US justice department to review conviction of former election clerk

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Guardian

Tue 4 Mar 2025 13.56 EST
Last modified on Tue 4 Mar 2025 14.28 EST


Donald Trump’s justice department said it will review the Colorado conviction of former election clerk Tina Peters, who received a nine-year prison sentence for her role in a voting system data-breach scheme as part of an unsuccessful quest to find voter fraud in 2021.

Yaakov Roth, an acting assistant attorney general, wrote in a court filing on Monday that the Department of Justice was “reviewing cases across the nation for abuses of the criminal justice process”, including Peters’.

“This review will include an evaluation of the state of Colorado’s prosecution of Ms Peters and, in particular, whether the case was ‘oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives’,” Roth wrote, echoing the language in a Trump executive order on “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government”.

Peters, then the clerk of Mesa county, allowed a man affiliated with the pillow salesman and election denier Mike Lindell to misuse a security card to access the Mesa county election system. Lindell posted about the DoJ’s statement on his fundraising website, telling donors their assistance had “contributed to positive developments at the Department of Justice that give us hope that the wheels are in motion for the early release of Tina Peters”.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/04/justice-department-review-tina-peters-conviction

---

It's a STATE case.

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143317720

so this statement is IDIOTIC -

echoing the language in a Trump executive order on “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government".

because they ARE "weaponizing" the federal government against the state of Colorado.

There is no need for DOJ "involvement".

[VMA131Marine]

1. Exactly, Peter's was convicted on state charges

This is just a waste of DOJ resources.

[generalbetrayus]

2. Oh, puhleeeeze!

That woman should never be allowed near a voting machine in her life except to vote on one under supervision. And she can vote by mail in Colorado, easily.

[Tootbsb]

3. Waste fraud and abuse. This is the state so fuck your fascist machinations.

[bluestarone]

4. I really hope they can change NOTHING!

She deserves PRISON!!

[AmericaUnderSiege]

5. Gotta help your accomplices, of course.

A jury would already have convicted these people of aiding and abetting.

The war against the insurgents grinds on.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. MaddowBlog-The Justice Department takes an interest in Tina Peters' conviction in Colorado

Tina Peters was sent to prison after acting on Trump’s 2020 election lies. Now, Trump’s Justice Department is intervening in her case without cause.
https://bsky.app/profile/darbyscastle.bsky.social/post/3ljkryna4a22c

Watch this case as it will be pivotal to Trump and NYS and NYC convictions.. 1st Fed could have picked up prosecution.. since they didn't they're without merit..

The Justice Department takes an interest in Tina Peters' conviction in Colorado

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/justice-department-takes-interest-tina-peters-conviction-colorado-rcna194675

The NBC affiliate in Denver ran a strange story last week about a group of Republicans in Colorado who came up with an unusual request for the Trump administration. According to the local report, these GOP officials envision a scheme in which the White House agrees to block funding for the Rocky Mountain State until Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis, agrees to pardon a convicted criminal named Tina Peters.

It was, to be sure, a bizarre pitch, which will not and cannot happen, but it was a timely reminder that for some on the far-right, Peters’ case remains highly relevant. In fact, The New York Times reported that even Donald Trump’s Justice Department has apparently taken an interest in the matter.

The Justice Department said on Monday that it would review the conviction of the former clerk of Mesa County, Colo., who was found guilty of state charges last summer of tampering with voting machines under her control in a failed attempt to prove that they had been used to rig the 2020 election against President Trump. The decision was the latest example of the Justice Department under Mr. Trump’s control seeking to use its powers to support those who have acted on his behalf and to go after those who have criticized or opposed him.

While the Times’ report hasn’t been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, the developments are not the subject of rumor or scuttlebutt: The article specifically noted that the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division unexpectedly filed a brief in federal court this week, declaring that “reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters’s case.”.....

And yet, six weeks into the Trump administration, the Republican-led Justice Department is nevertheless taking an interest in the case

The scrutiny of Peters case, according to Yaakov Roth, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, was an extension of the president’s executive order related to ending the “weaponization of the federal government.”

But this turns reality on its head. The Justice Department’s unwarranted intervention in this case serves as a timely reminder that, in 2025, federal law enforcement is focused on the interests of Trump’s friends and allies.

The brazenness is so plainly ridiculous, the Republican administration is hardly even trying to keep up appearances, and there’s every reason to believe this will get worse in the coming days, weeks, months and years.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. From the blog: "It was, to be sure, a bizarre pitch, which will not and cannot happen,"

Something like that DID happen - when they "reached in" and cut off $80 million allocated to NYC.

Feds seized $80 million in FEMA funds given to NYC to house migrants, city comptroller says

States/Counties/Municipalities have accounts with the feds that they can go into as a financial interface and if an "expected" funds transfer suddenly doesn't happen or is "removed" after already having been sent, they are left litigating in the media or in the courts.

[DENVERPOPS]

7. In all reality,

if this had Truly been politically motivated, she would have received a much longer sentence......

"to misuse a security card to access the Mesa county election system." ???????????????
It was far worse than that Guardian..........A LOT worse.............

She committed a number of felonies, basically espionage, by letting some quasi Republican Trump geeks into the facility, let them into a secured room of voting machines, and helped them steal a hard drive so the burglars could get the machines proprietary software.........

[mdbl]

9. It's already been adjudicated

Is this part of the "do you believe what you see or what I'm telling you" strategy like on Fux Nooze?

[BumRushDaShow]

10. "Is this part of the "do you believe what you see or what I'm telling you" strategy like on Fux Nooze?"

It's more like this (from the OP excerpts) -

Lindell posted about the DoJ’s statement on his fundraising website, telling donors their assistance had “contributed to positive developments at the Department of Justice that give us hope that the wheels are in motion for the early release of Tina Peters”.

I.e., to overrule the state's conviction by jury and release a criminal convicted of state charges from prison by threatening to eventually cut off federal money due to the state (extortion).

[mdbl]

11. I am of the mindset that the blue states should just cut their funding the federal govt

and concentrate the money on their state instead. Also concentrate on prosecuting everything on the state level where possible.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. I know everyone says this

But the businesses are the ones doing the withholdings and sending the $$ vs the state when it comes to federal taxes.

[mdbl]

13. In the heat of the moment,,,

I always forget those minor details lol. It is true that the tax system has been lopsided to the federal govt.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. We're left with continual public shaming the MAGats in their red states

who end up hurting good people who live there.

[mdbl]

18. And they have no shame

or morals, or ethics or scruples.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Or empathy

[republianmushroom]

15. ..."reviewing cases across the nation for abuses of the criminal justice process",

How about not investigating or not trying trump for more than 40 criminal acts that the Merrick the Meek and DOJ ignored or let the statute of limitations to run out.

49 months and counting

[BumRushDaShow]

16. "not trying trump"

The "trying" is done by a COURT AND JURY and NOT DOJ and John Roberts made sure it did not get to that point like he continues to do today.

[republianmushroom]

17. Roberts saved trump in the fourth year there were three years before the save.

Roberts saved trump. There were many crimes that were not even investigated by the DOJ.
FBI resisted opening probe into Trump's role in Jan. 6 for more than a year
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143089688
See how the DOJ slow-walked and hesitated investigating Trump's coup: Melber breakdown - The Beat
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017838512
Top FBI agents did not want to raid Mar-a-Lago — but DOJ prosecutors pushed them anyway: report
https://www.theblaze.com/news/report-fbi-did-not-want-mar-a-lago-raid

The above happened BEFORE Roberts saved trump.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. Colorado files fiery response to unusual USDOJ entry in former county clerk Tina Peters' challenge to her conviction

Peters has an appeal on whether she needs to file an appeal bond. The DOJ filed a statement of interest seeking to be a party to this appeal. The reply to this motion is a good read
https://bsky.app/profile/joshgerstein.bsky.social/post/3lk532q7lyc2s

JUST IN: Colorado files fiery response to unusual USDOJ entry in former county clerk Tina Peters' challenge to her conviction & 9-year sentence in election data fraud scheme: "A grotesque attempt to weaponize the rule of law," SG Shannon Stevenson says

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the filing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.241206/gov.uscourts.cod.241206.17.0.pdf

In what appears to be a naked, political attempt to threaten or intimidate either this Court
or the attorneys that prosecuted this matter, the United States has taken the unprecedented and
extraordinary step of filing a “statement of interest” in this habeas proceeding concerning a state
criminal conviction. This statement purports to request “prompt and careful consideration” of
“reasonable concerns [that] have been raised” about the conviction and sentence of Tina Peters,
followed by an announcement that the Department of Justice is evaluating whether the State of
Colorado’s prosecution of Ms. Peters was politically motivated. ECF No. 16. 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. Rather, what appears “politically motivated”—and a grotesque attempt to weaponize
the rule of law—is the very statement the United States has filed. .....

There is no legitimate basis for the United States’ “Statement of Interest,” and the Court
should reject it. Respondent Attorney General is unaware of the United States ever filing a
statement in a habeas application challenging the State of Colorado’s criminal proceedings, and
the only interest it has articulated is a political concern wholly inappropriate in this judicial
proceeding.

Our nation’s commitment to the principle of the “rule of law” requires the equal and fair
administration of the law regardless of the defendant in any particular case. 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.
Like other challenges to this fundamental principle, this effort must be rejected outright, and our
nation must hold firm to this core commitment of our justice system.

This is a good read