Tina Peters deserves what she gets | Jimmy Sengenberger | Notice

GRAND JUNCTION • As the court knocked on the door at Tina Peters’ sentencing, the tension in the room was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Two sides are fiercely opposed, but watching the proceedings with the greatest intensity as the former Mesa County clerk was held accountable for her role in orchestrating a 2021 election security breach to prove a stolen election.

“You are not a hero,” Judge Matthew Barrett said. “You are a charlatan who used and still uses your previous position to sell snake oil that has been proven time and time again to be undesirable.”

He sentenced Peters to nine years in prison for seven convictions, including four felonies for attempting to influence public officials and conspiracy to commit identity theft. After six months in the county jail, Peters will serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. She owes thousands of dollars in fines and was quickly taken into custody.

“I have no doubt you would do it again if you could,” Barrett added. “Prison is the only place that properly meets the purposes of sentencing in this case. »

During her 40-minute testimony, Peters clashed with Barrett – launching into false allegations of ballot manipulation that Barret did not accept.

“I’ve let you talk about this enough. But votes are votes,” he said. When he admitted to reading his voting machine reports, Peters jumped to conclusions. “So you know what I’m saying is true.”

Barrett, visibly exasperated, retorted: “You say that like I believe you. I didn’t say that. Peters apologized. “It gets a little feisty when your life is on the line.”

Sentencing Rule #1: Do not argue with the judge who is deciding your fate.

“This case is about deception to do what she wanted to do,” 21st District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, a Republican like Peters, told me after the hearing. The matter has nothing to do with elections and voting machines, he stressed. “We were very deliberate in how we presented the case to make sure it didn’t turn into a sideshow about election security.”

Yet that’s exactly what Peters did — flaunting his criminal convictions on podcasts and social media and showing his defiance of the conviction by justifying his actions and sometimes laughing.

“I don’t like being the center of attention. I never did it, but it uprooted my life, and for that I’m sorry,” Peters said. “I am truly remorseful that things happened this way, and I ask for leniency and probation…I did not do this, your honor, to disrespect the court or the law.”

Let’s be real: No one should be surprised that Peters is serving time. His crimes were serious; his refusal to take the matter seriously only resulted in a harsher sentence. Disrespecting the legal process and showing no remorse is a recipe for severe punishment.

For Jerry Wood – whose identity Peters used, unwittingly, to trick officials into infiltrating a hacker and facilitating the breach – it’s vindication.

“She did it in the name of election integrity, but she did everything wrong and actually harmed election integrity efforts,” he told me. “I am happy that justice has been served.”

“Rehabilitation is for those who are remorseful, for those who see the need for it, and she didn’t do that,” added Wood’s wife, Wendi. “She would absolutely repeat this if she had the chance.”

Both Woods read victim impact statements, emphasizing how it disrupted their family for three years and affected their children.

Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, lamented that Peters’ actions triggered “death threats and general threats” against election workers and their families, while sowing widespread distrust of elections.

“In part, I believe she did this because she just didn’t understand her job,” Crane said. “Tina never even attempted to master any of these processes.” He noted that Peters left CCCA’s new clerk training early and never obtained the required Colorado election worker certification.

The Peters saga is a cautionary tale amid resurgent and debunked claims about Colorado elections, including the claim — stemming from Peters’ debunked reports — that voting machines are vulnerable to remote access via WiFi.

Recent upgrades to Dominion’s version 5.17 election software in 52 counties have completely eliminated wireless components, while only ten counties – Cheyenne, Elbert, Grand, Hinsdale, Jackson, Mineral, Otero, Phillips, Routt and San Juan – have not yet upgraded, according to state records. Douglas and Garfield counties use ClearBallot software, which is awaiting certification for use without WiFi components.

Although their election equipment retains wireless components, it is disabled at the computers BIOS level and protected by secure passwords, badge access, security cameras, and voting system testing and auditing.

As Colorado builds voter confidence, some narratives from Peters’ camp persist. From my radio interviews in 2022, it was clear that Peters understood neither the technology nor the role of the clerk. Today, she doesn’t seem to understand the justice system either.

“The message I hope this sends is we want people to raise their hands and say I think we have a problem, not that they’re committing a bunch of crimes because you think they have a problem,” Rubinstein told me. “Mesa County has shown the world that we expect our elected officials to hold themselves to higher standards, to follow the right laws and procedures, and to do it right. »

Until now, Tina Peters played the role of the hero-victim. Now she’s about to find out what it’s like to be a martyr for a lost cause.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a longtime investigative journalist, speaker and local radio host. Contact Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.