April 03, 2025 02:12 PM UTC

AG Weiser Calls Out Trump's DOJ For Continued Meddling In Tina Peters Case

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

As Sam Klomhaus reported Tuesday for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the Trump 2.0 administration’s attempt to bigboot its way into the state criminal conviction of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is settling into a nine-year sentence to the Colorado Department of Corrections for her role in a security breach of Dominion Voting Systems equipment in a failed attempt to provide evidence that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen,” continues with Justice Department attorneys sparring with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser over their continued “interest” in a case prosecuted by a Republican DA in one of the state’s most conservative towns:

The U.S. Department of Justice has reiterated its interest in the case of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in a response to a filing by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.

The document, filed March 25, asks the court to deny Weiser’s request to strike the Justice Department’s statement of interest in the matter, and to give Peter’s case prompt and careful consideration…

Weiser’s filing in response to the statement of interest stated it is “unnecessary, unwarranted and unhelpful” for the Justice Department to be heard on the matter, and the Justice Department has singled out this case to wield its power on behalf of someone who has aligned herself politically with the president.

“The United States cites not a single fact to support its baseless allegations that there are any reasonable concerns about Ms. Peters’ prosecution or sentence, or that the prosecution was politically motivated in any way,” the filing stated.

Last week’s response from the Justice Department stated, “Rather than address the merits of Ms. Peters’ Application or the concerns noted by the United States regarding whether Ms. Peters was denied bond pending appeal in violation of her constitutional rights, Respondent primarily chose to baselessly assault the integrity of the Executive Branch while repeatedly referencing and denigrating Ms. Peters’ purported political beliefs [Pols emphasis] in a manner remarkably incongruent with the seriousness of a habeas proceeding.”

If by “assaulting the integrity of the Executive Branch” the DOJ is referring to Weiser refusing to entertain the unfounded conspiracy theories that motivated Peters to commit multiple felonies, that Weiser may be guilty of–but it’s “guilt” Weiser will gladly own. In his latest response filed yesterday, Weiser called out the duplicitous motives of the Justice Department in the strongest terms yet:

While the United States has broad powers to file Statements of Interest, it had no basis to threaten to investigate Tina Peters’ prosecutors and cannot articulate even the slimmest rationale why the United States has any interest in whether an individual state criminal defendant is entitled to an appeal bond (a bond that is virtually never granted to any criminal defendant in the state of Colorado). Other than simply acting as co-counsel to restate the arguments of Ms. Peters’ counsel, it is unclear what the United States wants to do to vindicate its unidentified interests. In light of the United States’ failure to identify any proper interest or to otherwise provide helpful information to the Court, Respondent reiterates its request that the Statement be stricken.

Respondent objected to the Statement of Interest because its primary purpose appeared to be to threaten investigation of the attorneys that prosecuted Ms. Peters. [Pols emphasis] Those threats were baseless and improper, particularly in light of the heavy involvement of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado in the investigation of Peters’ criminal conduct. The United States attorneys who signed the Statement of Interest that contained those threats have now withdrawn from this matter. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) Substitute counsel, who signed the response filed by the United States, has not offered a single fact to support those threats and makes no effort to defend them. They should be stricken…

Concluding, Weiser gets directly to the heart of the matter: Donald Trump’s refusal to admit he lost the 2020 presidential election.

Finally, the Court should consider this unprecedented action by the United States in the broader context in which the Statement of Interest was made. Tina Peters was charged with crimes for her unlawful use of deceit to defraud state and local public servants in order to advance theories that President Trump won the 2020 election. [Pols emphasis] But, because Peters committed state crimes, the President cannot pardon her. Instead, he has sent the Department of Justice to make filings in her habeas proceeding, while Republicans simultaneously pressure the Governor of Colorado to pardon Peters under the threat of the President withholding the State of Colorado’s federal funding. Tina Peters was not prosecuted because of any political pressure; she was prosecuted because she broke the law. And just as they did not prosecute her for political reasons, her prosecutors will not accede to any political pressure to give her preferred treatment in sentencing or terms of confinement. She will be treated like every other criminal defendant, as justice requires.

At stake in this case is one of the only remaining legal footholds in the battle over the narrative of what happened in the 2020 election: a criminal conviction in a case underpinned by Trump’s “Big Lie,” but in a state where Trump has no political power to force local officials to do his lawless bidding as Trump did by pardoning even violent January 6th rioters. The trial balloon floated a few weeks ago of a “quid pro quo” deal for Peters’ release popped in disgrace after Gov. Jared Polis rejected the idea as “repugnant.” Now, AG Weiser is challenging the Justice Department to make their motives in interfering with Peters’ case plain. Is she not guilty of official misconduct, identity theft, and influencing a public servant?

Or is this about Trump’s pathological need to make one of the last legal vestiges of his attempt to overthrow American democracy in 2021 go away?

The one thing both sides can agree on, though for polar opposite reasons, is that this case is about more than Tina Peters.