Trump Champions Tina Peters in Social Media Post
right here in Grand Junction and has since captured the nation's attention, including that of President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, the President took to social media fiercely advocating for Peters, who was sentenced in October of 2024 to nine years of incarceration after a jury found her guilty on seven counts for her role in a data breach scheme linked to the 2020 presidential election.
In a May 5th dated post on Truth Social, President Trump calls for the Department of Justice to take 'all necessary action' to secure her release. He calls Peters a 'hostage' being held in a Colorado prison by the democrats for political reasons, and an 'innocent Political Prisoner', describing her as 'horribly and unjustly punished in the form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.' The president also directly mentions Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, labeling him 'Radical Left', and calling Peter's situation a 'Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020.'
Attorney General Phil Weiser released a statement to us in response saying quote, 'Tina Peters is in prison because of her own actions. 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.'
We've reached out to the Department of Justice for comment on President Trump's most recent order but have yet to receive word.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WesternSlopeNow.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
28 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Great Realignment
The American president wrote, 'Vladimir, STOP!' on his Truth Social account in April, but the Russian president did not halt his offensive in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian president called for an unconditional cease-fire in May, but the Russians did not agree to stop attacking Ukrainian civilians from the air. Donald Trump repeatedly promised, during his campaign, that he would end the war 'in one day,' but the war is not over. Instead, the Russian invasion of Ukraine does not merely continue. It accelerates. Most evenings, Russian troops hit Ukrainian apartment buildings, factories, infrastructure, and people, using ever more drones and missiles. On the ground, Ukraine's top commander has said that the Russians are preparing a new summer offensive, with 695,000 troops spread across the front line. Russian soldiers also continue to be wounded or killed at extraordinary rates, with between 35,000 and 45,000 casualties every month, while billions of dollars' worth of Russian equipment are destroyed every week by Ukrainian drones. The Russian economy suffers from high inflation and is heading for a recession. But Vladimir Putin is not looking for a cease-fire, and he does not want to negotiate. Why? Because he believes that he can win. Thanks to the actions of the U.S. government, he still thinks that he can conquer all of Ukraine. Putin sees what everyone else sees: Slowly, the U.S. is switching sides. True, Trump occasionally berates Putin, or makes sympathetic noises toward Ukrainians, as he did last week when he seemed to express interest in a Ukrainian journalist who said that her husband was in the military. Trump also appeared to enjoy being flattered at the NATO summit, where European leaders made a decision, hailed as historic, to further raise defense spending. But thanks to quieter decisions by members of his own administration, people whom he has appointed, the American realignment with Russia and against Ukraine and Europe is gathering pace—not merely in rhetoric but in reality. Just this week, in the middle of the worst aerial-bombing campaign since the war began, the Trump administration confirmed that a large shipment of weapons, which had already been funded by the Biden administration, will not be sent to Ukraine. The weapons, some of which are already in Poland, include artillery shells, missiles, rockets, and, most important, interceptors for Patriot air-defense systems, the ammunition that Ukrainians need to protect civilians from missile attacks. Trump had suggested that he would supply Ukraine with more Patriot ammunition, which is an American product. 'We're going to see if we can make some available,' he said after meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last week. But what he says and what his administration actually does are very different. Pentagon spokespeople have explained that this abrupt change was made because American stockpiles are insufficient, an excuse disputed both by former Biden-administration officials and by independent policy analysts. But whether true or false, this reasoning doesn't matter to the Russians, who have already interpreted this change as a clear signal that American support for Ukraine is ending: 'The fewer the number of weapons that are delivered to Ukraine, the closer the end of the special military operation,' the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. To be clear, by 'the end of the special military operation,' he means the defeat of Ukraine. At the same time, and with much less publicity, the U.S. is essentially lifting sanctions on Russia. No such formal announcement has been made. But the maintenance of sanctions requires constant shifts and adjustments, as Russian companies and other entities change suppliers and tactics in order to acquire sanctioned products. During the Biden administration, I spoke several times with officials who followed these changes closely, and who repeatedly issued new sanctions in order to counter them. As The New York Times has reported, the Trump administration has stopped following these shifts and stopped imposing new sanctions altogether. This, the Times writes, allows 'new dummy companies to funnel funds and critical components to Russia, including computer chips and military equipment.' In addition to taking Russia's side in the kinetic war and the economic war, the U.S. is realigning its position in the narrative war, too. During the Biden administration, the State Department's Global Engagement Center regularly identified Russian disinformation operations around the world—exposing misleading websites or campaigns secretly run or directed by Russian operatives in Latin America and Africa, as well as in Europe. Trump appointees have not only dissolved the center; they also baselessly and bizarrely accused it of somehow harming American conservatives, even of having ' actively silenced and censored the voices of Americans,' although the GEC had no operations inside the U.S. At the same time, cuts to USAID and other programs have abruptly reduced funding for some independent media and Russian-opposition media. The planned cuts to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, if not stopped by the courts, will destroy one of the few outside sources of information that reaches Russians with real news about the war. Should all of these changes become permanent, the U.S. will no longer have any tools available to communicate with the Russian public or counter Russian propaganda, either inside Russia or around the world. Listen: Trump's betrayal of Ukraine Inside the United States, Russian propaganda is most loudly and effectively promoted by appointees of the U.S. president. Steve Witkoff, the real-estate developer who became Trump's main negotiator with Russia despite having no knowledge of Russian history or politics, regularly echoes false Russian talking points and propaganda. He has repeated Putin's view, which he may have heard from the Russian president himself, that 'Ukraine is just a false country, that they just patched together in this sort of mosaic, these regions.' Witkoff has also seemed to agree with Putin that Ukrainian territories that voted for independence from Moscow in 1991 are somehow 'Russian.' By accepting disputed claims as fact, Witkoff is also helping Putin continue his war. In order to keep Russians onboard, to create divisions among Ukraine's allies, and maybe even to build doubts inside Ukraine itself, Putin needs to portray the Ukrainian cause as hopeless and to describe the Ukrainian 'demands' as unreasonable. He has to hide the most basic facts about this war: that he began it, that he has killed hundreds of thousands of people in pursuit of it, and that his goal, again, is to destroy or decapitate all of Ukraine. Witkoff helps make these falsehoods easier to sustain, in Russia, in the U.S., and in Europe. Add all of these things together, and they are something more than just a pattern. They are a set of incentives that help persuade Putin to keep fighting. Sanctions are disappearing, weapons are diminishing, counterpropaganda is harder to hear. All of that will encourage Putin to go further—not just to try to defeat Ukraine but to divide Europe, mortally damage NATO, and reduce the power and influence of the United States around the world. Europe, Canada, and most of the rest of the democratic world will continue to back Ukraine. As I have written before, Ukrainians will continue to innovate, to build new kinds of automated weapons, new drones, new software. They will continue to fight, because the alternative is the end of their civilization, their language, and, for many of them, their lives. The Ukrainians could still win. A different set of American policies could help them win faster. The U.S. could still expand sanctions on Russia, provide ammunition, and help the Ukrainians win the narrative war. The administration could stop the fighting, the missile attacks, and the lethal drone swarms; it could stop the pointless deaths that Trump has repeatedly said he opposes. By choosing to back Russia, the U.S. will ensure that the war continues. Only by backing Ukraine is there hope for peace.
Chicago Tribune
34 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: On July 4 of all days, a naturalized citizen is not less than a US citizen
A federal judge of our acquaintance often described his joy at officiating naturalization ceremonies. As he administered the oath of allegiance, he'd stare out at new U.S. citizens who had arrived from all over the world: typically dressed to the nines, accompanied by family, brimming with optimism and filled with gratitude for their new home. Becoming a U.S. citizen is a thing of finality and a commitment on both sides. Part of the pact is that a naturalized citizen is no less than a U.S.-born citizen. Simply put, both are citizens of the United States, equal under the law. Both are to be afforded all of the rights and privileges thereof. On this Independence Day, we're thus deeply troubled by the current administration's threatened violation of that pact. The Department of Justice, The Hill reported this week, is encouraging its attorneys to 'seek to strip U.S. citizenship from those who have naturalized if they have committed various crimes,' and even to consider launching a 'denaturalization process' when someone has merely been accused of serious wrongdoing. How un-American. We hardly need to point out that native-born citizens commit crimes, too. All need to be held accountable, but not differently so. Exactly how the Trump administration would strip naturalized citizens of their U.S. citizenship remains unclear, but it appears that the basis would be to see if anything went undisclosed by the new citizen during his or her naturalization process. If some kind of 'material misrepresentation' was found, the government could move to revoke that person's citizenship. And that could be as simple as arguing that someone was not 'of good moral character.' Moral character is in the eye of the beholder. This is all so vague as to permit the DOJ to move against most anyone the administration dislikes, which could be anyone from political opponents to journalists. Naturalized U.S. citizens aware of this are feeling a new insecurity, even if they've been a law-abiding citizen for years. Visa and green-card holders are one thing; there are legitimate rules to follow and the status can reasonably be seen as conditional. But is something entirely different. The U.S. has more than adequate time to consider such applications from petitioners and is free to reject them. But once it them, there is a mutual acceptance of finality. Not unlike a Supreme Court verdict, to our minds. Citizenship implies governmental protection. Citizenship says this country is your home. If not, then what are we celebrating today?
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Elon Musk (And Tesla) Became Much Less Popular In 2025
Elon Musk hasn't won any popularity contests in 2025, a stretch plagued by declining popularity among liberals as Musk cozied to President Donald Trump before a messy public divorce from Trump, which weighs heavily on Musk's most prominent venture, the electric and autonomous vehicle giant Tesla. Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed on one thing during 2025's first six months – they ... More all like the world's richest man a lot less. AFP via Getty Images Some 55% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Musk compared to 37% who hold a positive opinion, according to a dashboard from statistician Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin aggregating hundreds of polls on Musk. That's Musk's highest unfavorability since the tracker's inception in January 2024, and Musk's unfavorability shot up 10 percentage points over 2025's first half. Public perception of Musk predictably soured among Democrats given Musk's highly powerful role as the top lieutenant to Trump, to whom Musk donated more than $200 million to help elect, as just 16% of Democrats hold a favorable opinion of Musk, according to a June 6-8 poll by Morning Consult, compared to 82% with an unfavorable view of the billionaire. But Republicans' perception of Musk also soured while his tenure as Trump's chief cost-cutter ended in flames. Two-thirds (67%) of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Musk compared to 28% favorable, according to a June 6-9 survey from The Economist/YouGov poll, down from 83% and 9% favorable and unfavorable marks in the December iteration of the survey. Independents' views on Musk also deteriorated, as Musk went from an even 42% favorable/unfavorable split in December to a 27% to 59% favorable/unfavorable split in June, according to the Economist/YouGov survey. Musk and Tesla are impossible to untangle – Wall Street analysts often describe the trillion-dollar company as Musk's 'child' – and the car company is off to a slow start to 2025. In the annual Axios Harris Poll 100 ranking of the U.S.' 100 most visible brands, Tesla tumbled from 63rd to 95th over the last year, and just 32% of Americans view the company favorably, according to a June poll from Associated Press/NORC surveyAssociated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Tesla's financials show clear evidence of brand damage. The company delivered 13% less vehicles to customers over 2025's first half than it did during the same period last year, as profits shrank an estimated 29% year-over-year, according to FactSet's blended forecasts of first-quarter results and consensus analyst projections for second-quarter earnings due later this month. $280 billion. That's about how much market value Tesla lost during 2025's first half, more than six times the total valuation of Ford. Tesla stock tumbled 21% during the period. The S&P 500 gained 6% during the period, including reinvested dividends, as Tesla ranked among the 30 worst performers of the 500-stock index. Forbes Valuation Musk remains by far the wealthiest person on Earth with a $407 billion net worth as of June 30's market close, according to our latest calculations. His fortune declined by $14 billion from where it stood at the end of 2024, as the South Africa-born Musk enjoyed boosts to the value of his stakes in his privately held companies xAI, the generative artificial intelligence startup which absorbed the social media company formerly known as Twitter in March, and SpaceX, the aerospace and satellite internet giant. Crucial Quote 'We struggle to think of anything analogous in the history of the automotive industry, in which a brand has lost so much value so quickly,' J.P. Morgan analyst Ryan Brinkman wrote in a note to clients this spring. Forbes Elon Musk Has Fired One Of His Top Tesla Lieutenants By Alan Ohnsman Forbes Tesla's Newest Nightmare Is Donald Trump By Alan Ohnsman
