The Case of Pardon II
And the real kicker, jail
_______CUTS BACK IN__________
Well, don’t mind me rambling on…. here’s the thing folks, we are going to hear from our panel today which includes Current Colorado Governor Polis, District Court Judge Barrett and The People of Colorado. Now we are going to hear from the panel, see what they think and what they have said, and then weigh Tina Peters fate based on that and her story. Let’s first hear from the contestants!
Tina: “It's with a heavy heart that I hear the vile accusations and the anger that I hear levied against me”
Brenda Knisley: “I'm going to go to jail over this."
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s quite the story too but here is the synopsis:
Key Charges:
Attempt to Influence a Public Servant: Both Peters and Knisley allegedly attempted to influence public servants through deceit to alter or affect their decisions.
Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Impersonation: They conspired to assume false identities to facilitate unauthorized access to election equipment.
Criminal Impersonation: Peters is accused of assuming a false identity to perform actions that could subject the impersonated person to liability.
Identity Theft: Peters allegedly used another person's identifying information without permission to obtain value.
First Degree Official Misconduct: Peters is charged with knowingly committing unauthorized acts related to her office to obtain benefits or cause harm.
Violation of Duty: Both Peters and Knisley are accused of failing to perform duties imposed by law.
Failure to Comply with Requirements of Secretary of State: They allegedly interfered with or refused to comply with the Secretary of State's rules.
Summary of Relevant Facts:
Security Breach: In early August 2021, confidential digital images and passwords related to Mesa County's Dominion Voting Systems were published online1, constituting an unauthorized data breach.
Deceptive Scheme: Peters and Knisley devised a scheme to influence public servants, breach security protocols, and distribute confidential information. They used the identity of Gerald "Jerry" Wood to gain unauthorized access.
Trusted Build Process: Despite instructions from the Secretary of State (SOS) to limit access during the trusted build process, Peters and Knisley arranged for unauthorized individuals to be present and turned off security cameras to avoid detection.
Non-Compliance: They did not comply with SOS directives to provide documentation and access for inspection following the breach.
Okay now that’s done, let’s get on to it.
Judge Barrett
Judge Barrett was a former prosecutor in the 9th Judicial (Glenwood Springs etc) and the 14th Judicial (Routt, Moffat, Grand) and named the 2011 Prosecutor of the Year in the 9th. He assumed the bench relatively quickly after that. I had one short and very evident meeting with him in my equally short legal career. In that bizarre hearing I was presenting the People’s defense vs another guy’s DMV Appeal.2 There was not much of a hearing. The guy attempted to argue but after hearing him out Barrett went with the People. Barrett had started to walk away from the bench when the guy continued to protest, and mumbled under his breath something. Barrett turned around and lit into him. I to my credit, got out as soon as possible.3
Barrett called Peters’ lies well-documented, and explained that he considers deterrence when deciding a sentence. Noting that she had never completed the certification required of a county clerk, he said she had failed to take her job seriously, had shown no respect for law enforcement and poses a danger to the community.
“You are a charlatan,” Barrett said. “You betrayed your oath.”
Shit that I am sure he would have likely said to me, in some way or another, had he been the judge sentencing me. Barrett sentenced TP to a nine year prison and jail sentence. TP9 was convicted of seven crimes (three F4s an F6 and three misc misdemeanors). Barrett said he was, “convinced you would do it all over again” and compared her privilege unfavorably to the other defendants who had been in his court earlier that day.
So that is probably a resounding NO.
Next.
The People
DA Rubinstein, Special Counsels Drake and Shapiro would be the likely people Tina would need to get on board here. There are no real qualms over how this went down from their view point. Rubinstein investigated, presented it to the grand jury, and then turned it over to the special prosecution from the AG’s office.
[Peters] was elected specifically to be the safeguard and then became the threat by sneaking people into the room with machines who weren't supposed to be in there, filming the passwords that she wasn't supposed to have access to, passing them on to other people.
…
Our charging decision in this case was very deliberate, and that was to focus on the misrepresentations that Ms. Peters made in order to get people into the room. It didn't really matter whether Dominion Voting Systems are reliable or not reliable or whether the elections were tampered with or not tampered with. It's probably worth noting that (President Donald) Trump overwhelmingly won in Mesa County, so I'm not sure what the belief was that the election was tampered with here in Mesa County, but either way, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not she did what she was supposed to do.
In essence, what this case was about, is the checks and balances that our constitution has set up. There are various elected officials that have various roles. Here, the Secretary of State is responsible to oversee elections and to keep the passwords for those machines to make sure that the settings on them stay secure. It's the elected clerk and recorder's job to keep the computers, but she doesn't get the passwords. She only gets the computers. And then it's Dominion's job to have the software and to update the software so that you need to have all three of them in the room together in order to do this.
Dan Rubinstein4, Colorado Public Radio
Meanwhile, Phil Weiser’s response to the DOJ inquiry is pretty definite:
“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
…
On March 3, the Justice Department filed a “statement of interest” in Peters’ federal case, stating, “Reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters’ case. These concerns relate to, among other things, the exceptionally lengthy sentence imposed relative to the conduct at issue, the First Amendment implications of the trial court’s October 2024 assertions relating to Ms. Peters and whether Colorado’s denial of bail pending appeal was arbitrary or unreasonable under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments such that relief is appropriate.”
…
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.”
- Sammy Klomhaus, GJ Daily Sentinel
But again, Phil Weiser has no real stake in whether TP gets pardoned. Sure, the Gov can listen to him and his opinions, but ultimately doesn’t have to do what he thinks is right.
So its a NO from the People, but let’s see what Polis has to say.
Governor Polis
This is the person that would have the ultimate discretion and there is really only one way this can go, and that is the hard way. Trump can use the leverage of the funding, but it then creates a rather bit more legal mess. But since Trump has already not given out homeland security grants and doesn’t seem likely to give in anytime soon.
[T]he administration continues to stop paying for important programs like State and Local Cyber Security, Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program5, Urban Area Security Initiative6, and the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP).7
Polis’s Office, March 3rd 2025
But lovely Politico liked to paint Polis, prior this, as someone who can both resist and cooperate with Trump. This author, for one, is not convinced. Although Chris Christie has since come around:
Christie: Trump ‘looks and sounds like an ally of Putin’
Well.
Through the Jagged Glass
Look, this has been fun, but the real thing we need to turn our attention to is why TP has been kept locked up in jail since sentencing. Although a pretty common problem with DOC processing, it draws a bit more ire in this present moment because of who it is. I’m not saying TP deserves royalty treatment, but both the state of Colorado and enemies of TP can surely see how this is a bad note to land on.
All inmates go through an intake and classification at the Denver Complex; male offenders go through intake and classification at Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC) and all female offenders go through intake and classification at Denver Women's Correctional Facility (DWCF)…
The intake and classification process takes an average of 3-6 weeks and once completed, the inmate will be transferred to a long term facility assignment based upon their classification, any documented custody issues, program needs, and bed space availability. Please note, due to the complex nature of facility assignment the department is unable to accommodate requests for placement in particular correctional facilities and/or geographic areas.
Okay, but TP has been held in jail during this time, and so she hasn’t even gone through this part of the process.
Judge Barrett’s sentencing order reads like this:
PAY ALL COURT FEES AND COSTS;
REMANDED INTO THE CUSTODY OF MESA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY;
MUST REMAIN AT MCDF NO LESS THAN 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF SENTENCING DUE TO APPEAL…8
Not only has it been now five months in jail but this is after safety concerns resulting in a switch from Mesa County to Larimer County (Fort Collins) jail late last year. Sixty days has now elapsed, and we still have someone who has not begun the processing and intake procedures.
This is not too dissimilar to another case currently being prosecuted against another older woman in Mesa County. She was held in jail on violating a civil protection order taken against her by her other neerdowell neighbors, who didn’t like what she was doing with the HOA. In Colorado, this is a mandatory arrest for violating a protection order. However, the optics of that case as well as the one against TP don’t look justifiable in my view.
I get it, I am in a lofty position to hold court here because I was convicted for the same crimes but did not go to jail. The unfortunate thing is because of that, I have to advocate for those who are held in terrible conditions, especially if they are older and vulnerable. Did TP absolutely break the law as written? Totally. Did she do it in a strange act of civil disobedience? I sort of can understand that. Was it executed terribly? Absolutely. But I’m not sure either one of these crimes can justify being held in jail to either extent. Its a legal absurdity, not reflecting our actual values in the law.
Polis should possibly commute the sentence9, or at the very least, get the CDOC to work faster on moving TP to a DOC facility. I think this is a political savvy move, because the more time that TP sits in a jail, the more likelihood the Trump admin uses her as leverage with the possibility of something truly bad happening. And that’s not dramatics, that’s statistics. You are far more likely to die in jail, nearly three times more likely to die from suicide, than outside of it.
Jails statistically speaking also increase your risk for a lot of other diseases, medical conditions, injury, and death. The kicker is here whereas TP’s case would get notoriety, hundreds upon thousands of prisoner deaths have been unaccounted for and not documented over generations, and it isn’t getting better. I guess what I would say is that this situation is unique in the fact that if she is actually harmed (or even dies) while in Colorado jail custody, that may illuminate the issue of unreported and inaccurate death reports. Either way, it is a black eye on Polis and a sort of a kick in the face to everyone who prosecuted, jured, witnessed and presided over TP’s case if she doesn’t make it to CDOC custody unharmed.
To me, the back and forth, posturing, and playing “Who’s a liar” … someone’s Grandma is rotting in a jail awaiting processing to a CDOC facility. Polis, if you don’t think that Trump and Republicans aren’t already looking at this in the same way, political, you must be out of your mind and still in the woods.
Until Next Time…
-HJRC
In the strategic arsenal of “freedom fighters” one would have to think that distributing this first thing via unencrypted message or otherwise would not be the best course of action here. I’m no political-actioneer by any means but this seems amatuer at best. It seems as though this was loosely handled, which makes me not hopeful for America if these are the “resistance”. Or is that the Dems now? Little bit of an Orwellian slip there.
I had an intern crank that one out. Good kid. He wrote an equally forceful paper and was sharp. Can’t say I remember his name though.
I am also getting to watch Barrett as I observe the John Taylor case. And for what it is worth, I did really admire him as a judge. When I was supposedly going to move u to felony land as a DA, I wanted to be assigned to his courtroom. I knew he would try to push me past where I had been as a DA. I guess we will never know.
Also -
Rubinstein: But as far as it relates to my identity, I'm the sort of Republican that believes that you respect law enforcement. You don't kick at cops, you follow the law. And if the law says you don't lie to people to manipulate their decisions, then that's a crime. And if you go about things the right way. The law is to be respected, which means you go to court and you ask a judge to intervene and do something. So I have no qualms about taking this case and charging another fellow Republican. We are all held to the same standard, and certainly elected officials should be held not just to the same standard, but to a higher standard, and we're supposed to be setting the example of how to behave.
“The Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) Grant Program provides funding for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments; nonprofits; and institutions of higher education to establish or enhance capabilities to prevent targeted violence and terrorism. The Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administer the program. It is the only federal grant program solely dedicated to helping local communities develop and strengthen their capabilities in this area.”
“The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Program assists high-threat, high-density Urban Areas in efforts to build and sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. The UASI program is intended to provide financial assistance to address the unique multi-discipline planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density Urban Areas, and to assist these areas in building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism using the Whole Community approach.”
“The Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) provides funding support for target hardening and other physical security enhancements and activities to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack. The intent is to integrate nonprofit preparedness activities with broader state and local preparedness efforts.” - FEMA?
I’m assuming Barrett is complying with this provision CAR 8.1:
a) Stay of Execution….
(2) Imprisonment. A sentence of imprisonment shall be stayed if a notice of appeal is filed and a defendant elects not to commence service of the sentence or is admitted to bail. The sentencing court shall, upon written notice of the defendant for a stay and stating that he intends to seek review, stay a sentence of imprisonment but for not more than sixty days if the defendant is not admitted to bail.
Look I am not supporter, but I think we are discrediting her age. If the purpose is to seek justice, I’m not sure what the practicality of a long sentence of imprisonment does here. She really should have to pay a lot of money to the actual people of Colorado and the employee she defrauded, because those people were hurt. Whether we like it or not, people like Tina Peters are not going away. It would probably be a good idea to figure out why they are so adamant about these issues and deal with the root cause. Now that’s a good