CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 13, 2022 01:54 PM UTC

Boebert Blows Stack Over Peters Allegation

  • by: Colorado Pols
Rep. Lauren Boebert with 2020 primary campaign manager Sherronna Bishop.

As the Pueblo Chieftain reports–after last week’s indictment by Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters on multiple felony counts related to the theft and subsequent leakage of election system data, Democratic CD-3 challenger Adam Frisch of Aspen called for an investigation into possible ties between freshman GOP controversy entrepreneur Rep. Lauren Boebert and Clerk Peters.

Rep. Boebert responded on characteristic full tilt:

“The unsubstantiated accusations are libelous and have been forwarded to the Congresswoman’s legal counsel for review and possible legal action,” Boebert’s office said in response to a call from Democratic primary contender Adam Frisch for a federal investigation into Boebert’s ties to former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters.

Peters was indicted Tuesday on 10 criminal counts, including attempting to influence a public servant, identity theft, criminal impersonation and conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation…

Frisch said the grand jury that indicted Peters may have missed “the breadth of the conspiracy or the breadth of the coordination that was going on between Rep. Boebert and her staff and Tina Peters and her staff.”

Since the 2020 elections, there have been rumors we can best describe as speculative that Peters may have played a role in Boebert’s unexpected win over five-term incumbent GOP Rep. Scott Tipton in the Republican primary. Let’s be clear that to subscribe to such a theory would lend credibility to the idea that such tampering is even possible, and we don’t think under the plethora of safeguards that exist in Colorado elections it actually is.

Nonetheless, there is the unaccounted-for link between Clerk Peters and Rep. Boebert that hasn’t been fully explored, and that is Peters’ as-yet unindicted co-conspirator Sherronna “America’s Mom” Bishop. Before becoming Clerk Peters’ close confidante and traveling companion at last summer’s so-called “Cyber Symposium” hosted by “MyPillow Guy” Mike Lindell, Bishop and Boebert has similarly close–to the extent that Bishop served at Boebert’s campaign manager at least through the 2020 GOP primary. The circumstances and timing of Bishop’s departure from that campaign are unclear, but Bishop remained a steadfast ally of Boebert’s until Boebert “broke her heart” last November with a statement that was widely interpreted (including by us) of validating DA Dan Rubinstein’s conduct of the investigation into Clerk Peters.

That’s the same statement Frisch cites as evidence of “collaboration” between Boebert and Peters, so obviously there’s a difference of opinion! It’s true Boebert does preface everything in her November statement with criticism for the FBI and Peters’ presumption of innocence. Either way, is it libel for Frisch to call for an investigation of these individuals with very well-known connections and if not means, at least motive? If it was anyone other than Boebert we’d call that hyperbolic enough to raise its own questions. With Boebert having no other volume that full blast, it comes off as the usual unserious shrieking.

But you know who could shed some light on some of this were she so inclined? “America’s Mom”–who seems to be everywhere on the Western Slope, from COVID denial rallies to wading in with Lindell at a Garfield County School Board meeting. Sherronna Bishop is by all accounts the earned media equivalent of an ambulance chaser, so perhaps before the June 28th Republican primary in CD-3 she’ll open up about some of these unanswered questions.

You can just never be sure with people so certain that election tampering exists they’re willing to try it themselves.


20 thoughts on “Boebert Blows Stack Over Peters Allegation

  1. Perhaps a minor typo in the 5th paragraph…………

    "Frisch cites as evidence of "collaboration" between Frisch and Peters….." Should that be "Boebert and Peters," or "Bishop & Peters?"

  2. “'The unsubstantiated accusations are libelous and have been forwarded to the Congresswoman’s legal counsel for review and possible legal action,' Boebert’s office said"

    Maybe the vacuous, white trash representative from western Colorado should call her friend and mentor, Caribou Barbie, and ask her how those libel laws worked out for her in her lawsuit against the NY Times recently?

    Question:  Q-bert has legal counsel? Is it Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, or L. Lin Wood?

        1. Yes! He was also a player in the ever-so-loony birfer movement and founded the wingnut Judicial Watch organization, which for a long time was basically Larry and the braying voices bouncing around inside his skull. There's a 2012 Ohio Court of Appeals opinion in a parental rights case involving Klayman and his ex-wife that makes a pretty entertaining read.

  3. She really does pattern everything she does after her cult leader, right down to threatening vague lawsuits against anyone who does anything she doesn't like.

  4. I would like if the Colorado Pols took on a more active investigation similar to the dirty tricks Project Veritas does and really start getting to the bottom of this. Coupled with the fact that these Republicans are morons I'm sure you could get all sorts of incriminating evidence just asking if they thought you were a fellow white supremacists. 

      1. Answer — a defamation plaintiff does not necessarily have to have a "good name" — just that whatever is expressed is false and causes damage. 

        The matter of "false" starts the difficulties:  "statements of opinion or those which do not contain objectively verifiable facts are not actionable. As the Supreme Court put it, “however pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.”"

        Difficulties pile up with "public figures," as they have to prove "actual malice." The person has to have known the material was false or should have known and did not take the usual steps to find out if the material was true or false. 

        Trials get even MORE difficult for political figures or questions. First Amendment freedoms are considered particularly important and political claims are difficult to adjudicate.  Courts want to maintain judicial neutrality (and the appearance of neutrality) in order to maintain public confidence. So there is an incentive to kick defamation claims to the "court of public opinion."


  5. Colorado Pols admits this Boebert is being held to a double standard. Aspen guy has no proof, just inuendo. I would be angry if I was Boebert. Whether or not she can sue is irrelevant, he's lying and that should matter more.

    1. Aspen guy has no proof, just inuendo

      Funny.  Quoting you there shows that you misspelled innuendo.  Though, no proof, or even proof to the contrary was not enough for to dissuade you from throwing out baseless accusations when the shoe was on the other foot.  

      And, yes, he has no proof.  But in his defense, "1776" Boebert is absolute scum, and it isn't a reach to believe that she did what he is accusing her of.

    2. Pro tip for Moddy. When something looks suspicious or potentially criminal you ask for an investigation, which may or may not turn up evidence, which then is used to prove things. Kind of how it works.

    3. "he's lying and that should matter more."

      Bismarck once said, "The biggest lies are told immediately after the hunt, right before the wedding, and in the middle of the election campaign."

      And Fluffy, remember your High Priestess, Kellyanne Conway, once told us, "That is one set of facts but there are also alternative facts."

      "Stay the course, senator. Some day they will thank you."

    4. So, I guess your better half has finally found out that with a year and a half of Boebert taint she’s never gonna’ be picked up now by any other half-sane campaign . . .

      . . . and has decided she’s got no other employment options but to milk ride Q-bie’s crazy train along right over the cliff??

    5. Frisch isn't saying there IS a connection … but asking for an investigation. 

      My guess is the relevant DA facilitating the Grand Jury is going to tell him nothing, isn't going to say whether there is or is not an effort to find out if there is a connection.  I didn't read EVERYTHING on the Grand Jury's work, but the few mentions I did see did not leak lines of inquiry or who the witnesses were.

  6. In other news of allegations . . .

    Document in Jan. 6 Case Shows Plan to Storm Government Buildings

    A document found by federal prosecutors in the possession of a far-right leader contained a detailed plan to surveil and storm government buildings around the Capitol on Jan. 6 last year, people familiar with the document said on Monday.

    The document, titled “1776 Returns,” was cited by prosecutors last week in charging the far-right leader, Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys extremist group, with conspiracy. The indictment of Mr. Tarrio described the document in general terms, but the people familiar with it added substantial new details about the scope and complexity of the plan it set out for directing an effort to occupy six House and Senate office buildings and the Supreme Court last Jan. 6.

    . . . “1776”?  Now where in the heck did I see that on January 6, 2021??

    “Conspiracy” charges?? “Proud Boys”??

    . . . sounds like Q-bie’s attorney is gonna’ soon be up to his thumbs with a very full docket . . .


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

59 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!