties. But I was sitting close to the aisle in
12:18 that center door. Um, has there are big wood doors on the outside, but then
12:25 the doors on the inside. There is glass above the door on the inside. Okay. And,
12:32 um, and so what did the security police do? Or were they security or police?
12:36 How should I describe them? They are. They are uniform. They are sworn
12:40 officers. Okay. And so what did they do?
12:45 Well, they took up positions on as members started leaving. I actually took
12:51 my coat off. There were some my jacket off. There were some members who were
12:56 moving furniture over to block the door on Dhe. Officers, I know at one point
13:04 had drawn their weapons. Um, uh, the, um, my memory also is after after the
13:13 members had moved some furniture over a there was a popping sound, and it was
13:20 the glass over the door on someone had popped that glass. And that's when maybe
13:28 that's when the officers drew their weapons. It's hard in a room like that.
13:34 It's hard to tell exactly what that noise came from. I could see the glass,
13:38 so I knew, but it almost sounds like a bullet at first. And so, uh, the
13:44 officers had drawn their guns and were, um, securing that door. Okay. Now,
13:52 did you personally feel threatened? How did you feel about perceive what was
13:56 going on? Well, you know, I felt kind of stupid afterwards because at the time
14:02 I took my jacket off and I was there to help the police officers. I had no idea
14:07 whether there were 10 people in the building or 1000 people. So, um, when we
14:13 started to, uh, when the police started to clear the building and at the same
14:18 time, there were police officers, um, behind the wall of the, uh, the front
14:26 wall of the house chambers. There were police officers who were clearly
14:31 milling around and securing the other entrances to the house. And I could see
14:38 that from from my seat. But, um, I when we started to clear, I put my jacket
14:45 back on. I was one of the last to leave the house floor. Um, and the officers
14:52 actually came over to me. I was down in the middle aisle at this point, and
14:55 they said it's time to go. Nobody was, you know, yelling or screaming, but it
15:01 was clear that it was a very serious situation. Okay. Um, and what was your
15:07 view of the sort of capabilities of the Metro police and I'm sorry, the
15:13 security officers, the Capitol police? Um, you know, they were probably 67 of
15:21 them that were there, uh, at that one door. Um, and, uh, they, uh, it appeared
15:29 to me with their weapons and, uh, an unknown threat to me at that point that
15:34 that the they were in control of the house floor based on the number of
15:40 officers, probably 30 to 40 officers around the house. Uh, well armed
15:46 officers. Okay. Um,
15:49 and what was your perception is to? Well, let me ask you this. Was anyone
15:57 that you saw shot?
15:59 No. In fact, I didn't even hear the shot, but the shot would have occurred
16:03 while I had. I was there because, like I said, I was one of the last to leave
16:07 the house floor. But, um, I understood later that a lady had tried to, uh,
16:13 reach the house chambers through the speaker's lobby coming in over the door
16:20 and she was shot. Okay. Um, so from from your perspective, the way the
16:25 security officers were operating, what did they, um,
16:29 um, were able to infer any sense of what their protocols are there based
16:35 on their behavior?
16:36 Yeah, I think based on my experience of law enforcement and what I saw them
16:41 doing there, their
16:43 their goal, their function was to make sure that there wasn't a hostage
16:48 situation to make sure that no members were gonna be hurt or or taken by
16:57 by whatever the mob was. Obviously, they have earpieces in there aware of
17:00 what's going on, but they were there to secure the floor until the members
17:07 left. And as soon as the members left, I could see the officers leaving,
17:11 uh, leaving the house at that point. Okay. In the house floor. And why do
17:16 you think they left the house for?
17:17 Because I don't think I think the threat that they were and again, this
17:23 is speculating, but but the threat that they were there to minimize was the
17:29 threat of injury to members of staff. And once that had been accomplished,
17:34 they were withdrawn. Okay. Um, are you aware of any sort of breaches or
17:41 occupant occupations of the capital prior to this event?
17:48 Well, during the summer of 2020, there were riots and the riders had
17:55 attempted to, uh, break through the barricades and in some cases had broken
18:00 through the barricades. Um, much smaller groups of people. But, uh,
18:07 clearly, uh, they were, um, uh, you know, protesting and the goal was to
18:17 breach the capital at that point. Um, there was also a an instance in 2016.
18:24 I believe it was June of 2016 where there was a mass shooting, and I don't
18:30 remember which one. It may have been a school shooting. Um, the Democrats
18:35 wanted Republicans were in the majority. The Democrats wanted to have gun
18:41 control bills heard. Speaker Ryan refused to bring those to the floor,
18:47 and the Democrats occupied the floor. Um, at that time, the, uh, the speaker
18:56 ordered that the C span coverage of the floor end, and they, uh, the Democrats
19:02 began to, uh, live stream from their phones. Um, there was some, uh,
19:09 it wasn't really a fight, but there was certainly some intimidation, some,
19:15 uh, pushing and shoving around whether the Democrats would control the
19:21 Republican side of that of the chamber. We had a couple or at least one Navy
19:28 seal, a couple of veterans who ended that pretty quickly when they went over
19:32 to the microphones. And so the Dems stayed on their side to engage in that
19:37 protest. Was the House able to continue its duties that day? No, it was shut
19:43 down. Okay. Um, let me let me ask you the, um, if you're aware of how the
19:51 police reacted when there were outsiders who came into the capital, I
19:55 think you testify in 2020.
19:57 Yeah, I don't think they ever breached the capital. Protesters were typically
20:03 protesting in the evenings around the capital. The barricades and they're
20:08 fairly weak barricades that were set up to kind of, uh, they look almost like
20:13 the something that you put your bicycle in and, uh, a wrecked apartment or
20:18 something. They weren't, um, you know, very sturdy barricades. But, um, some
20:23 of the protesters may have breached that particular perimeter. But to my
20:29 knowledge, they never got into the capital. Okay. Okay. Let me turn your
20:33 attention to after the events of, um, of January six.
20:38 Um, so are you aware of the January six select committee that was, uh, that
20:46 ultimately conducted a form of an investigation into the events of January
20:49 six objection? This is beyond the scope of what the congressman is provided
20:53 for. Specifically, he was provided to testify about his experience as a
20:58 sitting member of Congress at the capital on January 6th, 2021.
21:01 Um, your honor, I think we had verbally as well told the court that we have two
21:09 congressmen, obviously one we can't who are going to testify about
21:13 congressional procedures, including the January six committee. Um, that's an
21:18 event here, and you specifically asked for evidence about the January six
21:24 committee. That's why Mr Hafe is going to be testifying, even though he was
21:28 not placed on the petitioners witness list. And so that's in response to that
21:33 as well.
21:34 Well, we have two options here. We can either take Mr Neal's, um,
21:43 declaration, and I can get that and evidence, which was then deprived the
21:50 petitioners a chance to cross. Or we can allow Mr Buck to testify about
21:56 something that wasn't disclosed. And you can cross examine, which is your
22:01 preference.
22:02 I have just a moment. Your honor. Sure.
22:11 Yeah.
22:12 Just one moment. Congressman Buckle.
22:20 Judge, I don't have a preference. If you're asking me the question,
22:23 I wasn't. But I'm assuming that you're willing to testify about this additional
22:32 subject. Of course.
22:35 Yeah.
22:35 Your honor. Um, I think we're fine. If the congressman wants to testify about
22:49 that, as long as we're able to ask him about post January six events as well.
22:54 Well, I'm not sure what post January six. Well, they would probably revolve
22:59 or reference January six.
23:03 As long as we had some leeway and asking him questions hard for me to rule
23:08 on giving you a little bit. I have no idea what that will be. But let's
23:12 proceed with his testimony and
23:13 just so you know, our position. You're we're going to ask Representative Buck
23:20 about the January six committee and its processes. And we certainly agree
23:24 that's fair game for cross examination. But any events after January six that
23:29 ever referenced January six will probably object if it goes beyond the
23:32 scope of our of our direct. Certainly, Your Honor.
23:35 Well, I'm just gonna rule as the objections. Fair enough. In that case,
23:41 we would accept Nell's declaration instead.
23:44 We would accept Congressman Nell's declaration instead. We're good. Let's
23:51 let's hear what Congressman Buck has to say. And you're going to get a fair
23:54 chance to cross examine him.
24:00 Representative Buck are before we go before we move on to that, I'd like to
24:05 ask him just one question about his prior testimony. So Congressman, but
24:10 could you see when you were in the chambers and you said that
24:15 that you know, the police officers are all putting up barricades, etcetera.
24:21 And you could you see what was going out in the hallway? Or are you kind of
24:27 just in a vacuum at this point in the sense that you see them seeming to
24:31 prepare for something but don't know what's going on outside the room? Yeah,
24:35 that's what I mentioned earlier. I felt kind of stupid taking my jacket off and
24:38 getting ready for a fight because I didn't realize until I got back.
24:42 Actually, we were moved to a committee room after we were brought off the
24:47 floor. I have young staff and I was concerned about them. And so I came back
24:53 to my office rather than the secure committee room. And I saw on TV what was
24:58 going on. And I thought, Oh, my goodness, that there are a lot of people out
25:02 there. Thank you.
25:03 Congressman, but if I may ask you, how did you get from the capital back to
25:11 your office? There's a series of tunnels underneath the Capitol building
25:16 that connect the House offices, the Senate offices, the Library of Congress
25:21 all connected with a series of tunnels. And that's how the police escorted us
25:27 through those tunnels. Okay, thank you. So let's turn to the January 6th
25:33 committee. To your knowledge, how are members of committees through the
25:38 normal process chosen?
25:39 So what happens is, I can give the January 6th as an example, but the
25:45 Speaker announces that there will be a January 6th committee. There will be X
25:48 number of Democrats. I don't know if it was eight or nine Democrats on the
25:51 committee. There will be, I think she said five Republicans on the committee.
25:57 And at that point, she started naming the Democrats within, you know, a week
26:05 or 10 days, she started naming the Democrats for the committee and the
26:10 leader Republican leader at the time. We were in the minority at the time. The
26:15 Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, named five Republicans. I know three of the
26:21 names, Jim Jordan, Jim Banks and Kelly Armstrong were named to that committee.
26:28 Speaker Pelosi then denied Jim Jordan and Jim Banks and said they would not
26:36 be seated on the committee. And at that point, the minority leader, Kevin
26:42 McCarthy, withdrew all five names and refused to have anybody from the
26:47 Republican Party sit on the committee. The next move, Speaker Pelosi announced
26:55 that Liz Cheney would co chair the committee. Obviously, the training of
26:59 Republican would co chair the committee on and within a couple of weeks after
27:04 that, Adam Kinzinger, um, then, uh, was named to the by by Speaker Pelosi. So
27:12 there were this group of Democrats, uh, 789 and, uh, two Republicans who were
27:20 seated on the committee. Okay. And, um, and, you know, Representatives Cheney
27:25 or Kinzinger? I know them both very well. Okay. And your thoughts of them?
27:31 Well, my thoughts in terms of the January 6th, let me ask you this.
27:36 What's your What's your relationship with them when you say you know them?
27:38 If you have a relationship with them?
27:39 Well, I've had a long relationship with Liz Cheney. I worked for Dick Cheney on
27:47 the Grand Contra investigation back in 1986 and 87. Um, I knew Liz before she
27:53 ran for Congress from Wyoming on and was, uh, you know, in contact with her
27:59 pretty consistently as she served here in Congress. Adam less so. I was on the
28:06 Foreign Affairs Committee. He was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. So we saw
28:09 each other during committee work on and had some conversation. But but, uh, he
28:13 was not a particularly close friend or colleague. Okay. Um, so they were
28:20 appointed to the January 6th Committee. To your knowledge, what were their
28:24 views? Um, towards the January 6th events when they when they were on the
28:30 committee. So after January 6th, Speaker Pelosi understand the time frame we've
28:37 got January 6th and then January 20th is the inauguration for the new president.
28:41 Between January 6th and January 20th, Speaker Pelosi announced a impeachment
28:47 proceeding against President Trump. And there was actually a boat on the floor.
28:53 Um, both this Cheney and Adam Kinzinger voted for impeaching President Trump. I
28:59 think of the 200 some odd Republicans, maybe 10 12 voted for impeachment. So it
29:07 was a fairly small minority. 5% of the overall conference voted for impeachment,
29:13 and they were two of the Republicans who voted for impeach. Okay, let me go back
29:19 to Liz Cheney. Do you? I mean, you talked about content. Maybe you consider
29:25 her her a friend or how would you describe that?
29:28 You know, Harry Truman said, If you want a friend in D. C. Get a dog. I think
29:34 that Liz and I were, uh, you know, acquaintances and we, uh, you know,
29:43 shared stories on occasion. I've never been to her house to eat. She's never
29:46 been to my house. We haven't seen much of each other, but certainly had a
29:52 friendly history together. Okay, so she and Adam Kinzinger were on the floor
29:59 based on the vote for impeachment, as well as any other knowledge you have.
30:05 Did they represent the opinions of the large majority of the caucus on what
30:13 subject on with respect to events of January 6? Well, I don't think they
30:19 represented the views of most of the Republican conference because most of
30:23 the Republican conference, 95% of the Republican conference did not vote for
30:28 the impeachment of President Trump, and they did so in the sense of where they
30:32 were on January 6. I think they stood out.
30:37 Now, were there other Republicans then who had different perspectives or
30:43 viewpoints than representatives? Chaney or Kinzinger that did not serve on the
30:48 committee?
30:48 Well, the five Republicans who leader McCarthy assigned to the committee did
30:58 not serve on the committee and did not share the views of, uh, Liz Cheney or
31:04 Andrew Kinzinger. Okay. I'm going to represent to you that Representative
31:10 Swalwell testified earlier and that there was a text from him referring to
31:16 representatives Cheney and Kinzinger in which he was saying that
31:21 Representative Cheney and Kinzinger, he was happy that they were on the
31:27 Democrats team. Um, with respect to January 6th committee, is that an
31:34 accurate description from your point of view?
31:36 You know, I would have a tough time answering that question. They were
31:46 clearly, uh, they shared the view on impeachment of President Trump for the
31:54 actions that occurred on January 6th. Um, I would say that when it came to
32:00 most of the votes that were before the House, they did not share the views of
32:05 the Democrats on how they voted on other subjects. But clearly on the
32:09 January 6th issue, they were, uh,
32:13 has similar views. I don't I don't know it. You know, I don't think any
32:20 Democrat wants to be known as being on the Republican team or the other way
32:23 around. Okay. Okay. Um, did you perceive any problems? Well, let me ask you
32:31 this. Were there any other Republicans that served on the January 6th
32:34 committee besides Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger? No, I actually
32:40 called Kevin McCarthy because of my background as a prosecutor. And I asked
32:47 Kevin if I could get his permission to, um, seek to serve on that committee
32:54 because I thought it was important that witnesses were cross examined and
32:58 documents were challenged. And Kevin told me that he did not want me
33:03 serving on that committee, and he didn't want anybody else serving any
33:07 other Republican serving on that. Why was it important for witnesses to be
33:12 cross examined and documents to be challenged? Well, you know, in my
33:18 experience as a prosecutor, if a defense attorney is in present and
33:22 the defendant isn't present, it's not a real fair trial. And in this case,
33:27 you need to have both sides. You need to have the adversarial system working
33:32 in order to get accurate and full, complete information for an issue like
33:38 the January 6th investigation. Did you think that Representatives Cheney and
33:44 Kinzinger would sort of fulfill that role of, um,
33:49 you know, fulfill that role of ensuring that the adversarial process was
33:54 carried out. I think they both, um, uh, do their best to be fair, but I do
34:01 think that they were more aligned with a the result that the Democrats were
34:09 looking for. Then, for example, Jim Jordan or Jim Banks or Kelly Armstrong
34:14 would have done. So I think that it was not as adversarial, and it was not as
34:20 challenging for the evidence as it would have been if the five members
34:24 appointed by Leader McCarthy or others in conference were allowed to sit on
34:29 that committee. Do you think you would have fulfilled that role had you been
34:33 on the committee?
34:33 I would have done my best. I think that it would take more than one person
34:38 because there were so many documents, so much evidence that was considered.
34:42 But certainly, I would have done my best. I worked, as I mentioned before,
34:48 for Dick Cheney on the Iran-Contra investigation. We had a adversarial
34:54 system, and we had a minority report on the Iran-Contra investigation on areas
35:00 where we didn't agree. There is no minority report in this, in the January
35:05 6th investigation because there was no minority. It was one viewpoint that was
35:10 shared.
35:11 So when, um, let me ask you that. So Speaker Pelosi, did she, when she
35:18 rejected or refused to allow certain appointments by Representative
35:24 McCarthy in your experience in Congress, was that a normal event?
35:28 It was not normal in the history of Congress. Speaker Pelosi, on one or two
35:36 other occasions, had removed members from committees. I know that Marjorie
35:43 Taylor Greene was not allowed to sit on committees because of statements that
35:47 she had made before winning her seat for Congress. And I know that Paul Gosar
35:53 was removed from committees. In the past, it has typically been the party
35:58 of the person who is alleged to have committed some wrongdoing that removes
36:03 the person from committee seats. And I'm not sure, in relation to January 6th,
36:08 whether those events occurred before or after. But, uh, the typical process is
36:14 for, um, a the minority party to be able to assign individuals, members to
36:22 the committee assignments.
36:24 Okay. Um,
36:26 so you said it's never happened in the history of Congress. Did I hear you
36:30 correct there? Well, I have not your knowledge. To my knowledge, certainly in
36:36 recent history, it has not happened. Okay. Um, so during the January 6th
36:43 committee procedures, um,
36:46 um,
36:48 we're in fact, um, was in fact the evidence that was submitted to the
36:57 committee subjected to the adversarial process.
36:59 No. And why is that? If you could give me a little bit more of a description
37:07 rather than a two letter word now, why don't you start with how you know that?
37:12 Yeah.
37:12 How do I know there wasn't?
37:14 Well, I had the opportunity to observe some of the hearings. I have had the
37:20 opportunity to read parts of the report, and I've had the opportunity to talk
37:25 to some of the people who were alleged to have done things in the report and
37:30 heard their side of the story, and they were never questioned. For example, Jim
37:34 Jordan was up for the speakership recently, and I went through with him
37:42 some of the allegations in the January 6th report and then hurt his side of
37:47 the story. Those were not included in the January 6th report. And based on
37:52 the makeup of the committee, the
38:00 there wasn't a there wasn't inquiries that I certainly would have wanted to
38:06 make. For example, what was Speaker Pelosi's role in not having the
38:11 National Guard present or at least assembled to be present? And what was
38:18 the Sergeant of Arms? Uh, role in that? There are some areas that I think would
38:25 have, um, been important to look at to be able to judge President Trump's
38:32 actions and non actions in this case.
38:35 Um, do you know if there were any members on the committee who, um, who
38:47 subpoenaed or produce evidence for witnesses that were supportive or
38:53 sympathetic to the proposition that January 6th was not an insurrection and
38:59 was not caused by President Trump?
39:02 I'm aware that Leader McCarthy, um, when he made the statement that we would not
39:09 be assigning Republicans to the, uh, January 6th committee after Speaker
39:17 Pelosi has, um, denied the assignments to Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Um,
39:25 Speaker or Leader McCarthy said that he was gonna have a separate investigation,
39:30 and that investigation would be our side of the story. Um, and, uh, there
39:36 were some witnesses who were, uh, testified, and there were some
39:42 documents produced not through subpoena, but produced. And, um, had
39:49 those been, uh, part of the January 6th report, I think the report would have
39:54 been more more complete.
39:55 I'm sorry. The report would have been more complete. Okay. Is it fair to say
40:02 it would have been more balanced?
40:05 I think if you're looking for balance,
40:08 yes, I think it would have. It would have presented both sides.
40:14 Okay. Um, let me ask you about that separate committee real quick. Did that
40:19 committee have any subpoena power? It did not. Did it have any ability to
40:24 compel the production of documents? It did not. Or witnesses? No. Okay. Um,
40:32 you're talking about the January 6th committee? No, Your Honor. I'm talking
40:37 about the separate report that Representative Buck referred to that
40:41 Speaker McCarthy had created. Let me just clear up the record. Representative
40:45 Buck. Let me correct you. It's not Speaker McCarthy at the time. I'm sorry.
40:49 You're my part. Yes, I just want to help clear up the record a little bit. Um,
40:54 so your testimony was that Minority Leader McCarthy had sort of established
41:00 a separate committee, correct?
41:02 Well, I wouldn't call the committee because there are no Democrats on his
41:06 effort. Um, just as there were. Well, I shouldn't say no Republicans. Um, there
41:10 were no Democrats on his effort. There were, I think, Jim Banks on and a few
41:16 others. Kelly Armstrong were on this other group that was formed to
41:21 investigate.
41:21 Okay. Um,
41:26 let me let me go back to the January 6th committee. You said there was no
41:33 minority report produced by the January 6th committee. Is that correct? Yes.
41:37 Okay. Why is that important?
41:38 Well, because it provides the other side of the story. It provides a context
41:46 for what one side is alleging. Um, and it is important to have the, uh, I
41:53 believe the full picture in a situation like the January 6th investigation.
41:58 Okay. Um,
42:01 you had said when you spoke with, um, Representative Jordan that there were
42:16 things that he said, um, that were much that either much different or provided
42:23 a much different context than what appeared in the January 6th report.
42:26 Can you explain that a little more detail?
42:27 Sure. So this is hearsay.
42:32 Yeah. Um,
42:35 your your honor, we're not introducing anything for the truth of the asserted
42:40 for the truth of matter asserted. We're introducing information that shows the
42:44 January 6th committee had one perspective and that the perspective
42:48 that Representative Jordan provided was much different. So we're using this to
42:52 demonstrate the incompleteness and one sidedness. Not that one side is true
42:56 versus the other. I know we have other arguments about that, but I'm not
42:59 looking to get the contents of either side. It's the difference between the
43:04 two that matters. Your honor, the congressman had already testified to
43:08 the difference. We don't need to get into what Jim Jordan said.
43:10 Well, he he said that that if I recall, he said that Jim Jordan
43:22 different perspective on something. I think we've heard the details of what
43:27 it is. So you, Mr Congressman, but you can you can tell if you wouldn't mind
43:32 just telling the court what type of disputes Mr Jordan had rather than just
43:37 repeating what Mr Jordan said. Sure. Um, one example would be the report stated
43:45 that, uh, Jim Jordan refused to testify. Um, Jim's state was that he was he
43:53 received a, uh, subpoena and they were in the process of negotiating a date
43:58 for his testimony. And then the committee staff never got back to his
44:03 staff. Eso he says he was willing to testify. The report says that he was
44:07 unwilling to testify. It was it were a few issues like that. He said a tweet.
44:13 Um, uh, no, I'm sorry. He sent a text to Mark Meadows. I believe it was
44:19 January 2nd. And in the text, um, the the allegation in the report is that
44:25 Jim Jordan, um, advocated for the decertification. And Jim's statement to
44:33 me was that he, um, attached a law review article or a legal analysis. I
44:40 guess it wasn't a law review article. Legal analysis. Um, to Mark Meadows,
44:44 chief of staff, uh, to examine in terms of whether they could. So he says he
44:49 wasn't advocating, but he was, uh, uh, providing information to the White
44:56 House on that subject. No, no, no. Renew my objection to hear, say and move
45:01 his strike because he said Jim Jordan says this. Jim Jordan says that I'm
45:05 gonna accept the testimony just for the limited purpose that there were
45:11 things that maybe Mr Jordan would have liked to have told the House committee
45:17 that he wasn't able to. Thank you. Um, Representative Buck, let me ask you why.
45:23 Why do you know so much detail? Or why were you so interested in descriptive
45:28 discrepancies between the committee report and, um, and why do you spend so
45:33 much time learning about that from Representative Jordan?
45:36 Jim Jordan was a candidate for speaker. He was actually the speaker nominee
45:41 for the Republican Party in the recent, uh, speaker, um, issue that was going
45:50 on in the last few weeks. Okay. And so it's first you spoke with him at length
45:55 about these issues as part of that process.
45:57 He came to my office one evening in the middle of his time as speaker
46:03 nominee, and we sat down for about an hour, an hour and 10 minutes. Okay. Um,
46:08 to your knowledge, were any of the witnesses before the January 6th
46:13 committee cross examined?
46:15 I don't know that the concept of cross examination, uh, is really part of what
46:25 the committee process is. There are questions from Republicans, questions
46:29 from Democrats typically in a committee process. Um, the it is not as clear as
46:37 in a courtroom that one side is cross examined. Okay. Um, to your not in your
46:45 view, and based on your observations attending the committee meetings were
46:50 were questions placed to witnesses that were an effort or seeking to, um,
46:57 elicit testimony that was that ran contrary to the thesis that President
47:04 Trump caused an insurrection. Objection, Your Honor, because Mr. Guessers
47:08 characterized it as Congressman Buck attending the committee. I don't
47:12 believe Congress about was on the committee.
47:14 Congressman, when you talked about attending hearings, were you referring
47:18 to the public hearings?
47:19 I didn't attend. I saw some public hearings on television, but I was not
47:25 in attendance. So is that when you were questioning him about his
47:30 observations? Yes,
47:31 you can answer.
47:36 Could you restate the question? I'm sorry. I don't know if I can. I will
47:42 try, though. Maybe if you could do it a little less, I'm sorry, a little less
47:48 leading a little less. Lee. Yes, Your Honor. Um,
47:54 Congressman Buck from your observations of the committee process, um, do you
48:00 think there were? Can you describe the, uh, whether in whether the questions
48:07 that were asked,
48:08 whether they were postured and how they were postured to arrive at a full
48:15 investigation?
48:18 Sure. I think that the questions were typically questions that would, uh,
48:24 demonstrate President Trump's involvement and culpability in January
48:30 six or enlist illicit answers that would demonstrate his involvement and
48:35 culpability in the events of January six. Um, as as ah, an old trial lawyer,
48:41 I looked at, listened to a lot of those questions and probably is most trial
48:46 lawyers thought I was Clarence Darrow and I could have asked a better
48:49 question or I could have made, you know, I would an objection on hearsay or
48:54 something at the time. Eso I tended not to watch a whole lot of what happened
49:01 because it didn't seem to me that process was set up in a way that, um,
49:09 uh, would, uh, sort of elicit the whole the whole truth in that in those
49:17 hearings.
49:17 Were you are you aware of any allegations that the committee altered
49:36 evidence or altered exhibits that it received and then produced to the
49:41 public?
49:42 I have heard of those allegations. I have not seen the documents and could
49:47 not give you a judgment on whether I think those were accurate allegations
49:51 or not. Okay, remember, this is the world of politics and and, uh, truth
49:57 is, uh, not not closely aligned with with political views all the time.
50:02 Okay. Um, well, let me ask you this, then, when you said this is a world
50:06 of politics, do you think that the, uh,
50:07 committee report was, um,
50:11 meets the description you just meets the description you just described about
50:18 the relationship of politics and truth?
50:21 Sure. The purpose of that report was there was a political purpose to that
50:26 report, as there is with almost everything in Congress. And the
50:29 political purpose was ultimately to win elections and to paint, um, the
50:36 one side in as bad a light as possible. And that's why typically there is a
50:43 minority report in an investigation like this so that both sides can say,
50:50 but this is really what happened. And here are the documents. Here are the
50:53 phone calls. Here are the Here's the testimony that supports.
50:58 And it's your view that that did not happen in this case.
51:01 It's my view that the people who would have been most, um,
51:09 uh, challenging to the evidence and testimony were not, uh, seated either
51:18 by secret Pelosi or leader McCarthy, ultimately on the committee. Okay. Um,
51:25 with respect to the January six report, have you? Um, what's your view on it
51:30 from a political standpoint in Congress?
51:32 Well, I I voted to certify the election. I thought what happened on January
51:39 six was obviously bad. It was a riot in the Capitol building. It was meant to
51:46 disturb a proceeding. And I, uh, felt that the, uh, the parts of the report
51:57 that I saw described those things. It went beyond that in other areas. And
52:05 that's where I think the cross examination in terms of the president's
52:09 culpability would have been important.
52:12 Yeah.
52:12 And with the deficiency,
52:19 and why do you think it would have been important?
52:23 Because I think that in order to be able to judge someone's call, it's like
52:30 going into courtroom as a prosecutor, not having a defense counselor defendant.
52:33 I think in order to be able to judge someone's culpability, you've got to be
52:37 able to hear both sides of the story. And in this case, there was not a
52:41 another side. There were people who voted to impeach the president because
52:46 they made a judgment that he, uh, had been involved in the, uh, January six,
52:55 uh,
52:58 events and, uh, the other the other side was not present for one reason
53:07 or another was not present, able to portray the other side of the story.
53:10 Thank you very much, Congressman Buck. I appreciate your testimony to have no
53:15 further questions.
53:16 Your Honor, can we have a short short break just to discuss some issues?
53:22 Obviously, this went beyond the scope of what we originally prepared for
53:25 looking for five or 10 minutes.
53:28 Uh, sure. Given I think we're ahead of schedule generally, let's just take a
53:35 15 minute break before cross examination. Does that work for you,
53:41 Congressman Buck?
53:42 The bells are gonna go off soon for voting, but I certainly be available
53:46 after votes. But hopefully, votes are delayed, and I will do my very best to
53:50 be. Why don't we make it 10 minutes, then? So we can hope to get you done,
53:55 but we'll work with your schedule. Okay,
53:57 thank you very much. So we'll reconvene at five after two.
54:02 Okay.
54:03 Thank you.
54:04 [BLANK_AUDIO]
Comments