June 24, 2024 12:54 PM UTC

Sorry Tina Peters, The Republican DA Is Not Persecuting You

• 2 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

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.