re: Trump Pardons Tina Peters

quote:

---

Similarly, does anyone have any theories as to why the CO Sec of State leaking voting machine passwords (which the state of CO said was “a serious breach of voting system security”) didn’t lead to any punishment?

---

No doubt Colorado is a cess pool that needs to be cleaned up.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, Trump didn't pardon her, nor could he.

---

She was charged with a state "crime," but I wonder what kind of federal angle or element there might be due to it being a national election?

quote:

---

Peters has consistently maintained that her actions as Mesa County clerk were taken to comply with those federal preservation requirements.

---

By giving the data to unauthorized third parties? How?

quote:

---

Well, not for this discussion.

---

...for all discussions.

quote:

---

Btw you have a surprising level of self-awareness. Very unusual for these parts.

I enjoy these meta discussions from time to time.

---

Back at ya. My self-awareness is just a function of realizing how ignorant I am.

quote:

---

...for all discussions.

---

If we're discussing legal issues, then the legalities will matter.

As for the factual component (which overlaps with what I believe you're using to mean "the truth"), legal proceedings are based in evidence. Being able to show something is likely untruthful will lead to credibility issues of that evidence/reporter. But the "truth" is an area for philosophers. Does this mean the truth is rejected? Of course not. But it's not as simple, especially with a system of people who are relied upon to recreate past factual scenarios, often years after those scenarios unfold.

Eyewitness testimony, for example, is incredibly unreliable. But, for that person, it's "the truth". That doesn't mean it will in any way overlap with the objective truth of what actually unfolded. And a lot of factual determinations in legal proceedings are almost exclusively reliant on this unreliable "truth".

However, lucky for us, we have objective information to judge Tina Peters's case.

quote:

---

I enjoy these meta discussions from time to time.

---

STFU pinko Ho. Gtfoh. You’re hated.

quote:

---

We discovered at the same time that it was dated for 12/5. What could have Trump meant by saying he was "pardoning her today" in a post on 12/11? Is there any way to see when the 12/5 document was posted?

---

Website says it was updated today and it's the last entry. DOJ Pardon Attorney

WRT Trumps announcement— not sure. I surfed to this. I was looking for jurisprudence on WHEN a pardon was effective starting with the presumption that it was a property right only effective on delivery.

The Clemency document reads like a POA and delegation to the pardon attorney. They may have held it in abeyance in the event the habeas petition was granted to make a bigger splash. When the petition was dismissed, it served no PR purpose to hold it any longer Just guessing though

quote:

---

The Clemency document reads like a POA and delegation to the party attorney. They may have held it in abeyance in the event the habeas petition was granted to make a bigger splash. When the petition was dismissed, it served no PR purpose to hold it any longer Just guessing though

---

Thanks, good guess. Our President isn't always precise with his words. Maybe he just meant to say "6 days AFTER I authorized her pardon, I'm announcing her pardon...."

quote:

---

Given how the dems reacted to Tina Peters attempted probe into their cheating it may mean that feared a major exposure of illegal actions and voter fraud. That suggests that the way to mount a major federal investigation into what the dems are likely to have done.

---

I hope that such a major federal investigation of possible Dim fraud was launched on Day 1 of Trump 2.0. This "pardon" roll out seems haphazard though.