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) Lauren Boebert*

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Anna Stout





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

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Richard Holtorf

(R) Deborah Flora




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Doug Lamborn*


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) Scott James




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
July 19, 2023 12:52 pm MST

If Tina Peters Can Just Stall Until Trump Wins...Then What?

  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Ruh, roh! Looks like Peters’ new attorney has his work cut out for him:


Tina Peters.

As the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby reports, indicted former Mesa County Clerk and 2022 Secretary of State candidate Tina Peters is no longer being represented in her felony criminal case by noted Denver defense attorney Harvey Steinberg–and with new lawyers on the case, Peters is asking for yet another delay in her impending trial currently set for October:

“The current scheduling order does not afford new counsel adequate time to review discovery, investigate defenses, retain and consult with expert witnesses, prepare and file motions, or prepare for trial,” Richards wrote in his motion asking for a delay Peters’ jury trial…

Up until last week, Peters had been represented by Denver attorney Harvey Steinberg not only in the criminal charges facing her, but also in other legal matters, such as her misdemeanor conviction for interfering with government operations when she attempted to withhold an iPad that investigators seized after she was caught recording a court proceeding without authority.

We don’t know anything about the circumstances of Harvey Steinberg’s departure from Peters’ defense team, but it’s a significant development. As readers know, Peters’ subordinates have turned state’s evidence against Peters on the principal charges against her, and the case overall is not considered to be difficult to decide with Peters having repeatedly and readily admitted to the basic facts underlying the allegations. Peters’ defense generally rests on a presumption of “whistleblower” good faith that in no way justifies the alleged identity theft and other misconduct Peters is accused of in her failed attempt to provide evidence that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.

All of which is a complicated way of saying that this case was likely to negatively impact Harvey Steinberg’s win/loss ratio–and assuming Peters is as unrealistic about her situation in private as she is in public, we could easily see an attorney of Steinberg’s caliber deciding to cut Peters loose.

Which is not to say that Peters’ new attorney is some kind of two-bit pettifogger. In fact:

[Douglas] Richards has often spoken as a legal expert for numerous state and national media outlets on a variety of court trials, and has defended some high-profile defendants, such as the Denver man once accused of killing a protester in 2020 as a paid security guard for a 9NEWS reporting crew covering dueling conservative “Patriot Rally” and “Black Lives Matter” events. Charges against him were later dropped.

Peters retaining a lawyer who defended unlicensed armed security guard Matthew Dolloff in the 2020 death of a right-wing protester, a case that still provokes lots of emotion from conservatives who remember the incident, is certain to generate some lively debate among her diehard supporters. Changing lawyers might afford Peters some additional delay in the start of her trial, but the real question is whether Peters’ new lawyers have any other strategy than to delay the trial for as long as possible.

It wouldn’t surprise us to learn that Peters herself is counting on delaying her trial long enough for Donald Trump to win the presidency again in 2024 and for herself to be somehow vindicated by that–even though presidents can’t even pardon the state charges Peters faces. Especially since Peters’ subordinates rolled on her for lenient sentences, it’s been basically impossible to understand how Peters thinks this case is going to end.

Our prediction is, worse than Peters can imagine. Donald Trump is not coming to save her.


12 thoughts on “If Tina Peters Can Just Stall Until Trump Wins…Then What?

  1. I'm pretty certain that Tina Peters is not at the forefront of Trump's concerns.

    I'd guess the more relevant question is whether Ms. Peters will have enough money from small donor grift, fees for speeches, and whatever else she can do, or if she is largely dependent on the kindness (and wallet) of Mike Lindell. 

    If it is the latter, it seems to me the Peters defense may be in for a revolving door of counsel. 

  2. Lindell may soon be tapped out because of his own financial problems. And that loud sucking sound you hear is all the MAGAdonians sending their $$$ to Mar-A-Lago.

    Without Lindell and without the MAGA sheep supporting her, she will go broke. By the time her cases are finished, she'll probably qualify for a PD.

    Wouldn't that be rich in irony. Another one of the real hard-working Merikans sucking off the teat of a government program.

  3. It's just speculation, but knowing Harvey, I suspect Tina got behind on paying her fees and is such a nutjob that withdrawing made sense.  Doug Richards is a good lawyer, though, so she's well-represented.  Court may allow a short continuance, but probably not too long.  

  4. A comment on the headline.  First, it's very doubtful she can push this trial past the 2024 election.  Second, it's a state case, so trump can't pardon her, though he certainly could use his enormous mouth to muck things up.  But my guess is he'd let her twist in the wind. 

  5. Maybe if she stalls long enough, they can rope in Liddell and his role in the crime. He comes across as the money man who promised wealth and fame if she committed the crime. Is so then that would make him an accessory.

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

35 readers online now


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