Trump Demands Release Of Election Denier ‘Hostage' Convicted By Colorado Jury
President Donald Trump on Monday demanded that Tina Peters — a key supporter who was behind one of the most significant election security breaches in years — be freed from incarceration in Colorado, where she's serving a yearslong prison sentence.
Peters is a former county clerk found guilty on seven counts by a jury of her peers in state court last year.
In a Truth Social post Monday night, Trump referred to Peters' prosecution as 'a Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020.' He attacked Colorado's Democratic attorney general, Phil Weiser, and demanded the Justice Department 'take all necessary action to help secure the release of this 'hostage' being held in a Colorado prison by the Democrats, for political reasons.'
Trump said Peters, who he called an 'innocent Political Prisoner,' had 'worked to expose and document Democrat Election Fraud' — repeating his yearslong lie that he didn't actually lose the 2020 election but, rather, was the victim of an impossibly complex, nationwide fraud scheme.
What Peters actually did — while working as the elected county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado — was allow a computer analyst associated with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell into a secure in-person software update for the county's election machines, in yet another unsuccessful effort to sow doubt about Joe Biden's 2020 win.
Tina Peters, who at the time was serving as Mesa County, Colorado's clerk, talks to well-wishers at a 2022 rally in downtown Denver.
via Associated Press
The analyst, former pro surfer and RVCA founder Conan Hayes, attended the software update, using the name and recently issued office badge of a Mesa County local. Images of the update process, known as a trusted build, were later shared online and at a 2021 'symposium' on the 2020 election results hosted by Lindell — around the same time state officials arrived at the Mesa County clerk's office to investigate.
Ultimately, a Colorado jury convicted Peters on four felony counts (three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation) and three misdemeanors (official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state). Peters was acquitted on three felony counts, one each of identity theft, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and criminal impersonation.
The case represents one of the most significant U.S. election breaches to result from Trump's attack on the voting process. Prosecutors described Peters as 'a fox guarding the henhouse,' and Colorado Judge Matthew Barrett sentenced her to nine years behind bars, calling her a 'charlatan' who'd peddled election 'snake oil.'
'You're as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen,' Barrett told Peters during sentencing.
'Tina Peters is in prison because of her own actions,' Weiser, who's running for the Democratic nomination to succeed term-limited Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, told HuffPost in a statement responding to Trump's Truth Social attack.
'A grand jury indicted her and a trial jury found her guilty of breaking Colorado's criminal laws. No one is above the law. The Colorado Attorney General's Office will continue to defend this criminal conviction in post-conviction proceedings and on appeal. We are firm in pursuing justice for the people of the state of Colorado, protecting free and fair elections, and standing up for the rule of law.'
'A Grotesque Attempt To Weaponize The Rule Of Law'
Despite the strong evidence, conviction and sentence against Peters — or maybe as a result of them — the Trump administration has since March made some unusually aggressive moves to help Peters.
That month, the Justice Department took the unusual step of filing a statement of interest in a federal court case Peters has filed to challenge her ongoing detention while she appeals her state conviction.
'Reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters' case,' the filing read, urging the court's prompt and careful consideration of Peters' habeas corpus petition. The filing also said the Justice Department was reviewing Peters' conviction under an executive order from Trump concerning federal law enforcement — specifically whether Peters' case was 'oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.'
Weiser's office responded in a filing that the Justice Department's statement appeared to be 'a naked, political attempt to threaten or intimidate either this Court or the attorneys that prosecuted this matter.' The filing also called the Trump administration's filing 'a grotesque attempt to weaponize the rule of law.'
'Respondent Attorney General is unaware of the United States ever filing a statement in a habeas application challenging the State of Colorado's criminal proceedings, and the only interest it has articulated is a political concern wholly inappropriate in this judicial proceeding,' the filing read, adding that the Trump administration's 'suggestion that there is a uniquely important interest in advocating for this individual — because of her political views — is unprecedented, highly problematic, and a threat to the rule of law.'
The Trump administration responded to the state's filing with its own, saying Weiser's office had 'baselessly assault[ed] the integrity of the Executive Branch while repeatedly referencing and denigrating Ms. Peters' purported political beliefs in a manner remarkably incongruent with the seriousness of a habeas proceeding.' The state responded that the administration was 'simply parrot[ting] arguments already advanced by Ms. Peters' counsel.'
At a hearing two weeks ago, Colorado Chief Deputy Attorney General Natalie Hanlon Leh said of the federal government's recent involvement in the case: 'This cannot become a new norm.'
On Monday, federal Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak denied what he construed as the state's motion to 'strike' the Trump administration's statement of interest, calling it 'premature.'
Varholak separately on Monday ordered Peters to demonstrate why her habeas corpus application was not a 'mixed petition' — that is, improperly filed in federal court before she exhausted potential remedies in state court.
Around the same time, Trump targeted the state's judicial process on Truth Social.
Related...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Governments scramble to understand Trump's latest travel ban before it takes effect Monday
Advertisement There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. North Korea and Syria, which were on the banned list in the first Trump administration, were spared this time. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up While many of the listed countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years. A vendor waits for customers in front of the former US embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, June 5, 2025. Ebrahim Noroozi/Associated Press Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect, who is accused of turning a makeshift flamethrower on a group of people, is from Egypt, which is not on Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. Advertisement The travel ban results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring government agencies to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. Visa overstays Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the U.S. after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. While Trump's list captures many of the most egregious offenders, it omits others. Djibouti, for example, had a 23..9% overstay rate among business visitors and tourists in the 12-month period through September 2023, higher than seven countries on the banned list and six countries on the restricted list. The findings are 'based on sketchy data and a misguided concept of collective punishment,' said Doug Rand, a former Biden administration official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Decision is a blow to Venezuelans Venezuela's government had already warned its citizens against traveling to the U.S. A video released last week by the foreign ministry told Venezuelans the U.S. 'is a dangerous country where human rights of immigrants are nonexistent.' 'If you are thinking about traveling, cancel your plans immediately,' it urged. But the administration's decision is a significant blow to Venezuelans, who were already limited in their U.S. travel plans since the governments broke off diplomatic relations in 2019. The announcement stunned the family of María Aldana, who has long worked multiple jobs in Caracas to support her brother's dream to study engineering in the U.S. The family has spent more than $6,000 to finance his goals. Advertisement Aldana, 24, said her distraught brother, who enrolled at a Southern California university two years ago, called the family crying. 'We did it all legally,' Aldana said. The African Union Commission, meanwhile, appealed to the United States to reconsider 'in a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing partnership between the United States and Africa.' International aid groups and refugee resettlement organizations were harsher: 'This latest proclamation is an attempt to further eviscerate lawful immigration pathways under the false guise of national security,' said Sarah Mehta, the American Civil Liberties Union's deputy director of policy and government affairs for immigration. Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell University Law School professor and expert in immigration law, said the ban is likely to withstand legal challenges, noting the Supreme Court eventually allowed a ban to take effect in Trump's first term. Trump's invocation this week of national security, along with exceptions for green-card holders, athletes and others, could also help the ban stand up in court. Shock in Iran The news came as a shock to many in Iran despite the decades of enmity between the two countries. Reports suggest thousands of university students each year travel to America to study, and others have extended families living in America, some of whom fled after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the shah. 'My elder daughter got a bachelor's degree from a top Iranian university and planned to continue in the U.S., but now she is badly distressed,' Nasrin Lajvardi said. Tensions also remain high because negotiations over Iran's nuclear program have yet to reach any agreement, but Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump's decision. Advertisement 'Those who have family members in the U.S., it's their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,' he said. 'America has to cancel it' Outside the former U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, a Taliban guard expressed his disappointment. 'America has to cancel it,' Ilias Kakal said. A woman shops in a market in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, June 5, 2025. Ebrahim Noroozi/Associated Press The Afghanistan travel ban was announced as forms of support for Afghans who worked with the U.S. are being steadily eroded under the Trump administration. A refugee program has been suspended, and there is no funding to help them leave Afghanistan or resettle in the U.S., although a ban exception was made for people with special immigrant visas, a program created to help those in danger because they worked with the U.S. during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In addition, many people who 'served shoulder-to-shoulder' with the U.S did not qualify for the special visa program, according to No One Left Behind, a group that has advocated for Afghans who worked with the U.S. Khalid Khan, an Afghan refugee now living in Pakistan, said he worked for the U.S. military for eight years. 'I feel abandoned,' Khan said. 'So long as Trump is there, we are nowhere.' Since the Taliban took over the country in 2021, only Afghans with foreign passports or green cards were able to travel to the United States with any ease, travel agents said. First term ban During his first term, Trump issued an executive order banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Advertisement The order was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. Amiri reported from the United Nations. Associated Press writers Regina Garcia Cano, Rebecca Santana, Jon Gambrell, Ellen Knickmeyer, Omar Farouk, Nasser Karimi, Elliot Spagat, Elena Becatoros and Danica Coto contributed to this report.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he and Elon Musk 'had a great relationship,' but it might be over now
Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of the "Big Beautiful Bill." "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship," he said. "I don't know if we will anymore." "Such ingratitude," Musk, who spent nearly $300 million to elect Trump and other Republicans, wrote on X. President Donald Trump is finally responding to Elon Musk's criticism of his "Big Beautiful Bill." "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship," Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. "I don't know if we will anymore." Trump told reporters that Musk's criticism of the bill likely stemmed primarily from the phase-out of the electric vehicle tax credit, which would likely impact his company, Tesla. "You know, Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate… which was a lot of money for electric vehicles," Trump said. "And they're having a hard time, the electric vehicles." "Elon knew this from the beginning," Trump added. Musk fired back minutes later, saying that while he thought the EV phase-out was unfair, he was more concerned about the "MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." He later wrote on X that without him, Trump would have lost the election, Democrats would have gained control of the House, and Republicans would've had a smaller majority in the Senate. "Such ingratitude," wrote Musk, who spent nearly $300 million to elect Trump and other Republicans last year. In the Oval Office, Trump also said that Musk was lashing out because he "missed" being in the White House. "I'll be honest, I think he misses the place. I think he got out there and all of a sudden, he wasn't in this beautiful Oval Office," Trump said. "I'll tell you, he's not the first. People leave my administration, and they love us, and then at some point, they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it." The tech titan first unleashed on the "Big Beautiful Bill," which is set to serve as the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda, on Tuesday. He's kept up his criticism ever since. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk wrote on X on Tuesday. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." Musk main criticism has been of the bill's projected impact on the federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in its current form, the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, while the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has said that number would be $2.5 trillion. Musk previously said that the bill undermined the work of DOGE, which has sought to cut billions of dollars in federal spending. Republicans on Capitol Hill have largely brushed off Musk's criticism. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday that Musk is "flat wrong" about the bill, while Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that the tech titan is "entitled to that opinion," but "we're going to proceed full speed ahead." Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump's Controversial Pardons Make Some Republicans Squirm
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump's pardons of white-collar criminals whosupport his presidency and donate to his campaigns stoked plenty of outrage from Democrats and former law enforcement officials last week. Now, even some Republicans are signaling their discomfort with his decisions to grant clemency ― and the way he's going about it. 'I think that when the president pardons someone, they need to carefully explain why injustice was done,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told HuffPost. 'And I think pardons should be rare, and President Trump likes pardons much more than I do.'In recent weeks, Trump has pardoned a former Virginia sheriff who was convicted of trying to sell deputy badges, a Las Vegas politician who stole money intended for a memorial dedicated to a fallen police officer, a tax cheat whose mother raised millions of dollars for Republican political campaigns, and a pair of reality television stars who were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. The pardons appear to have been politically motivated, a reward for MAGA die-hards who stood with Trump and his movement. 'No MAGA left behind,' Ed Martin, the president's controversial new pardon attorney, wrote in a social media post last month. Trump also shocked many Republicans when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters who were convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'On its face, you got to be pretty careful,' Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another Senate Judiciary Committee member, said of Trump's latest pardons. 'I haven't looked at the current ones, but I think I'm pretty well staked out on about two or three hundred of Jan. 6 people who never should have been pardoned.' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the 'best approach' for issuing pardons is to follow a process and make decisions on clemency requests after a recommendation from a parole board or the Department of Justice. The president's pardon power under the U.S. Constitution is broad and completely unchecked. Presidents aren't bound to go through a certain process ― though some follow DOJ guidelines more than others ― and they're free to pardon whomever, no matter the crime. Some of President Joe Biden's pardons also drew outrage ― including for his son Hunter Biden. 'The only way you're going to fix it or change it would be, I think, through a constitutional amendment, and that would take a long time to do,' Rounds said. 'I think just the American people being aware of it is an important part of this discussion. I don't know that you're going to fix it as much as bring attention to it.' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed a question about Trump's pardons by pointing to controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. 'There's no sense of making any comments about the president's pardons because it's totally his own decision ― any president in the United States,' Grassley said. 'And nobody asked me about the 2,500 pardons that [Bill] Clinton gave, and so I'm not going to make any comments on pardons that Trump makes.' Trump, meanwhile, seems far more interested in probing his predecessor's pardons. On Wednesday, the president directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, accusing his aides of concealing his 'cognitive decline' and casting doubts on the legitimacy of his use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. The order followed weeks of inquiries by Republican lawmakers into Biden's mental and physical health as president following the release of a new book chronicling the former president's 'decline, its cover-up and his disastrous choice to run again.' Biden, however, denied the accusations from Trump in a statement Wednesday: 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.'
