Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble,Gettr,Truth Social, Twitter
Colorado Governor Jared Polis dropped a political nuke on his democrat incumbents this week, weighing in on X about the asymmetrical justice of Sonya Jaquez Lewis and Tina Peters this week:
“Last week, former State Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis was sentenced to probation and community service after being convicted of four felonies including Attempt to Influence a Public Official. She made a horrible mistake, and she was wrong. I hope she learns from this and can rebuild her life. As someone who has known Sonya as a friend for many years, on a personal level I was glad to hear she isn’t going to prison which is a hard place for anyone, no less a retired 68-year old pharmacist. But it is not lost on me that she was convicted of the exact same felony charge as Tina Peters — attempting to influence a public official — and yet Tina Peters, as a non-violent first time offender got a nine year sentence. Justice in Colorado and America needs to be applied evenly, you never know when you might need to depend on the rule of law. This is the context I am using as I consider cases like this that have sentencing disparities, which is why I have extended the deadline for clemency applications until April 3rd. I will be making decisions on these cases throughout the remainder of my governorship.”
I wrote about that comparison Sunday, catch up here:
The Worst Thing You Can Be Is Predictable
Predictably, the far left in the Centennial State lost their minds, especially the radicals running the disaster that is Colorado's "Justice" system. Tina Peters is their most valuable political scalp, and she is the absolute last gasp of their carefully created narrative about “election denialism” being dangerous to “democracy.”
They need election denialism to be a threat to democracy because they they used that fake narrative to weaponize the government and undermine democracy.
Who are “they”? I’m glad you asked.
“Tina Peters was found guilty of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant along with four additional felony and misdemeanor counts,” Jena Griswold said in a statement. “Beyond one count in common, it is not accurate to suggest that Peters’ and Sonya Jaquez Lewis’ actions or impacts are the same. Peters organized the breach of the election equipment, broke the public trust and attacked the very foundations of our democratic process. Her actions are still being used to try to undermine the 2026 election. She should get no special treatment by the Governor, and his statement is shocking and worrisome.”
Jena Griswold is running to be Attorney General. This statement is going to boomerang, possibly by the primary.
The current Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is running for Governor, also issued a statement:
“Reducing the sentence of convicted former clerk Tina Peters for tampering with election equipment would be a grave miscarriage of justice and dangerous for free and fair elections. My office worked with the Mesa County district attorney to prosecute Tina Peters and hold her to account. The judge imposed a reasonable sentence on Ms. Peters for her crimes, particularly in light of her lack of any remorse, and she should serve her time. Clemency should be based on remorse, rehabilitation, and extenuating circumstances—not on political influence, favor, or retribution. Tina Peters has not only demonstrated no remorse, but she has also doubled down on the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I have no doubt that she will continue her campaign of deception and conspiracy theories—and will only be emboldened to do so—if she is released from prison early…”
Finally, Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubenstein also issued a statement:
“The Colorado Legislature establishes sentencing ranges for crimes. For the offense of attempting to influence a public servant, the law allows a sentence ranging from probation up to six years in prison per count. That range exists because the same offense can be committed in very different ways and can result in very different consequences. The suggestion that everyone convicted under the same statute should receive the same sentence overlooks why the Legislature created a sentencing range in the first place: no two crimes and no two defendants are the same. In Tina Peters’ case, the court imposed a sentence within the range established by law, sentencing her to three and a half years on each felony count, even though the statute allows up to six years. Judges hear the evidence at trial, weigh the impact of the conduct and the level of remorse, and determine where a sentence should fall within the range the Legislature established.”
Libertarian Polis is Back!
This is actually getting quite good, and Polis’ political calculus here is mint. By seeding the narrative that he is considering some sort of clemency for Peters before the primary, he gets to test the level of weight the issue carries with the electorate. That data set will certainly inform what he is actually going to do on this issue.
I’ve speculated for months that he is going to pardon her right before or right after the midterms – I’m generally leaning towards October – but the political weighting matters.
Polis is pretending to be libertarian right now, and fake libertarian Polis only comes out when he is running for office. He’s currently unelectable nationally because he’s the face of Colorado’s nationwide brand as a communist hole, so he has some work to do rehabbing that image.
The prosecutorial team that weaponized the government – and not just against Tina Peters – is not representative of where the people are on this (or any) issue. These despots celebrate their “bipartisan” subversion of the rights of the people.
Last month, Marc Elias, who is ideologically aligned with everyone demanding Peters stay in prison, claimed in a viral video that “the pageantry of democracy” involves too many checks and balances where democracy can be corrupted at the local level – and we need to remove all the checks and balances from democracy to save democracy. (Paraphrased but that’s the gist. His words are here.
Elias and his former firm Perkins Coie are implicated in the Russia Gate Grand RICO investigation announced by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the way narratives of “domestic terrorism” were used to justify constitutional violations during COVID is a statement focus.
Oh also, the current Deputy Secretary of State is an Elias-ally, Perkins Coie-alum.
Zoom Out: Why Die On This Hill?
The conduct of the State of Colorado fits nicely inside the Grand RICO conspiracy, across the public-private partnership that forms our state government. (I expect Matt Crane's announcement any moment.) These malicious actors have had multiple, stated meetings of minds to engage in ostensibly criminal conduct.
And when you employ that framing, it becomes clear why the story of the prosecutorial heroism in locking up the very dangerous election denier cannot be undermined by a Polis commutation in Colorado.
It was their justification to weaponize the government.
And Weaponize the Government They Did
Don’t take my word for it. Consider the arguments of the three judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals that heard Peters’ appeal last month. (Note: They also changed the law on their fake narrative and political prosecution of Tina Peters.)
From Peters' February appellate hearing:
“The official misconduct charge was charged as with the intent to receive a benefit for herself,” Judge Tow said. “Why is it not relevant to the jury for her to say, ‘I didn’t intend to receive a benefit for myself. I intended to do what I thought was my job and protect the election process.’ Why was that evidence not relevant at least to that charge?”
Peters was prohibited by the trial court from defending against the state’s characterization of her intent before the jury. The state characterized her intent to the jury – they alleged that she did what she did for internet fame – and Tina was not allowed to present evidence disputing that characterization.
Solicitor Lisa Michaels, arguing for the prosecution, didn’t argue at trial, and during the appellate proceedings, she seemed confused that there was an intent requirement or that the state had argued that Peters intent was internet fame:
“I think that it wasn’t based on the benefit to herself, but it was based on violating the election, the Secretary of State’s rules. And so I think it’s a little bit different.” She referred back to Peters’ intent as the “scheme of deception.”
“But engaging in the plot of deception has no bearing on the charge of first-degree official misconduct,” said Tow. He continued, “Why was that evidence not appropriately submitted to a jury?” Michaels claimed the evidence of her intent was kept from the jury to prevent, as Tow later summarized, to prevent the “side show from becoming the circus.”
“When it comes to a defendant’s Constitutional Right to present a complete defense, does a trial court have the ability to curtail that in the interest of not letting the sideshow overcome the circus? Don’t they have a Constitutional Right to present a complete defense? …the Court can prevent cumulative or irrelevant evidence, but I cannot curtail the presentation of relevant evidence.”
Then there is the misdemeanor that the prosecution pretends was a felony…
“Is it your position that a person can still be convicted of a crime with which they were never charged and with which the jury was never instructed, as long as the evidence is sufficient?” asked Tow (incensed).
“Yes, I think that that is what the case law indicates,” said Michaels. “It was one word. ‘Might.’ And it was already–,” Michaels began before Judge Welling interrupted.
“Yeah, but that one word distinguishes it from a felony to a misdemeanor!” Welling exclaimed.
Tow piled on, “In this case, it made an extra sentence. Fifteen more months in the Department of Corrections that couldn’t have been given had it been a misdemeanor conviction. It clearly affects a substantial right!”
There’s a similar issue with sentencing, which finally came up when Michaels had about four minutes remaining – and, again, the court rather than the parties brought it up.
Matthew Barrett sneered during the October 3, 2024 sentencing in Mesa County:
“You are no hero. You abused your position. And you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”
“Didn’t he consider uncharged conduct as he referred to snake oil, etc.?” Lipinsky asked Michaels. “Wasn’t he considering uncharged conduct in sentencing her and wasn’t that an error?”
Michaels stunned all within earshot: “I don’t think that’s something that was problematic. All of that was part and parcel of the context of the criminal conduct. She wanted to promote these allegations of election fraud and her scheme of deception, everything she did–”
As a reminder, in the United States of America, the criminal justice system protects the rights of the accused. “Sworn officers” are required to preserve those protections. Michaels was cut off again before she could finish her sentence.
“But she wasn’t convicted of publicly saying there was election fraud,” Lipinsky said.
“You don’t get to ride both horses,” Welling stated conclusively.
“He can’t sentence her more because he doesn’t agree with what she says,” Tow said, shaking his head.
Welling summed it up, “I’m confused as to why the People are continuing to maintain that the proper remedy on this isn’t to enter the conviction for the misdemeanor because the indictment used the word ‘might’ and the jury was instructed on that, so that’s what the verdict is. I am baffled as to the position that’s being taken that we can somehow overlook that and still enter the felony because the evidence that was presented at trial would have supported the felony. Are you still maintaining that position in front of us here today?”
“Yes. That is our position,” Michaels responded. WATCH
Again, these are Colorado Judges in the Colorado Court of Appeals, astonished by the work product and actions of the three people above (and their teams) who are demanding that everyone keep Peters in prison for what is an overtly political prosecution.
Yikes.
***
All of this – the statements from the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Mesa County District Attorney, the legal questions raised by the Court of Appeals, and the obvious political stakes – forms the backdrop of Polis’ clemency calculus.
Polis forced the state’s incumbents to state their positions before the primary. Their swift, coordinated, and absolute position confirms their resolve – but it also signals that “information and belief” about Tina Peters is important.
Can all these attorneys sell the idea that they believed what they did to Peters was justice?
They struggled to sell it to the appellate court. They haven’t sold Polis.
Here’s hoping we’re closer to them trying to sell it as a viable defense to a Grande RICO Jury.
Accelerate.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
