In response to Gov. Jared Polis’ statement over the weekend that his sentence reduction for election conspiracist Tina Peters was really “all about” protecting the First Amendment, Dan Rubinstein, who prosecuted Peters, said that there’s no evidence that Peters was punished “more harshly” based on anything she said that might be protected by the First Amendment.
“The Court of Appeals didn’t say that Judge Barrett actually used the First Amendment to punish her and to punish her more harshly. They never said that,” Rubinstein told Jimmy Sengenberger on a KHOW radio show May 20, referring to a Colorado Appeals Court decision directing Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett to re-sentence Peters. “That’s just not in the opinion. They said that they had concerns over some of the things that he commented on and are ordering him to re-sentence, not including things that were related to her speech, but more related to things that were actions. I was there for the sentencing, and I’ve known Judge Barrett for years. I don’t believe that he intended it to be related to her speech.”
On Judge Barrett’s reasoning, Rubinstein said, “I believe he was trying to convey that because she had these beliefs, she did these things. It doesn’t matter whether those beliefs are true or not. What matters is, that was the motive that she did it, not what the underlying belief was — but because she was trying to prove something, she did these reckless actions of violating all the security protocols.”
Rubinstein continued, “You know, again, the person we elected to be the safeguarder of all the security protocols for elections turned off the security cameras, lied to a bunch of people to violate all the safety protocols, brought a person in who wasn’t supposed to be there. On her own phone, she filmed the passwords, gave them to that person she violated the protocols with, and he put the security codes out on the internet. So whether she believes the election was stolen or not is irrelevant. It was the motivation that caused her to do that. And I think Judge Barrett was referencing that, not punishing her because she thinks the election is stolen, punishing her because she, on her own agenda, violated all the security protocols and cost Mesa County millions of dollars, drug our names through the mud, caused people to not respect or trust governmental officials that are elected. I mean, it had a huge impact on Mesa County that Governor Polis wasn’t there for, and [he] seemed to disregard all of those people who were there for it, who said, ‘Please don’t do this.'”
Rubinstein, who’s the Mesa County district attorney, made the comment about Polis’ decision after Sengenberger aired a clip of a Polis interview on CNN.
“What the Appeals Court found, and what I agree [with], is that fundamentally she deserves time, and she committed four felonies,” Polis told CNN’s Kaitlin Collins May 15. “Those are gonna stay on her record. We’re continuing to fight the president’s bogus attempt to pardon her in court. But the truth of the matter is that her speech, meaning her conspiratorial beliefs and what she believes in, are certainly to an anathema to me and most of your viewers and I strongly disagree with, but those are not the basis and should not be the basis for a longer sentence than somebody would normally get for this crime, and that’s really what the sentence reduction is all about.”
The ruling, as cited by journalist Corey Hutchins, states, “Peters contends that the trial court violated her First Amendment right under the United States Constitution and her right under article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution because it punished her based on her protected speech regarding allegations of election fraud. We agree.“
The Court directed that this and other considerations be taken into consideration in a re-sentencing of Peters that will likely not happen due to Polis’ action.
The Denver Post published an editorial this week supporting Polis’ decision on Peters’ sentence, vaguely citing free speech considerations. But mostly the response to Polis’ action has been negative, including within the Democratic Party.
RELATED: Election Deniers Celebrate Governor Polis’ Freeing of Tina Peters
ADDITION: The quote from the Appeals Court was added after publication.
