President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 24, 2024 12:54 PM UTC

Sorry Tina Peters, The Republican DA Is Not Persecuting You

  • 2 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Ex-Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.

The Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby updates on the latest legal maneuvers in the long-awaited felony prosecution of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who has tried every frivolous trick in the book to delay her trial on charges brought by Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, a (important plot point here) fellow Republican:

Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters lost in court again.

This time it was her appeal of a federal judge in her lawsuit alleging that state charges against her should be dropped because she was a whistleblower and that District Attorney Dan Rubinstein conspired to violate her free speech and immunity rights under the First and 14th Amendments.

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed with U.S. District Judge Nina Wang on Friday in tossing her lawsuit against Rubinstein, saying Peters didn’t meet any semblance of showing a burden of proof.

Michael Karlik, writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette’s political blog:

Specifically, elaborated Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. in a June 21 order, a state judge already found probable cause for the charges against Peters. Further, Peters failed to show District Attorney Daniel P. Rubinstein pursued the prosecution in bad faith allegedly because she spoke out about “vulnerabilities in the County’s computerized voting system.”

“Ms. Peters argues Mr. Rubinstein’s investigation and prosecution was retaliation for her exercise of constitutional rights. She points to several parts of the record,” Matheson wrote, “none of which ‘prove(s) that retaliation was a major motivating factor and played a dominant role in the decision to prosecute.'” [Pols emphasis]

This latest attempt to have the charges against Peters thrown out before trial rested on a theory that GOP DA Rubinstein is part of the conspiracy to conceal “the truth” about election equipment Peters is accused of allowing outside crackpots to steal and subject to their crackpot “analysis”–which in reality is the only actual election security risk that occurred in this case. Had Peters actually uncovered evidence that voting machines in her care had been compromised, proper channels to investigate that without releasing confidential data to the public for amateur speculation (and hacker predation) already existed.

It has been a consistent theme in the long legal fight to hold Tina Peters accountable that Peters’ objections and attempts to delay her criminal trial immediately fall apart in court, found to be based on wild suppositions that no reasonable person would possibly believe. Obviously, Tina Peters is not being prosecuted by a Republican district attorney for trying to blow the whistle on any actual problem with election systems. Attempting to prove Donald Trump’s proven false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, Peters allegedly engaged in serious official misconduct that cannot be justified either by Trump’s baseless claims or any “evidence” uncovered by Peters’ actions.

In short, Tina Peters’ defense is bullshit. Her trial, expected to finally begin next month, is not expected to be a difficult case. Peters’ key subordinates in the plot have already agreed to testify against her. Even Peters’ former friend Lauren Boebert has vouched for Rubinstein’s handling of the prosecution. In the process of making the case against Clerk Peters, this prosecution will undermine in broad terms the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen–which Donald Trump relies on to this day to make his case for a second term in office.

That is why Tina Peters’ day in court is bigger than Tina Peters. It’s a story of Trump’s “Big Lie” not just debunked, but consuming a public official’s good judgment.

Comments

2 thoughts on “Sorry Tina Peters, The Republican DA Is Not Persecuting You

  1. C'mon, dead guvs, putting Tina Peters in the same league as public officials with good judgment?

    Really? All I have for her is pity that she's amazingly stupid and keeps digging. 

     

     

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

46 readers online now

Newsletter

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