- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump Pardons Tina Peters
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:04 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:04 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I was not aware that having a child die in the military constituted a lifelong pass from criminal prosecution.
This is why there is so much pushback. There are some "novel" legal theories in this thread, but amidst that noise is a coherent point.
You have a first time offender that normally possesses the types of attributes that would result in sentence mitigation. The crime itself has not deprived anyone of liberty, health, or tangible property. While it MAY cast doubt and trust in the government, the crime itself does not increase that beyond the current legal campaigns that question the legitimacy of the election.
Its impact is equivalent to breaking into a Congressional staffer's computer to make copies of their porn.
Nevertheless, the SENTENCE is 9 years. Her reputation, good deeds, etc. do read on that situation.
It's not about what could be done. It's about what was done, which seems disproportionate to any offense. That isn't the rule of law prevailing. That is a single judge being vindictive for a political purpose. This isn't about the legality of any action, its about the system's potential for abuse for political purposes. When that happens, you will certainly have others that wish to use the potential of that system to reciprocate.
4
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:08 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This is the kind of drivel that ruins the board.
Then log off for a while. You need a brak anyways
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:11 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Did Tina Peters commit a crime?
Did Rosa Parks commit a crime?
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:15 pm to dukkbill
quote:Not an unreasonable analysis.
It's not about what could be done. It's about what was done, which seems disproportionate to any offense. That isn't the rule of law prevailing. That is a single judge being vindictive for a political purpose. This isn't about the legality of any action, its about the system's potential for abuse for political purposes. When that happens, you will certainly have others that wish to use the potential of that system to reciprocate.
In candor, I tend to think that her sentence WAS a bit harsh, though her CONVICTION was entirely justified.
None of which has any bearing upon the simpletons who want to discard the Consitution and have Trump grant a Presidential pardon for a state crime.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:17 pm to Dex Morgan
quote:
Did Rosa Parks commit a crime?
Yes, and she was convicted. Her record was never expunged, and she was never pardoned.
I think Aaron and Cyril are still alive if you want to hit them up to write a song about Tina Peters.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:19 pm to Sassafrasology
Are you retarded?
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:20 pm to dukkbill
quote:
It's about what was done, which seems disproportionate to any offense. That isn't the rule of law prevailing. That is a single judge being vindictive for a political purpose.
She could have been remorseful. The judge factored that part into her sentencing. From the FAFO Files:
quote:
A judge ripped into a Colorado county clerk for her crimes and lies before sentencing her Thursday to nine years behind bars for a data-breach scheme spawned from the rampant false claims about voting machine fraud in the 2020 presidential race.
District Judge Matthew Barrett told former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters — after earlier sparring with her for continuing to press discredited claims about rigged voting machines — that she never took her job seriously.
"I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You're as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen," Barrett told her in handing down the sentence. "You are no hero. You abused your position and you're a charlatan."
LINK
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:20 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
Do you serve Truth, or the Law?
Nailed the SFP issue in one sentence.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:21 pm to moneyg
quote:
Nailed the SFP issue in one sentence.
Naw.
Both the truth and law are being ignored by Tina's fans.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:22 pm to Decatur
I've no doubt that Tina Peters saw herself as a modern Patrick Henry ... until the FO part of FAFO arrived for her.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:24 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
None of which has any bearing upon the simpletons who want to discard the Constitution and have Trump grant a Presidential pardon for a state crime.
I can't speak to what any other individual may want, but the SENTENCE was a political statement. It just was one that has a punitive aspect.
Political statements demand political responses. IIRC, there is an active petition for a writ due to Peters treatment in jail. An alternative political statement is for the chief executive to go to the news and demean the jurists hearing the writ and demand they do the right thing. In balance, I'd rather for the executive to act within their constituted powers than try to use the media to improperly invade another branch of government.
I think there is a time in my life when they appeal for a compassionate sentence commutation have been requested in private and honored by a governor in a different party. I may be waxing poetically in hindsight, but that time does not appear to be upon us now.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:30 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:30 pm to Decatur
quote:
She could have been remorseful. The judge factored that part into her sentencing.
No thing in my intersection with the law has bugged me more than this bromide that has inserted itself into our system. If a wise jurist can determine whether the demeanor of someone makes it more likely than not the person will harm another that is one thing. If a person is going to harm someone more just because they don't bow and curtsy in the right way-- that is a tyrant in a robe.
She was not remorseful because she felt justified in her action. She may very well feel justified to try to break into public systems in the future, but we have a perfect remedy for that -- Don't allow her near public systems. There is no need to tack on years to the incarceration.
What's the worse that happens if she gets a proper sentence. Somebody posts on the internet that "X months? I'm tired of all this winning."
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:32 pm to dukkbill
quote:
You have a first time offender that normally possesses the types of attributes that would result in sentence mitigation. The crime itself has not deprived anyone of liberty, health, or tangible property. While it MAY cast doubt and trust in the government, the crime itself does not increase that beyond the current legal campaigns that question the legitimacy of the election.
Its impact is equivalent to breaking into a Congressional staffer's computer to make copies of their porn.
Nevertheless, the SENTENCE is 9 years. Her reputation, good deeds, etc. do read on that situation.
It's not about what could be done. It's about what was done, which seems disproportionate to any offense. That isn't the rule of law prevailing. That is a single judge being vindictive for a political purpose. This isn't about the legality of any action, its about the system's potential for abuse for political purposes. When that happens, you will certainly have others that wish to use the potential of that system to reciprocate.
The problem is similar to one with cults when they're prosecuted.
Those who admit the issues and repent and criticize the cult will get leniency. Those who refuse and keep promoting the cult will get hammered.
Example: Allison Mack (Got 3 years instead of 14-17) v. Clare Bronfman (81 months) in the Nxivm case.
Had Peters come out and say she was taken advantage of by Mike Lindell's agents during her grieving period for her son, and it was all nonsense that she believed due to this exploitation, and it's all bunk, etc., she probably gets 0 jail time.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:32 pm to dukkbill
quote:Her habeas petition was poured out of court.
Political statements demand political responses. IIRC, there is an active petition for a writ due to Peters treatment in jail.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What, exactly, did she expose?
That images were changed.
You keep scoffing because you've never bought into any fraud occuring in 2020.
It did and has now been exposed. Also, a whistleblower alerted the Trump team is was scheduled to happen in 2024 too. Elon Musk shut it down from happening.
You will be hearing more information about Smartmatic and Venezula
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:34 pm to Decatur
He also said what she did was worse than physical violence, if there was ever any doubt as to whether politics influenced his ruling.
Also note the line about undermining election integrity in the context of everything else we’ve seen regarding election protocol in blue states, and fighting transparency in blue jurisdictions.
LINK
quote:
So the damage that is caused and continues to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis. And it’s particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence like you. Every effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and public’s trust in our institutions has been made by you. You’ve done it from that lectern the voting public provided you with, everything you’ve done has been done to retain control, influence. The damage is immeasurable.
Also note the line about undermining election integrity in the context of everything else we’ve seen regarding election protocol in blue states, and fighting transparency in blue jurisdictions.
LINK
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:35 pm to dukkbill
quote:
If a person is going to harm someone more just because they don't bow and curtsy in the right way-- that is a tyrant in a robe.
Well that's the gist. If you're so clearly wrong and not only unremorseful for the crime, but still outwardly support the organization that inspired you to commit crimes, that risk of future crime gets higher. This isn't a jailhouse psychological sizing up based on gut.
I agree it can be annoying, and there are ways to statutorily fix this, but she's being treated like almost every other criminal defendant is.
It destroys the narrative that she was singled out or is being treated differently
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:36 pm to Dex Morgan
quote:
Did Rosa Parks commit a crime?
Not worthy of prison.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:36 pm to dukkbill
quote:
whether the demeanor of someone
The judge provided examples of her *actions* that showed a lack of remorse.
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News