By RMV Staff | Rocky Mountain Voice
The DOJ is now reviewing whether federal agencies engaged in politically motivated lawfare in the high-profile case of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. In response to the DOJ’s filing, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser urged the Denver federal court to reject its interference.
The DOJ’s recent move to review Peters’ prosecution for “political bias” is a rare and unprecedented step, leading many to question whether this is a genuine concern for justice or simply an attempt to suppress dissent.
Peters was sentenced to nine years behind bars for actions related to the forensic imaging of Mesa County’s election management system in 2021.
The mainstream narrative has painted her as a criminal, but the DOJ’s sudden interest in reviewing her case suggests that even the Trump Administration sees flaws in the process that led to her conviction.
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth stated in a court filing that the DOJ is looking into whether Peters’ case was “oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice.”
If a federal agency believes political motivations played a role in Peters’ conviction, it raises serious questions about whether the justice system in Colorado has been weaponized against conservatives.
Judge Matthew Barrett’s sentencing remarks reinforce these concerns. Rather than sticking to the legal facts, Barrett’s ruling came with a series of personal attacks, calling Peters a “charlatan” who “craved” attention and “used [her] position to peddle snake oil.” He accused her of having “no respect for the checks and balances of government” and even compared the impact of her actions to “physical violence that this court sees on an all-too-regular basis.”
Barrett justified her prison sentence by stating that “prison is for those where punishment is what we’re focused on” and that anything less would “unduly mitigate the seriousness of the same.” His rationale suggests that Peters was not simply being sentenced for her actions, but rather made an example of for challenging the election system.
Peters was barred from key defenses, yet Barrett framed her as beyond redemption.
Weiser has long maintained that Colorado’s election system is secure and that efforts to undermine it must be met with strict consequences.
Following the verdict in the Peters trial, he issued a stark warning on August 12, 2024: “Today’s verdict is a warning to others that they will face serious consequences if they attempt to illegally tamper with our voting processes or election systems. I want to be clear—our elections are safe and fair. In fact, Colorado’s election system is the gold standard of the nation. And make no mistake: my office will continue to protect it.”
But now, with the DOJ scrutinizing Peters’ prosecution, Weiser finds himself defending not only his office’s role in the case but also the integrity of Colorado’s judicial system.
Weiser’s response to the DOJ’s review of Peters’ case was far less measured—he blasted the DOJ’s involvement as “a grotesque attempt to weaponize the rule of law.” In the fiery response, Weiser called the DOJ’s actions a “naked, political attempt to threaten or intimidate” the judges and attorneys involved in Peters’ case.
While leftist activists who violate election laws often receive slaps on the wrist or outright protection against legal consequences, conservatives like Peters are aggressively prosecuted.
Case in point? The state legislature, courts and attorney general declined to take action over the Colorado Secretary of State’s publication of more than 600 BIOS passwords for voting system components across 34 of the state’s 64 counties, an exposure that was realized in October 2024. The password exposure occurred over several months, and during active elections.
The Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold faced no consequences for these actions, while Peters, with no prior criminal history, was handed a sentence typically seen for those who commit violent crimes such as first-degree kidnapping and aggravated assault.
The DOJ’s brief specifically pointed out that Peters’ sentence was “exceptionally lengthy,” raising further questions about whether she was unfairly targeted because of her political views.
Peters is currently appealing her conviction in both the U.S. District Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals.
With Weiser’s announcement on January 2 of his candidacy for governor, Weiser has a vested interest in managing this controversy carefully.
But the American people—especially Coloradans—deserve answers. Is our justice system truly impartial, or has it become just another tool for silencing political opposition?