The story of Tina Peters isn’t about election irregularities; it’s about a targeted takedown, a meticulously crafted prosecution built on a foundation of…nothing. Former Mesa County, Colorado Election Clerk Peters faced accusations that never materialized into legitimate charges under state or federal law. A chilling reality emerged: her actions – backing up and analyzing her county’s election server – were not illegal, but inconvenient to powerful interests.
Instead of facing lawful prosecution, Peters became the subject of a manufactured case. Colorado officials, seemingly guided by forces beyond the state, were compelled to conjure felonies and misdemeanors where none existed. This wasn’t a pursuit of justice; it was a desperate attempt to silence a voice and discredit findings that threatened a carefully constructed narrative.
The involvement of the federal government was immediate and undeniable. Within hours of Peters revealing her actions, the FBI announced an investigation into potential federal violations. While a direct federal prosecution never came, evidence suggests a close collaboration between the Biden Department of Justice and local Colorado officials determined to imprison Peters.
A revealing email from Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein to a U.S. Attorney for Colorado laid bare the desperation. The subject line, “Rule 3.8 Meeting,” hinted at a frantic search for legal cover – a way to justify a prosecution lacking any solid ground. Rubinstein openly acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case and sought guidance to avoid accusations of wrongdoing.
The email detailed a troubling lack of precedent and a concerning absence of formal authorization for the prosecution. It revealed a calculated effort to preemptively defend against ethical challenges, suggesting a deep awareness of the shaky legal footing upon which the case was built. Just months later, Peters was indicted by a grand jury.
The federal hand was further exposed by the participation of Attorney General Merrick Garland in initial discussions regarding Peters’ findings, conducted via Webex. If this was truly a localized issue, why was the nation’s top law enforcement official involved from the outset? The answer points to a coordinated effort orchestrated at the highest levels.
The full force of the federal government descended upon those connected to Peters. Her home, and the home of her associate, Sherronna Bishop, were raided by the FBI. Even Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow and a vocal supporter of Peters, found himself targeted, his phone confiscated during a trip out of state. These weren’t isolated incidents; they were deliberate acts of intimidation.
Despite the lack of legitimate charges, Peters was ultimately convicted of official misconduct, violation of duty, and identity theft. The official statement surrounding her indictment even acknowledged the FBI’s involvement, describing the operation as “federally-authorized.” This admission, conveniently downplayed later, underscored the extent of federal interference.
The circumstances surrounding Tina Peters’ case created a clear path for presidential intervention. If the federal government was instrumental in her arrest and indictment, a pardon was not merely an option, but a rightful correction. President Trump recognized this, understanding the injustice at the heart of the matter.
On Thursday night, President Trump acted decisively, granting Tina Peters a full pardon. It was a bold move, a powerful statement against political persecution, and a testament to the truth that ultimately, justice – even delayed – can prevail.
