As the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby reports, a jury in Mesa County has returned a guilty verdict against former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in a misdemeanor obstruction of justice case: a case that marks the beginning of what could be a series of convictions ultimately connected to Peters’ admitted scheme to steal proprietary election system data in a failed plot to prove the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump:
Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters was found guilty Friday of obstruction of government operations, but acquitted on a charge that she obstructed a peace officer…
Peters’ conviction…means that separate charges of contempt of court can go forward. That’s the underlying case that led to the search warrant and subsequent obstruction charges.
There, Peters is accused of using the iPad to video record a court proceeding for her former deputy, Belinda Knisley, who at the time was facing burglary and cybercrime charges for allegedly entering the clerk’s office after being told to stay away. At that time, Knisley was under investigation by county human resources officials for creating a hostile work environment, allegedly telling clerk staff not to cooperate with state and federal investigations into tampering with election equipment.
The short version is that Peters was convicted of obstructing investigators who sought access to her iPad at a Grand Junction bagel shop in 2022. When police arrived to back up those investigators, Peters picked up a charge of obstructing the police as well–and that’s the charge Peters was acquitted of. Next, Peters will face a charge of contempt of court stemming from the use of that iPad to illegally record court proceedings, all leading up to Peters’ “main event” trial on misconduct and impersonation charges related to the actual theft of Dominion Voting Systems data.
Although not the final stop on Peters’ journey through the criminal justice system, this does mark the first conviction related in any way to her conduct as Mesa County Clerk since the 2020 elections. Sentencing isn’t until next month, which means Peters will now compete in the race to be the next Colorado Republican Party chair as a convicted criminal awaiting up to six months in jail.
But with local Republicans trying to nullify federal laws they don’t like and national Republicans calling to abolish the FBI, that could actually be a bonus.
"kick a cop"
She be dead if she be black.
I don't get why she is not guilty of "obstructing a police officer." A less privileged person would have been charged with assaulting an officer. I have a friend with a felony on his record because he pulled his arm away from a cop.
Two justice systems….
Think Mesa County…enough said.
"There's no way a jury of 12 people is going to put me in prison."
That's technically true, since the jury doesn't impose the sentence. But a jury of 12 can sure as hell convict her lying ass, and then the judge can decide to put her in jail or prison.
for some reason there is a jury of 6. I don't know the reasons for that.
In Colorado, 6-member juries handle lesser crimes/misdemeanors like this one. The felony trial will be a full 12-member affair.
Something I learned on my most recent jury duty stint
I learned the same when I was on a DUI jury.
Rule 23 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. Constitutionally, a jury of six is the minimum size permissible for felonies. For misdemeanors, Colorado permits juries as few as three, so long as the defendant requests it and the court consent.
It will be interesting to see if the convictions go up the ladder or if she is going to be the designated fall guy. Was she in cahoots with Liddell and Trump to breach the Mesa County voting machines? It looks like it was clearly planned that she was going to breach the machines then fly to Liddell's conspiracy conference on his dime to produce the dramatic evidence that Dominion was a tool of a Venezuelan cartel except there was no dramatic evidence. Was this a carefully scripted plan that backfired big time and who else was in on it?
I would wager the organizing cabal includes, at a director level, Steve Bannon.
No indication they will go beyond Peters. Proving anything on anyone like Bannon or Liddell would be next to impossible in a case like this, and I doubt TFG even knows who Tina Peters is.
I think this was her own brain fart.
Trump certainly planted and nurtured the seeds which sprouted into Tina Peters, Kari Lake, Ron Hanks, Mastriano in PA, and all the other screwballs.
This is like the freelance ISIS and al Queda terrorists who profess allegiance to the greater cause but act more or less on their own.
And where is Loren Ron Hanks, by the way?
Endorsing an unknown Libertarian for Senate- as if anyone cares what Hanks thinks.
THAT ^^^^^^^ American Taliban nothing new, Trump unleashed them and normalized the behavior by normalizing his own actions. To the point we are paralyzed so far at taking him down through the legal system.
Journalistic focus on the Trump sedition is lacking sorely.
It’ll be interesting to see how long Lindell will keep paying her tab. Harvey Steinberg is one of those celebrity Denver lawyers who charges by the inhale and exhale. There’s no way she’s paying him without big time help.
Hasn't she set up a defense fund or a Go Fund Me page or some other vehicle for shaking down the MAGA flock for $$$.
If people were willing to give to Steve Bannon "We Build the Wall" foundation, I can't imagine there would not be a lot of fools prepared to send money to this nut job.
Sometimes it's crazy to be musically inclined.
This picture brings to mind, "Batman and His Grandmother," 1966, by the late Dickie Goodman.
"Journalistic focus on the Trump sedition is lacking sorely."
Excuse me? COSane, I generally like what you post and agree with much of what you say but journalistic focus on Trump's sedition in sorely lacking?
You cannot turn on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or any of the traditional network news programs without hearing something about one (or more) of Trump's numerous criminal investigations and cases.
The problem isn't coverage. The problem is that each side hears what it wants to hear and no one is going to re-evaluate his/her/their position based on any additional information.