"Tina Peters case heads to federal court"
This is the headline from an article dated 04/22/25 with a byline from Ivonne Olivas on the site for KKCO News 11 in Colorado. The article notes that the Colorado AG is fighting the DOJ under "$25,000" Bondi trying to make claims that the justice system somehow abused Tina Peters. She received a 9 year sentence last fall on state charges regarding her shenanigans after the 2020 election.
This is but one of the states and cases in which arguably the worst US Attorney General since John Mitchell is trying to get involved and make claims about people who tampered with equipment and allowed illegal access to machines "being abused by the justice system". When you read the full gamut of the acts/behavior of Tina Peters throughout the incident and subsequent to it you can see why the state AG would be fighting so hard to keep Bondi from interfering in the case. Backdoor exoneration by the DOJ is the goal by trying to claim civil rights abuses, process abuses, unfair targeting etc. more or less using a bull crap and wall strategy.
In February she filed in court appealing a denial of bond decision that kept her in jail during any appeals. So she has been in a county facility for a 6 month term and then is scheduled to go to state prison for 8.5 years. There is another link to an AP news article dated 04/22/25 with a byline from Colleen Slevin in which an interesting bit from the hearing is included. The state AG noted that DOJ was making claims without providing any proof. When the Judge noted that DOJ had been assisting Colorado during the investigation and so should have some evidence to back their claims the article notes:
"But Abigail Stout, a Justice Department lawyer in Washington, said she was not authorized to discuss any ongoing review and had no knowledge of any evidence."
So apparently the new legal strategy is you come to court making allegations and when asked to discuss those allegations you say you aren't allowed to discuss them and you have no actual knowledge about a single thing you brought up to the court. It would seem that the DOJ line is to say to the courts "We want to make an argument." Then when the court is open to listening the DOJ says "We can't discuss it." Conduct like this in a court by a private attorney representing an average person would draw big trouble for the attorney. But apparently in this case in front of this judge the rule of the day is deference to Crumb The 1st and the lawyer who comes to court and wants to argue but can't and says things happened but isn't aware of any proof.
Sounds familiar sort of like the Big Lie cases Crumb The 1st and his supporters kept bringing to courts after the 2020 election.
This is but one of the states/cases where Bondi is busying herself.
https://www.kkco11news.com/2025/04/23/tina-peters-case-heads-federal-court/
https://apnews.com/article/trump-2020-election-tina-peters-colorado-prison-da9962bc3457959cb0af686b629b43fb
= new reply since forum marked as read
