1
00:00:00,600 --> 00:00:03,960
Speaker 1: Michael, you're tearing it up today. You got my earballs

2
00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:07,400
Speaker 1: all at Tangle. Mission accomplished.

3
00:00:08,119 --> 00:00:10,680
Speaker 2: Now, I'm going to really kind of screw with you

4
00:00:10,800 --> 00:00:17,160
Speaker 2: because this is a topic that I have very deliberately avoided,

5
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:25,080
Speaker 2: primarily because I don't care. Two, because there's no convincing

6
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:29,080
Speaker 2: anybody one way or the other about whether there's election

7
00:00:29,240 --> 00:00:32,199
Speaker 2: fraud or whether the fraud, which I do believe election

8
00:00:32,240 --> 00:00:35,520
Speaker 2: fraud exists, don't get me wrong, but whether that fraud

9
00:00:35,600 --> 00:00:37,880
Speaker 2: is enough to overturn an election. Now, I think any

10
00:00:37,880 --> 00:00:43,760
Speaker 2: election fraud is illegal, and all election fraud should be prosecuted,

11
00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:47,800
Speaker 2: and any interference with an election should be prosecuted. We

12
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:53,440
Speaker 2: are losing the legitimacy of our elections. And there's you know,

13
00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:57,520
Speaker 2: the same act for example, requiring that's mired down in

14
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:00,720
Speaker 2: the US Senate right now, can't even gets some Republicans

15
00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:03,360
Speaker 2: to sign on for it. Just requiring you know, just

16
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:07,679
Speaker 2: a valid ID that shows you're a US citizen in

17
00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:09,200
Speaker 2: order to vote in a US election.

18
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:10,759
Speaker 1: I mean, how difficult can that be?

19
00:01:11,360 --> 00:01:15,840
Speaker 2: So I've avoided the entire Teina Peters case because I

20
00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:23,319
Speaker 2: found her as a as an individual.

21
00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:25,240
Speaker 1: Pretty unlikable.

22
00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:32,960
Speaker 2: Her espousing of different conspiratorial theories I found a little

23
00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:39,120
Speaker 2: despicable and mostly a compilation of most as most conspiracies

24
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:41,399
Speaker 2: are a little bit of truth here, a lot of

25
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:45,399
Speaker 2: untruth here, pilot all together, and people glom onto it

26
00:01:45,400 --> 00:01:49,480
Speaker 2: without any critical thinking whatsoever. So I ignored the case.

27
00:01:49,600 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 2: Didn't want to talk about her it. I believe it

28
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:58,200
Speaker 2: fed into the Democrats trying to show that conservatives slash

29
00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:03,080
Speaker 2: Republicans slash libertarians crazy. So I just ignored it, and

30
00:02:03,080 --> 00:02:06,480
Speaker 2: then she gets convicted. She was convicted in August of

31
00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:08,959
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four on seven counts.

32
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:12,680
Speaker 1: Four were felonies and three were misdemeanors.

33
00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 2: Related to a breach of election equipment that occurred in

34
00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:22,160
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one. The core of the case she allowed

35
00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:27,880
Speaker 2: Conan Hayes, a California based election conspiracy theorist and a

36
00:02:28,280 --> 00:02:33,120
Speaker 2: former professional surfer, to access Mason County's secure voting equipment

37
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:37,760
Speaker 2: during a so called trusted build. That's the software update,

38
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:42,280
Speaker 2: and those software updates overseen by one of the dumbest

39
00:02:42,320 --> 00:02:45,600
Speaker 2: people in Colorado politics, and that's our Secretary of State,

40
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:49,720
Speaker 2: Jenna Griswold, who I wouldn't trust to do anything. I

41
00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:52,919
Speaker 2: you know, I don't. I wouldn't trust her to manage

42
00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:56,800
Speaker 2: a password manager, let alone, you know, keep a sticky

43
00:02:56,800 --> 00:02:59,440
Speaker 2: note with a password on it. So to get this

44
00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:02,560
Speaker 2: guy in, to get Conan Hayes into the secure area,

45
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:08,400
Speaker 2: Peters orchestrated a deception. She obtained security credentials for a

46
00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 2: local guy by the name of Gerald Wood, ostensibly as

47
00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:16,240
Speaker 2: a county employee or contractor, then gave those credentials to

48
00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:20,040
Speaker 2: the other person named Conan Hayes. Now, gerald Wood testified

49
00:03:20,120 --> 00:03:23,960
Speaker 2: that he never authorized the use of his ID, and

50
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,920
Speaker 2: he was not present at that trusted build, and he

51
00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 2: had a solid alibi church his daughter's graduation party. So

52
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:37,000
Speaker 2: Peters ordered security cameras turned off before Hayes made copies

53
00:03:37,000 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 2: of the hard drives. She was sentenced by District Court

54
00:03:40,640 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 2: Judge Matthew Barrett to approximately nine years in prison. Then

55
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 2: this week the Court of Appeals held a hearing. The

56
00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 2: three judge panel, judges Craig Welling, Ted Toe II, leon

57
00:03:57,240 --> 00:04:01,960
Speaker 2: ol Lepensky de Orlov heard orlow arguments. Here's what emerged

58
00:04:02,000 --> 00:04:05,680
Speaker 2: from the oral arguments, and here's why I'm talking about

59
00:04:05,720 --> 00:04:11,000
Speaker 2: this today. Issue number one, the jury instruction error. This

60
00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:15,320
Speaker 2: is a huge, huge, legal problem. Let me tell you

61
00:04:15,320 --> 00:04:19,000
Speaker 2: what the technical issue is. She was con Tina Peters

62
00:04:19,080 --> 00:04:22,960
Speaker 2: was convicted of felony conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation.

63
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:24,480
Speaker 1: That's a statute.

64
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,400
Speaker 2: She was convicted of that federal I mean, I'm sorry,

65
00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:34,040
Speaker 2: felony conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. Here's the problem. The

66
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:40,120
Speaker 2: indictment and the jury instructions contained language from the misdemeanor

67
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 2: version of the criminal impersonation statute, not the felony version.

68
00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:50,359
Speaker 2: Now here's the misdemeanor standard. Here's the critical difference. The

69
00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:56,480
Speaker 2: misdemeanor standard. The crime might have exposed the impersonated person

70
00:04:57,040 --> 00:05:01,960
Speaker 2: this Gerald would to criminal liability. That's for a misdemeanor.

71
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:06,159
Speaker 2: There's a felony standard under the Seine, and the crime

72
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:13,480
Speaker 2: must have actually exposed gerald Wood to criminal liability. That

73
00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:18,080
Speaker 2: requires proof, not just possibility. Now, because she was convicted

74
00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:25,159
Speaker 2: under the felony conviction, that added fifteen months to Tina

75
00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:31,760
Speaker 2: peter sentence, an oral argument. The judges were clearly troubled

76
00:05:32,320 --> 00:05:36,200
Speaker 2: by the error. Now remember the problem. She was convicted

77
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:42,760
Speaker 2: of a felony, yet the indictment, the charge, and the

78
00:05:42,880 --> 00:05:49,880
Speaker 2: jury instructions contained language from the misdemeanor version of the statute. Now,

79
00:05:49,920 --> 00:05:52,599
Speaker 2: before I get into the technicalities of it, I just

80
00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:57,200
Speaker 2: want to say this is absolute incompetence on the part

81
00:05:57,320 --> 00:06:00,280
Speaker 2: of the trial judge down in Mesa County. I don't

82
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:01,800
Speaker 2: care if he's a Conservative. I don't care if he's

83
00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:06,320
Speaker 2: a Republican. This is malpractice on his part. He should

84
00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:09,480
Speaker 2: have caught it and understood what was going on. This

85
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:12,600
Speaker 2: is malpractice on the part of the district attorney. They

86
00:06:12,600 --> 00:06:15,880
Speaker 2: should have known that. Maybe they did, but they didn't

87
00:06:15,960 --> 00:06:18,920
Speaker 2: catch it, and they didn't do anything to correct it.

88
00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:24,240
Speaker 2: And to Tina Peters, a lawyer, you committed malpractice. You

89
00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:29,120
Speaker 2: went through an entire criminal trial where she was charged

90
00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:31,960
Speaker 2: with a Now she was technically charged. Let me make

91
00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:37,320
Speaker 2: sure you get this straight. She was convicted of the felonies,

92
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,600
Speaker 2: but she was charged and the jury was instructed on

93
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:45,680
Speaker 2: the misdemeanor. How in the hell as a criminal lawyer

94
00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:52,039
Speaker 2: do you miss that? You're not doing your job till everybody.

95
00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:55,360
Speaker 2: If I would even say to Tina Peters, are you

96
00:06:55,480 --> 00:06:59,440
Speaker 2: that dumb? Did you read your own charges? Did you

97
00:06:59,480 --> 00:07:02,760
Speaker 2: not denies that there was one charge and then the

98
00:07:02,839 --> 00:07:07,840
Speaker 2: jury instructions were something entirely different. Maybe I'm overreaching there,

99
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:09,840
Speaker 2: but it just seems to me that everybody here or

100
00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:12,480
Speaker 2: a bunch of absolute and income poops.

101
00:07:12,560 --> 00:07:12,800
Speaker 1: Now.

102
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:17,440
Speaker 2: The appellate judges were clearly troubled by this error. Judge

103
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 2: Welling was particularly pointed. In the judge's question. The judge said, quote,

104
00:07:24,480 --> 00:07:28,679
Speaker 2: I am baffled. I am baffled as to the position

105
00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:32,160
Speaker 2: that is being taken. That we mean the appellate court

106
00:07:32,440 --> 00:07:36,160
Speaker 2: can somehow overlook that and just enter the felony conviction.

107
00:07:37,320 --> 00:07:39,280
Speaker 1: Judge Toe pressed.

108
00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:47,560
Speaker 2: The attorney general's representative. So the attorney general from the

109
00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:50,520
Speaker 2: state of Colorado had a trial lawyer president at this

110
00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:55,000
Speaker 2: appellate hearing, Lisa Michaels, she's the senior assistant Attorney general.

111
00:07:56,040 --> 00:07:59,840
Speaker 1: And Judge Lowe said, this is that your.

112
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:02,920
Speaker 2: Position that a person can still be convicted of a

113
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,840
Speaker 2: crime with which they were never charged and with which

114
00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 2: the jury was never instructed, just as long as the

115
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:16,280
Speaker 2: evidence is sufficient. And this torp of an assistant attorney

116
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,640
Speaker 2: general says, yes, I think that is what the case

117
00:08:19,720 --> 00:08:23,840
Speaker 2: law indicates. It was one word might, and the judge

118
00:08:23,960 --> 00:08:29,800
Speaker 2: Dwelling interrupted immediately. Yeah, but that one word distinguishes it

119
00:08:29,840 --> 00:08:34,480
Speaker 2: from a felony to a misdemeanor. Then Judge Toad gets

120
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:39,600
Speaker 2: involved in this case. It made an extra sentence fifteen

121
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:43,080
Speaker 2: more months in the Department of Corrections that could not

122
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:46,640
Speaker 2: have been given had it been a misdemeanor conviction. It

123
00:08:46,760 --> 00:08:52,640
Speaker 2: clearly affects a substantial right. I know that's a lot

124
00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:57,559
Speaker 2: of legal ease, but this is a fundamental due process issue.

125
00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:01,720
Speaker 2: So Tina Peters is convicted and sentence based on jury's

126
00:09:01,800 --> 00:09:07,080
Speaker 2: instructions for a different crime than what she was supposedly

127
00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:11,640
Speaker 2: charged with. Now, the judges, to their credit, appear sympathetic

128
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 2: to Tina Peter's argument that this conviction should be re

129
00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:20,920
Speaker 2: entered as a misdemeanor with the reduced sentence. And in fact,

130
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:23,120
Speaker 2: I think that's what just guess. Well, I'll get to

131
00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:25,679
Speaker 2: what I guess in just a minute. But that's not

132
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:30,160
Speaker 2: just the only issue. This stupidity on the part of

133
00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:33,599
Speaker 2: every single person involved in this case just infuriates me.

134
00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:36,440
Speaker 2: But here's the second and it's the first Amendment problem.

135
00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:40,080
Speaker 2: Now here's what the defense argues. They argue that Peter's

136
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:45,160
Speaker 2: attorneys that Judge bhar They argue that Judge Barrett, the

137
00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:48,560
Speaker 2: trial judged down in Mason County, violated Tina Peter's First

138
00:09:48,559 --> 00:09:52,760
Speaker 2: Amendment rights by considering her election fraud conspiracy theories in

139
00:09:52,800 --> 00:09:55,959
Speaker 2: public statements when imposing her sentence. Now, why would that

140
00:09:56,040 --> 00:10:01,120
Speaker 2: be a problem what Judge Barrett said it sentence. He

141
00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:06,079
Speaker 2: called Tina Peters a charlatan who has pedaled snake oil.

142
00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:10,120
Speaker 2: He said this, and I quote, you are no hero.

143
00:10:10,840 --> 00:10:15,440
Speaker 2: You abused your position and you're a charlatan who used

144
00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:18,880
Speaker 2: and is still using your prior position in office to

145
00:10:19,040 --> 00:10:22,280
Speaker 2: pedal a snake oil that's been proven to be junk

146
00:10:22,440 --> 00:10:23,640
Speaker 2: time and time again.

147
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:27,280
Speaker 1: Now I want you to hold on just a moment.

148
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,960
Speaker 2: Whether that is true or not is immaterial, because what

149
00:10:32,120 --> 00:10:37,079
Speaker 2: the judge said creates a huge legal problem because during

150
00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:44,320
Speaker 2: the trial. During the trial, the prosecutor successfully argued and

151
00:10:44,400 --> 00:10:49,239
Speaker 2: convinced the judge that Tina Peters's motivations and her beliefs

152
00:10:49,320 --> 00:10:56,280
Speaker 2: about election fraud should be excluded from jury consideration, and

153
00:10:56,600 --> 00:11:00,240
Speaker 2: the prosecutor one of them excluded from the jury's consideration

154
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:04,680
Speaker 2: because they are not a legal defense and they could

155
00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:06,959
Speaker 2: or would prejudice the jury.

156
00:11:07,760 --> 00:11:09,160
Speaker 1: I happen to agree with that.

157
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 2: I don't think it was material at all to the

158
00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:16,679
Speaker 2: elements of the crime. It was extraneous information. So the

159
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:21,200
Speaker 2: judge agreed and limited what evidence the defense could present

160
00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:27,800
Speaker 2: about Peter's intent and her beliefs about election fraud. Okay,

161
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:31,720
Speaker 2: so the judge you said, the jury couldn't hear that

162
00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:36,120
Speaker 2: and the jury couldn't consider it. But then, Judge Barrett,

163
00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:41,959
Speaker 2: you extensively referenced those very sane beliefs and the exact

164
00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:46,839
Speaker 2: same statements to justify a harsh sentence. Here's what the

165
00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:49,960
Speaker 2: appeals judges said about that. So the trial judge said,

166
00:11:50,679 --> 00:11:54,600
Speaker 2: agree with the prosecutor. You can't bring in these conspiracy theories.

167
00:11:54,760 --> 00:11:57,360
Speaker 2: You can't bring in her election denial beliefs. You can't

168
00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:00,000
Speaker 2: do any of that because it might prejudice the jury.

169
00:12:00,440 --> 00:12:03,440
Speaker 2: The jury needs to focus on the elements of the crime, which,

170
00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:07,360
Speaker 2: by the way, even they didn't do that because they

171
00:12:07,360 --> 00:12:10,800
Speaker 2: were focused on they were proving a misdemeanor and convicted

172
00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:11,560
Speaker 2: or on felony.

173
00:12:12,200 --> 00:12:12,800
Speaker 1: Can't do it.

174
00:12:13,320 --> 00:12:16,960
Speaker 2: Here's what the Pella judges said yesterday. Joe Welling was

175
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:19,559
Speaker 2: very direct about this. He said, my read of the

176
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:23,840
Speaker 2: sentencing transcript is that the judge considered that and it

177
00:12:23,920 --> 00:12:27,600
Speaker 2: went into the calculation of the sentence, and that is

178
00:12:27,679 --> 00:12:32,720
Speaker 2: a first amendment problem, and that fundamentally calls into question

179
00:12:33,160 --> 00:12:37,520
Speaker 2: the fairness of the sentence. Well and continued, he made

180
00:12:37,559 --> 00:12:44,199
Speaker 2: this great observation, you don't get to ride both horses. Now,

181
00:12:44,240 --> 00:12:49,160
Speaker 2: I think that perfectly captures the court's concern that evidence

182
00:12:49,240 --> 00:12:53,480
Speaker 2: and speech that was barred from the jury hearing cannot

183
00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:56,559
Speaker 2: later be used to enhance punishment.

184
00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:59,040
Speaker 1: When you sentence, the defendant.

185
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:04,719
Speaker 2: Told got into this game too, He asked Phil wiser'

186
00:13:04,800 --> 00:13:09,840
Speaker 2: the representative Phil Wiser at the hearing, why should we

187
00:13:09,920 --> 00:13:13,640
Speaker 2: not be concerned that he the trial judge focused on

188
00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:19,080
Speaker 2: her confirmed peddling or continued peddling of snake oil. You

189
00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:22,600
Speaker 2: know what the state's response to that was. This shows

190
00:13:22,679 --> 00:13:27,959
Speaker 2: how absolutely incompetent this Attorney General and his staff are.

191
00:13:30,120 --> 00:13:34,840
Speaker 2: Lisa Michaels argued, now, while the trial judge addressed Peter's

192
00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 2: false claims, he ultimately sentenced her only for the crime

193
00:13:38,400 --> 00:13:41,480
Speaker 2: she committed, not for her election views. And she said

194
00:13:41,520 --> 00:13:46,600
Speaker 2: that Peters herself made election fraud central to her allucation

195
00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:50,320
Speaker 2: at sentencing because she presented a slide show with pages

196
00:13:50,360 --> 00:13:53,920
Speaker 2: and pages of election fraud claims. Well, let me tell

197
00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:59,320
Speaker 2: you about that. This presents a genuine constitutional dilemma because

198
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:04,160
Speaker 2: Peter's was convicted for deception and official misconduct, not for

199
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:08,199
Speaker 2: her views on election fraud. So if the trial court

200
00:14:08,360 --> 00:14:12,720
Speaker 2: excluded evidence of her intent or her beliefs as being

201
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:17,840
Speaker 2: irrelevant to the charges, then using those same beliefs to

202
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:23,840
Speaker 2: justify a harsher sentence raises in my mind serious First

203
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:29,280
Speaker 2: Amendment and due process concerns. And again the Appella judges seemed,

204
00:14:29,320 --> 00:14:32,720
Speaker 2: based on their questioning, to be receptive to that argument.

205
00:14:34,360 --> 00:14:35,160
Speaker 1: No, not even done.

206
00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 2: There's a third problem, and that is the exclusion of

207
00:14:40,400 --> 00:14:46,080
Speaker 2: certain defense evidence. So here's the defense's argument. Tina Peters

208
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:49,080
Speaker 2: wanted to argue that she was acting once called a

209
00:14:49,680 --> 00:14:54,680
Speaker 2: choice of evils defense, that she committed unlawful acts because

210
00:14:54,880 --> 00:14:59,440
Speaker 2: not doing so would have led to worse outcomes, specifically

211
00:14:59,520 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 2: the destroy suction of these election records. Her argument was,

212
00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:04,760
Speaker 2: I had to do what I had to do, even

213
00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:07,200
Speaker 2: if it was illegal, because if I didn't do that,

214
00:15:07,680 --> 00:15:10,000
Speaker 2: we would have lost the dis or we had these

215
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:14,760
Speaker 2: election records destroyed. So she wanted to present evidence during

216
00:15:14,760 --> 00:15:18,120
Speaker 2: her trial that she was simply fulfilling her duty under

217
00:15:18,160 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 2: federal law Title fifty two, section twenty seven oh one

218
00:15:22,120 --> 00:15:26,280
Speaker 2: that requires people to preserve election records for twenty two months,

219
00:15:26,880 --> 00:15:30,400
Speaker 2: and that Jenna Griswold's Secretary of State's office their so

220
00:15:30,560 --> 00:15:34,640
Speaker 2: called trust to build software update her argument. Tina Peters's

221
00:15:34,680 --> 00:15:37,880
Speaker 2: argument was that what the Secretary of state was doing

222
00:15:38,120 --> 00:15:42,440
Speaker 2: would have destroyed those records. So here's what trial court did.

223
00:15:42,520 --> 00:15:45,560
Speaker 2: Here's what Judge Barrett did down in Mason County. He

224
00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:49,080
Speaker 2: excluded that evidence. He agreed with the prosecutors that it

225
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:51,520
Speaker 2: would confuse the jury and that it might turn the

226
00:15:51,560 --> 00:15:56,640
Speaker 2: trial into a debate about election fraud conspiracy theories. What

227
00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,920
Speaker 2: happened when it got up to appeal well The judges

228
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:05,360
Speaker 2: skeptical of teen of Peters's pretty broad immunity arguments. Judge

229
00:16:05,400 --> 00:16:08,080
Speaker 2: Welling asked about Peter's claim that the state courts have

230
00:16:08,160 --> 00:16:16,280
Speaker 2: no jurisdiction to decide federal immunity questions. Judge Judge Rolling asked, this,

231
00:16:17,560 --> 00:16:21,080
Speaker 2: if you're right and we can't decide it, then doesn't

232
00:16:21,080 --> 00:16:24,000
Speaker 2: the conviction just stand. I'm not sure you really want

233
00:16:24,000 --> 00:16:27,400
Speaker 2: what you're asking for. But the judges did question whether

234
00:16:27,440 --> 00:16:32,440
Speaker 2: Peters should have been allowed to present evidence relevant to

235
00:16:33,000 --> 00:16:38,560
Speaker 2: specific charges. Judge Tow, one of the appellate judges, pointed

236
00:16:38,560 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 2: out that one of the misdemeanor charges, official misconduct, required

237
00:16:43,960 --> 00:16:49,800
Speaker 2: proof of intent to receive a benefit for herself. That's

238
00:16:49,920 --> 00:16:53,400
Speaker 2: one of the elements of the crime. So Judge Toe

239
00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:57,640
Speaker 2: asked a simple question, why is it not relevant to

240
00:16:57,800 --> 00:17:01,600
Speaker 2: the jury for her to say vote, I didn't intend

241
00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:04,600
Speaker 2: to receive a benefit from my reself. I intended to

242
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:07,199
Speaker 2: do what I thought was my job and protect the

243
00:17:07,240 --> 00:17:11,920
Speaker 2: election process. Why was that evidence not relevant at least

244
00:17:11,920 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 2: to that charge. So again, the states lawyer, the people

245
00:17:18,359 --> 00:17:22,639
Speaker 2: that we're paying for, gave what Judge told clearly viewed

246
00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:27,760
Speaker 2: as a totally unsatisfactory answer, and that prompted him to

247
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:32,480
Speaker 2: respond this way, But engaging in the plot of deception

248
00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:37,280
Speaker 2: has no bearing on the charge of first degree official misconduct.

249
00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:42,280
Speaker 2: And then he asked a broader question or statement. When

250
00:17:42,359 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 2: it comes to a defendant's constitutional right to present a

251
00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:50,439
Speaker 2: complete defense, does a trial court have the ability to

252
00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:53,879
Speaker 2: curtail that in the interest of not letting the side

253
00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:58,760
Speaker 2: show overcome the circus. Here's what I think about that.

254
00:18:00,440 --> 00:18:04,720
Speaker 2: The judges rejected Tina peter sweeping claims about federal immunity

255
00:18:04,800 --> 00:18:10,040
Speaker 2: and supremacy Clause protections, but they appeared to be genuinely

256
00:18:10,119 --> 00:18:13,560
Speaker 2: concerned that the trial court judge Barrett down in Mason

257
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:18,280
Speaker 2: County may have excluded evidence that was legally relevant to

258
00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 2: specific charges requiring proof of intent, and he kept the

259
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:27,560
Speaker 2: jury from hearing that. And to the credit of the

260
00:18:27,640 --> 00:18:34,320
Speaker 2: Coloradal Court of Appeals, they're seeing right through this incompetency. This,

261
00:18:35,119 --> 00:18:37,600
Speaker 2: I might even go so far as to say possibly

262
00:18:37,640 --> 00:18:42,440
Speaker 2: a conspiracy whatever. So as much as I may dislike

263
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:47,639
Speaker 2: Tina Peters, and it may I'm much as may as

264
00:18:47,680 --> 00:18:53,440
Speaker 2: I much like dislike her, her theories that she's espousing up.

265
00:18:53,880 --> 00:18:57,800
Speaker 2: Really pisses me off. Is when the government comes in

266
00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:01,920
Speaker 2: and the government charges you with one thing that goes

267
00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:04,680
Speaker 2: after you for something else, or when the government or

268
00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:07,760
Speaker 2: a trial judge says you can't include this because it

269
00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:11,200
Speaker 2: might prejudice the jury, and then the judge himself uses

270
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:13,960
Speaker 2: that same evidence that he wouldn't let the jury hear

271
00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:19,560
Speaker 2: to enhance her sentence. This is a travesty of justice.

272
00:19:19,920 --> 00:19:22,760
Speaker 2: I don't care whether it's Tina Peters or its Dragon Redbeard.

273
00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:26,280
Speaker 2: I'd be pissed off regardless. So let me tell you

274
00:19:26,520 --> 00:19:28,200
Speaker 2: what this really amounts.

275
00:19:27,840 --> 00:19:29,040
Speaker 1: To, Michael.

276
00:19:40,480 --> 00:19:58,359
Speaker 3: And furthermore, and how can't I say, Elise, you don't

277
00:19:58,480 --> 00:19:58,800
Speaker 3: like it.

278
00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:02,520
Speaker 1: There's a a simple solution. You can go over. You

279
00:20:02,760 --> 00:20:06,800
Speaker 1: can go listen to Martina, you can go listen to whomever. No, no, no,

280
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:08,600
Speaker 1: The simple solution is listen longer.

281
00:20:15,080 --> 00:20:21,359
Speaker 2: The Colorado Court of Appeals heard Tina Peter's appeal, and

282
00:20:21,400 --> 00:20:27,359
Speaker 2: where it gets interesting. The judges found very real problems

283
00:20:27,440 --> 00:20:31,600
Speaker 2: with how this case was handled, even though they clearly

284
00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:34,000
Speaker 2: aren't going to buy her conspiracy theories.

285
00:20:34,520 --> 00:20:35,879
Speaker 1: And I have no problem with that.

286
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:40,320
Speaker 2: As somebody's on the text line something about why am I?

287
00:20:40,640 --> 00:20:48,320
Speaker 1: What was what was the language? Why? Come on now,

288
00:20:49,440 --> 00:20:50,040
Speaker 1: come on now?

289
00:20:50,080 --> 00:20:53,159
Speaker 2: We should give a pass to Tina, just like people

290
00:20:53,200 --> 00:20:57,320
Speaker 2: give passes to writers' illegal aliens in so many others.

291
00:20:57,400 --> 00:21:00,800
Speaker 2: Why not Tina. I'm not giving or pass at all.

292
00:21:02,280 --> 00:21:04,720
Speaker 2: I don't care whether this was Tina Peter. In fact,

293
00:21:05,320 --> 00:21:09,080
Speaker 2: I wish it'd been somebody else, because this is a

294
00:21:09,119 --> 00:21:14,080
Speaker 2: great example of how you you may think that our

295
00:21:14,560 --> 00:21:17,240
Speaker 2: court system and I look, don't get me wrong, I

296
00:21:17,280 --> 00:21:21,520
Speaker 2: don't believe in our judicial system, and it's better than

297
00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:24,720
Speaker 2: any other system in the world, even with all the flaws.

298
00:21:26,160 --> 00:21:30,720
Speaker 2: But what just really irks me to know end is

299
00:21:30,800 --> 00:21:35,600
Speaker 2: when a trial judge a local prosecutor, and even the

300
00:21:35,640 --> 00:21:40,960
Speaker 2: defense counsel seemed to be incompetent, which means, whether you

301
00:21:41,040 --> 00:21:43,280
Speaker 2: like Tina Peters or not, she's still entitled to a

302
00:21:43,280 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 2: fair trial and she's still entitled to, you know, people

303
00:21:47,119 --> 00:21:50,119
Speaker 2: complying with the rules of civil procedure and the rules

304
00:21:50,119 --> 00:21:54,080
Speaker 2: of evidence. And the trial judge seemed to let his

305
00:21:54,440 --> 00:21:59,240
Speaker 2: own emotions, which is kind of complete violation of the

306
00:21:59,359 --> 00:22:04,880
Speaker 2: rules of the judicial canon of ethics for him to

307
00:22:04,920 --> 00:22:08,280
Speaker 2: put his own personal opinion into the sentencing.

308
00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:10,240
Speaker 1: That's not what a trial judge does.

309
00:22:10,720 --> 00:22:13,720
Speaker 2: So Judge Barrett, shame on you, and the prosecutor down

310
00:22:13,760 --> 00:22:16,879
Speaker 2: to Mason County, Shame on you. And Tina Peter's defense council,

311
00:22:16,960 --> 00:22:21,680
Speaker 2: Shame on you. And for the nitwit, I mean truly

312
00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:25,520
Speaker 2: nitwit that represented the state, the people, the state of Colorado,

313
00:22:25,600 --> 00:22:29,560
Speaker 2: and Phil Weiser's office as the senior Assistant Attorney General.

314
00:22:29,920 --> 00:22:33,879
Speaker 2: Good grief, did you get your law degree at Walmart.

315
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:39,760
Speaker 2: Here's the legal bombshell that emerged. She was convicted of

316
00:22:39,760 --> 00:22:45,200
Speaker 2: a felony for conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. That conviction

317
00:22:45,359 --> 00:22:48,840
Speaker 2: added fifteen months to her prison sentence, but the jury

318
00:22:48,880 --> 00:22:52,600
Speaker 2: never actually was instructed on the felony version of that crime.

319
00:22:53,440 --> 00:22:57,160
Speaker 2: They were instructed for the misdemeanor version. And the difference

320
00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:02,520
Speaker 2: is one word might. Demeanor says, the fake identity only

321
00:23:02,560 --> 00:23:07,479
Speaker 2: has to maybe might expose someone to criminal liability, but

322
00:23:07,560 --> 00:23:11,000
Speaker 2: the felony requires proof that it actually did expose someone

323
00:23:11,040 --> 00:23:15,560
Speaker 2: to criminal liability, and that's a huge legal difference. The

324
00:23:15,600 --> 00:23:19,240
Speaker 2: state's attorney, that little dip dim with Lisa Michaels, tried

325
00:23:19,240 --> 00:23:21,359
Speaker 2: to down play it by just saying, oh, it's just

326
00:23:21,440 --> 00:23:26,840
Speaker 2: one word, yell might as opposed to may or shall

327
00:23:27,640 --> 00:23:33,080
Speaker 2: that's just one word too, a dumbass. And Judge Willing

328
00:23:33,160 --> 00:23:35,639
Speaker 2: wasn't having it. Yeah, but that one word distinguished. He

329
00:23:35,680 --> 00:23:39,040
Speaker 2: says that one word distinguishes it from a felony to

330
00:23:39,080 --> 00:23:42,000
Speaker 2: a misdemeanor. And I am baffled as to the position

331
00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:45,440
Speaker 2: that is being taken that we can sayhow just overlook that.

332
00:23:45,920 --> 00:23:48,920
Speaker 2: Think about what the state was arguing. Think about that

333
00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:51,600
Speaker 2: that you can you could they're arguing that you can

334
00:23:51,600 --> 00:23:54,800
Speaker 2: convict somebody of a crime they were never charged with,

335
00:23:55,240 --> 00:23:57,920
Speaker 2: and that the jury was never instructed on the elements

336
00:23:57,920 --> 00:24:01,240
Speaker 2: of just as long as the evidence could have.

337
00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:02,399
Speaker 1: Proven the other crime.

338
00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:06,920
Speaker 2: Oh well, we charge you with a misdemeanor. But well,

339
00:24:06,960 --> 00:24:09,600
Speaker 2: the evidence shows that you might have been guilty of

340
00:24:09,600 --> 00:24:12,000
Speaker 2: a felony, but we didn't charge you with a felony.

341
00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 2: If we told the jury not to consider a felony.

342
00:24:14,760 --> 00:24:18,640
Speaker 2: But then the judge looks at it and sentences her too,

343
00:24:18,680 --> 00:24:22,960
Speaker 2: as if she was convicted of a felony, when that's

344
00:24:23,000 --> 00:24:26,920
Speaker 2: not what they did in the trial at all. Think

345
00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:31,359
Speaker 2: and Judge told made this clear. He said that the

346
00:24:31,480 --> 00:24:36,520
Speaker 2: error clearly affects a substantial right. Fifteen extra months in

347
00:24:36,600 --> 00:24:40,919
Speaker 2: prison for a crime that the jury never actually considered.

348
00:24:41,600 --> 00:24:46,199
Speaker 2: That is kids, That is fundamental due process. You have

349
00:24:46,240 --> 00:24:49,920
Speaker 2: a constitutional right to know what crime you're charged with

350
00:24:50,480 --> 00:24:53,920
Speaker 2: and to have a jury instructed on the correct legal standard.

351
00:24:54,200 --> 00:24:57,600
Speaker 2: What are the elements of the felony or what are

352
00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:02,480
Speaker 2: the elements of the misdemeanor. That's what they consider. The

353
00:25:02,520 --> 00:25:06,280
Speaker 2: state can't say, oops, they give the jury the wrong instructions,

354
00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:11,720
Speaker 2: but trust us, they would have convicted her anyway. It's

355
00:25:11,800 --> 00:25:16,440
Speaker 2: kangaroo court. But that's Colorado. So I don't care whether

356
00:25:16,480 --> 00:25:20,080
Speaker 2: it's Mason County and city and County of Denver. I

357
00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:22,480
Speaker 2: don't know who pointed this judge now in Mason County.

358
00:25:22,800 --> 00:25:26,840
Speaker 2: But obviously, considering the history of the governors in this state,

359
00:25:26,880 --> 00:25:30,760
Speaker 2: that had to be a Democrat, Right, Yeah, I'm gonna

360
00:25:30,800 --> 00:25:34,800
Speaker 2: throw partisan politics into it. That same governor that this

361
00:25:34,880 --> 00:25:37,720
Speaker 2: morning or yesterday, and then I think may have repeated

362
00:25:37,840 --> 00:25:40,879
Speaker 2: this morning, I don't know, talks about how Republicans are

363
00:25:40,880 --> 00:25:47,760
Speaker 2: the socialists. Really, here's the second major issue, and it

364
00:25:47,800 --> 00:25:49,480
Speaker 2: goes to the heart of something that ought to be

365
00:25:49,520 --> 00:25:51,879
Speaker 2: pretty near and dear to my heart, and ought to

366
00:25:51,880 --> 00:25:54,040
Speaker 2: be near and dear to your heart, and that's freedom

367
00:25:54,040 --> 00:25:58,280
Speaker 2: of speech. Because during the trial, the prosecutors down in

368
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:02,560
Speaker 2: Mason County argued that her boliefs election fraud, her motivations,

369
00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:06,400
Speaker 2: her intent, all of her constupid conspiracy theories, that those

370
00:26:06,440 --> 00:26:09,080
Speaker 2: should not be presented to the jury. They said that

371
00:26:09,160 --> 00:26:12,119
Speaker 2: those arguments, those theories, all of that crap with you know,

372
00:26:12,440 --> 00:26:16,520
Speaker 2: prejudiced the case. And the judge agreed and he severely

373
00:26:16,520 --> 00:26:20,199
Speaker 2: limited what Peters could say about why she did what

374
00:26:20,320 --> 00:26:23,760
Speaker 2: she did. That's fair enough. I had no problem with that.

375
00:26:24,520 --> 00:26:29,000
Speaker 2: She was charged with deception, charged with official misconduct. She

376
00:26:29,280 --> 00:26:34,560
Speaker 2: was not charged with having wrong opinions about dominion voting machines.

377
00:26:35,960 --> 00:26:38,840
Speaker 1: But then when it came to sentencing.

378
00:26:39,600 --> 00:26:44,680
Speaker 2: The same judge that restricted those opinions from the jury

379
00:26:44,960 --> 00:26:50,600
Speaker 2: hearing them, turned around and used those same exact theories,

380
00:26:51,080 --> 00:26:55,200
Speaker 2: the ones he excluded from the trial, and used those

381
00:26:55,240 --> 00:26:57,960
Speaker 2: theories to justify giving her a harsh sentence.

382
00:26:58,280 --> 00:27:01,680
Speaker 1: He called her a Charlatan snake oil, and he went

383
00:27:01,720 --> 00:27:02,040
Speaker 1: on the.

384
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:05,679
Speaker 2: Link about her false election claims, and the appellate judge's

385
00:27:05,720 --> 00:27:08,600
Speaker 2: response yesterday was you don't get to ride both horses.

386
00:27:09,960 --> 00:27:11,840
Speaker 1: He said it very plainly. Quote.

387
00:27:12,480 --> 00:27:16,520
Speaker 2: My read of the transcript is that the judge considered

388
00:27:16,560 --> 00:27:19,960
Speaker 2: that and it went into the calculation of the sentence.

389
00:27:20,240 --> 00:27:26,800
Speaker 2: And that is a First Amendment problem. What are we, Venezuela.

390
00:27:27,160 --> 00:27:28,040
Speaker 2: You may not care.

391
00:27:28,000 --> 00:27:31,880
Speaker 1: About this, but you better same.

392
00:27:33,480 --> 00:27:37,399
Speaker 2: The state was trying to argue that Peters made her

393
00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:41,720
Speaker 2: beliefs relevant by bringing him up in her sentencing statement.

394
00:27:43,280 --> 00:27:47,200
Speaker 2: That's long after she's been convicted. The jury's gone home,

395
00:27:47,720 --> 00:27:51,440
Speaker 2: the jury's done their job. It is the judge imposing

396
00:27:51,480 --> 00:27:54,960
Speaker 2: the sentence, and now he's doing exactly what he told

397
00:27:54,960 --> 00:27:58,639
Speaker 2: the jury they could not do. He's inserting his own

398
00:27:58,680 --> 00:28:06,040
Speaker 2: opinion about her opinions into the sentencing. Say was trying

399
00:28:06,080 --> 00:28:10,639
Speaker 2: to argue that Peters made her beliefs relevant by bringing

400
00:28:10,640 --> 00:28:12,960
Speaker 2: them up, But that entirely.

401
00:28:12,560 --> 00:28:13,800
Speaker 1: Misses the point.

402
00:28:14,680 --> 00:28:17,800
Speaker 2: The question is whether she talked about election fraud is sentencing,

403
00:28:18,040 --> 00:28:21,879
Speaker 2: the question is whether the judge used constitutionally protected speech

404
00:28:22,200 --> 00:28:24,560
Speaker 2: as she was entitled to do it her sentencing hearing.

405
00:28:24,960 --> 00:28:29,280
Speaker 2: Speech he ruled irrelevant to her guilt so he could

406
00:28:29,280 --> 00:28:32,840
Speaker 2: increase her punishment. If a judge says this, your political

407
00:28:32,880 --> 00:28:36,080
Speaker 2: beliefs are irrelevant to whether you committed this crime, he

408
00:28:36,200 --> 00:28:39,120
Speaker 2: can't then say, but I'm going to give you extra

409
00:28:39,200 --> 00:28:43,080
Speaker 2: time because I don't like your political beliefs. And that's

410
00:28:43,160 --> 00:28:46,320
Speaker 2: exactly what this judge did. You got to be removed

411
00:28:46,320 --> 00:28:46,840
Speaker 2: from the bench.

412
00:28:47,720 --> 00:28:48,120
Speaker 1: Michael.

413
00:28:48,400 --> 00:28:53,080
Speaker 3: The bad thing about fan for sex is that one

414
00:28:53,120 --> 00:28:54,920
Speaker 3: hand the other.

415
00:28:57,560 --> 00:28:59,000
Speaker 2: Just doesn't work out too terrible.

416
00:28:59,040 --> 00:29:05,920
Speaker 4: Well, we should have just stuck with stexts today, right,

417
00:29:08,080 --> 00:29:09,760
Speaker 4: she should have just stuck with sex.

418
00:29:10,800 --> 00:29:14,080
Speaker 2: So, based on yesterday's hearing, this is what I think

419
00:29:14,120 --> 00:29:17,920
Speaker 2: seems likely. The jury instruction error will get fixed. The

420
00:29:17,960 --> 00:29:21,600
Speaker 2: falony conviction probably gets reduced to a misdemeanor that will

421
00:29:21,600 --> 00:29:25,680
Speaker 2: automatically cut fifteen months off her swell. Not automatically, the

422
00:29:25,760 --> 00:29:28,400
Speaker 2: trial judge will be ordered to reduce her sentence by

423
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:32,440
Speaker 2: fifteen months, they'll remand it for resentencing, and there's a

424
00:29:32,440 --> 00:29:34,400
Speaker 2: good chance that would send it back to the trial

425
00:29:34,480 --> 00:29:38,240
Speaker 2: court for a new sentencing hearing, with clear instructions that

426
00:29:38,320 --> 00:29:43,200
Speaker 2: the judge cannot consider her protected speech or evidence that

427
00:29:43,280 --> 00:29:46,040
Speaker 2: he had excluded from the trial. He's gonna get his

428
00:29:46,080 --> 00:29:49,640
Speaker 2: butt handed to him. But the conviction itself will largely

429
00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:55,720
Speaker 2: stand despite these procedural problems, intentional or not, the core

430
00:29:55,800 --> 00:30:00,480
Speaker 2: convictions for deceiving public officials and official misconduct it's probably

431
00:30:00,520 --> 00:30:04,040
Speaker 2: going to survive. What's unlikely, Tina Peters is not going

432
00:30:04,120 --> 00:30:07,080
Speaker 2: to walk free. The judges weren't sympathetic to her claim

433
00:30:07,600 --> 00:30:09,400
Speaker 2: that she had some sort of immunity or that she

434
00:30:09,400 --> 00:30:13,280
Speaker 2: didn't commit a crime. They just think the process was very,

435
00:30:13,400 --> 00:30:16,440
Speaker 2: very flawed. Now, I know what you're thinking, Why should

436
00:30:16,440 --> 00:30:19,160
Speaker 2: you care about some county clerk in Colorado who got

437
00:30:19,200 --> 00:30:23,920
Speaker 2: caught up in all this election conspiracy nonsense. Well here's why. First,

438
00:30:24,160 --> 00:30:28,120
Speaker 2: this is about basic constitutional protections that applied to every

439
00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:32,400
Speaker 2: single one of us. If these prosecutors in Colorado can

440
00:30:32,400 --> 00:30:35,560
Speaker 2: give a jury the wrong legal standard and just say well, hey,

441
00:30:35,600 --> 00:30:39,600
Speaker 2: close enough, that's a serious problem. And if the trial

442
00:30:39,720 --> 00:30:43,680
Speaker 2: judges in this state can exclude evidence from the trial

443
00:30:44,160 --> 00:30:47,480
Speaker 2: and then use that same evidence they excluded to increase

444
00:30:47,520 --> 00:30:52,600
Speaker 2: your sentence. That's a serious constitutional problem. These are not

445
00:30:52,760 --> 00:30:57,240
Speaker 2: liberal or conservative issues. This is a rule of law issue.

446
00:30:58,520 --> 00:31:01,520
Speaker 2: The second thing I would point out is this case

447
00:31:01,600 --> 00:31:03,960
Speaker 2: is a political football. This is why I've just completely

448
00:31:04,000 --> 00:31:08,720
Speaker 2: avoided Trump's threatening Colorado with harsh measures, you know, unless

449
00:31:08,720 --> 00:31:12,120
Speaker 2: they released Peters and he pardoned her so called partner,

450
00:31:12,200 --> 00:31:14,280
Speaker 2: although he doesn't have any power to do that. And

451
00:31:14,440 --> 00:31:18,560
Speaker 2: Polish the dumbass recently called her a sentence harsh and

452
00:31:18,640 --> 00:31:21,520
Speaker 2: suggested he might grant clemency.

453
00:31:21,640 --> 00:31:23,320
Speaker 1: I'm thinking Polish.

454
00:31:22,880 --> 00:31:25,880
Speaker 2: Is probably looking at these errors and realizing, I don't

455
00:31:25,880 --> 00:31:27,760
Speaker 2: know whether he appointed these judges. I don't know whether

456
00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:29,800
Speaker 2: he appointed that prosecutor. I don't know the history of

457
00:31:29,840 --> 00:31:31,920
Speaker 2: that because I don't care. But what I do know

458
00:31:32,120 --> 00:31:36,320
Speaker 2: is this is a Democrat state controlled by Democrats, and

459
00:31:36,400 --> 00:31:39,120
Speaker 2: Polis is probably looking at this and thinking, yeah, you

460
00:31:39,160 --> 00:31:41,000
Speaker 2: know what, I might be able to get a few

461
00:31:41,040 --> 00:31:44,400
Speaker 2: independents orun affiliated voters when I run for Senate or

462
00:31:44,440 --> 00:31:47,040
Speaker 2: whatever I'm going to do next, So maybe I'll do this.

463
00:31:48,520 --> 00:31:53,560
Speaker 2: So he's using these horrific legal errors for his own

464
00:31:53,600 --> 00:31:58,680
Speaker 2: political purposes. What a total ass he is. But then me,

465
00:31:58,960 --> 00:32:02,800
Speaker 2: there's a third point. There's a real tension here between

466
00:32:02,920 --> 00:32:06,280
Speaker 2: two values that we ought to care about, protecting election

467
00:32:06,360 --> 00:32:13,280
Speaker 2: integrity and protecting civil liberties. Peters genuinely breached election security,

468
00:32:13,280 --> 00:32:17,280
Speaker 2: there's no question. But she also has constitutional rights to

469
00:32:17,400 --> 00:32:21,000
Speaker 2: fair jury instructions, to present a defense, and to not

470
00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:24,560
Speaker 2: be punished for protected speech. Now you can think that

471
00:32:24,600 --> 00:32:28,240
Speaker 2: her conspiracy theories are nonsense and think that she deserves

472
00:32:28,280 --> 00:32:33,160
Speaker 2: a fair trial, those positions are not contradictory. So based

473
00:32:33,200 --> 00:32:37,719
Speaker 2: on yesterday's this week's arguments, she's not getting her conviction

474
00:32:37,880 --> 00:32:40,800
Speaker 2: thrown out, but she's got a decent shot at getting

475
00:32:40,800 --> 00:32:44,479
Speaker 2: her sentenory deuced and possibly getting a new sentencing hearing.

476
00:32:45,280 --> 00:32:48,960
Speaker 2: Those judges were clearly saying, yeah, she committed the crimes,

477
00:32:49,280 --> 00:32:53,800
Speaker 2: but no, the process was not fair. Well, guess what

478
00:32:53,800 --> 00:32:56,520
Speaker 2: what's interesting is that's how the system is supposed to work.

479
00:32:57,200 --> 00:33:00,800
Speaker 2: I'm just dragon tells me to calm down. But I'm

480
00:33:00,840 --> 00:33:03,800
Speaker 2: telling you what really bugs me is that you had

481
00:33:04,040 --> 00:33:10,160
Speaker 2: everybody in that courtroom. It's supposed to be competent. How

482
00:33:10,160 --> 00:33:13,520
Speaker 2: do you miss that you charge one thing but you

483
00:33:13,640 --> 00:33:17,120
Speaker 2: try another, or how does a judge exclude saying you

484
00:33:17,200 --> 00:33:20,239
Speaker 2: can't say this, you can't testify about this, but then

485
00:33:20,280 --> 00:33:22,400
Speaker 2: I'm gonna use what you can't I told you you

486
00:33:22,440 --> 00:33:25,720
Speaker 2: can't say against you. Does that judge not understand what

487
00:33:25,760 --> 00:33:30,800
Speaker 2: the First Amendment's about? In ascendency hearing good grief, I'm

488
00:33:30,960 --> 00:33:33,840
Speaker 2: sick of the Democrats and the way this state operates