March 12, 2025 10:21 AM UTC

Weiser Hits Back Hard At Trump's DOJ For Meddling In Tina Peters Case

• 5 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Last week, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division filed a “statement of interest” in the federal case from convicted former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is petitioning federally for release on bail while her appeal plays out. Peters, who was convicted in a Mesa County court on numerous felony and other misconduct-related charges after a half-baked scheme to override security and give outside crackpots access to Dominion Voting Systems hardware and software, is currently residing in the Larimer County jail awaiting her transfer into the state Department of Corrections to serve her nine-year sentence.

Ex-Clerk Peters is also a mid-level celebrity in the election conspiracy theory crowd, convinced like President Donald Trump despite the lack of any evidence having ever emerged to support them that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from Trump. Loyalty to Trump in 2025 means either embracing the baseless theories about the 2020 election or at the very least shutting up about it, and so Peters’ continued imprisonment after Trump pardoned even the violent January 6th rioters represents a major unresolved stumbling block in attempts by the MAGA movement to rewrite history for Trump’s benefit. To this day, Peters has a loyal cadre of supporters who are agitating for her release on the basis that she is not just being overly punished, but was right all along that the 2020 presidential election was rigged–despite no evidence from Peters’ actions or anywhere else backing up that belief.

But as the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Nathan Deal reports today, local law enforcement officials from both sides of the aisle who successfully prosecuted Peters for her gross misconduct in the fruitless pursuit of proving the “Big Lie” are calling out the DOJ’s legally dubious threats:

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has asked a federal court to reject a “statement of interest” from the United States Department of Justice related to a habeas corpus request from Tina Peters, the former Mesa County Clerk who was convicted of election-related fraud charges in August.

“The United States’ suggestion that there is a uniquely important interest in advocating for this individual — because of her political views — is unprecedented, highly problematic and a threat to the rule of law,” Weiser’s filing stated…

Weiser’s response to the Justice Department, filed in federal court Tuesday, stated the “statement of interest” from the Department of Justice “appears to be a naked, political attempt to threaten or intimidate either this Court or the attorneys that prosecuted this matter.” [Pols emphasis]

Colorado Public Radio’s Bente Birkeland:

The Justice Department said it plans to evaluate the state prosecution of Peters, citing an executive order from President Trump titled “Ending the Weaponization of The Federal Government.” It will focus on whether the case was “oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”

Peters, who is currently incarcerated at the Larimer County jail, is asking the federal court to release her on bond while she appeals her state case. In the Tuesday filing, Weiser said Peters was denied bail because at trial she “demonstrated repeatedly that she believed she was above the law.”

“At no point during the proceedings did Ms. Peters exhibit any indication that she understood the gravity of her criminal conduct. Instead, even after her conviction, she reaffirmed her position that her conduct was justified by her conspiracy theories about the 2020 election,” his filing states.

The Republican DA who prosecuted Peters, Mesa County’s Dan Rubinstein, called the scope of the DOJ’s interference “unclear,” but while trying to put some distance between himself and the judge in the case still defended every aspect of the prosecution of Peters:

While the scope of the Justice Department’s review is unclear, it seems to be targeted at the length of sentence the judge imposed, comments by the judge at sentencing, and the judge’s decision not to grant an appeal bond. Ultimately the decision of whether to take any action is that of the Federal court, not the Justice Department. I feel confident that this case was handled by the investigators, prosecutors and courts in an entirely ethical, fair and appropriate manner. [Pols emphasis]

Because the Department of Justice has no power to overturn Peters’ conviction any more than Trump himself has the power to pardon Peters for her state convictions, their “statement of interest” in the case seems to be entirely for the purpose of intimidating the federal judge hearing Peters’ request for release on appeal–and beyond that, state officials who do have jurisdiction over Peters’ case. Depending on how vigorous the DOJ gets in expressing its “interest,” this could become one of the last big flashpoints in this years-long struggle over public opinion and Donald Trump’s presidential legitimacy.

Although Peters’ convictions were for specific crimes of official misconduct that would apply in any setting, the backdrop of the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen has permeated her case from the beginning. It’s the only reason Trump’s Justice Department has any interest in the case and although not everyone can admit that, everybody knows it.

The only “weaponization” occurring here is coming from Trump’s DOJ–weaponized to rewrite history.