"Truly insane!" Attorney GOBSMACKED at Trump scheme

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have. an insane story about what Donald Trump. is trying to do as it relates to a. prison inmate right now. Can you explain. what just happened in court? Okay, so. this is truly insane. I mean, even by. Donald Trump standards. So, Tina Peters. is a former election official in. Colorado who she was a clerk who was uh. who was uh charged, indicted, charged uh. and went to trial uh jury of her peers. in a relatively conservative area. She. was convicted. She was sentenced to nine.

years in prison for her role in. compromising a vote uh a voting system. that she over uh that she uh oversaw in. a failed attempt to manufacture or find. voter fraud that didn't exist. Okay. So, she is an election denier who is in jail. in state in the state system in Colorado. convicted in the state system. Donald. Trump has decided that the Department of. Justice needs to somehow spring her from. the from the state court system. Like he.

can't issue a pardon, right, because. she's convicted under state law. But he. is telling his Department of Justice to. move heaven and earth to try to find a. way to get her out, presumably because. she's an election denier. And Donald. Trump, the thing he cares most about, look at what he did with the January 6th. defendants, uh, is is sort of. undermining anyone who is convicted of. election annihilism or crimes related to. it. So, it's wild. As you say, it's. insane because the Department of. Justice, at the same time that they are.

dismissing lawsuits to protect voters, at the same time that they are. abandoning their traditional role in. ensuring minority voting rights, they. are literally filing pleadings in. federal courts in Colorado to try to. argue that she is like being wrongfully. held in the state court jail system uh. by this by by by the system that that. convicted her in a normal state court. proceeding, right? So, we we'll get to.

the hypocrisy bit in a moment, but just. in terms of the actual, you know, practicality of what they're trying to. do, how much of an input or h how. influential could the Trump DOJ or. Donald Trump himself be? Because this. isn't the federal court system. This is. the state court system. Yeah. So, look, the there's like gradations of crazy. here. So, I'll tell you where we are in. the gradations of crazy. Um she was uh. found guilty of three felony counts of. attempt to influence a public servant. One felony count of conspiracy to commit.

criminal impersonation and then a bunch. of misdemeanors. Okay. As I mentioned, she was tried, she was convicted, she. was sentenced. When you are sentenced in. the state court system anywhere in the. country for any crime, you can file. what's called a petition for habius. corpus for a writ of habius corpus. saying essentially I am being held. unlawfully. Okay. Now, normally. petitions for rid of havius corpus are. like, you know, filed by people on death. row as like a lastm minute uh uh last.

ditch effort. They are typically denied. by conservative judges without even like. paying any. attention. People in death row or or. Republicans suffering from victimhood. complex. Those those two tiers of people. who apply to habius corpus, right? These. are the petitions that that that the. Supreme Court is saying that the. migrants who are potentially going to be. flown out of the country should be. filing, right? Like essentially, your. honor, I'm being wrongfully held. Okay. Them them them and MAGA supporters in.

the fetal position. Those are those are. like the categories right here. Yeah. So, I said this was crazy. So, she has a. habius petition pending in federal court. in Colorado. Now, these are normally. treated as as with the back of the hand. because, as you might imagine, every. every inmate in a federal in a state. court proceeding or in a state prison. files a habius petition and the district. courts get flooded with them. They. actually have separate dockets to deal. with them because they are they are so. ubiquitous. the the Department of.

Justice has filed a statement of. interest, which is like literally what. the Department of Justice normally does. if there is like a high-profile. constitutional challenge to a voting law. or like a racial gerrymandering claim. The Department of Justice says, "Hey, we're the Department of Justice and we. have an interest in this proceeding. because it invokes it involves some very. large constitutional claim or something. that the Department of Justice ought to. be able to weigh in." They have weighed. in in this habius petition to say we the.

Department of Justice have a position to. we have something to say your honor in. this like routinely filed you know never. granted kind of habius thing. They have. filed that in federal court in Colorado. So that's where it stands in sort of. tier one of the crazy. What I'm afraid. is that Donald Trump is envisioning. something more nefarious. you know, does. Pam Bondi try to, I don't know, indict. the state of Colorado jail system or. something? Like, I can't even imagine.

what it is he thinks they're going to. do. But will he like try to defund the. state of Colorado if, you know, over the. years? I mean, probably. Yeah. Right. And so that's but that's the kind of. craziness that we may ultimately get to. I I don't believe that a federal judge. is going to find that Tina um Peters's. habius petition is in order or is going. to be granted. To do so, they would have. the judge would have to find that the. state of Colorado's court system did not. afford fundamental principles of due.

process. Kind of hard to see. She had a. jury trial. She was a she was convicted. unanimously. She was sentenced by a. state judge. I mean, not the kind of. stuff that you would normally it's it's. not the goolog of El Salvador, right? like, you know, hard to argue there's no. due process in the Colorado state. system, but that's kind of where we are. Yeah. I mean, the Trump administration. would argue that it's worse because she. wears a MAGA hat, and you can't be both. a Trump supporter and in prison at the. same time. Those things are those things. must be mutually exclusive. Um, look,

the fact that the Trump administration. has intervened here is one thing, but. these judges weren't born yesterday. These judges recognize full well why. Donald Trump has a vested interest in. interfering in this particular case. they can see the broader um environment. that that Trump is operating in where. the first act that he pulled in office. was to release 1,600 uh convicted felons. because because they were on his side on. January 6th. And so does the fact that. the federal government has so little. credibility left, does that weigh in on.

these judges um consideration? because. I'm I'm sure in the past when the DOJ. intervenes in these efforts that that. that probably had had quite a bit of. weight behind it, but this isn't the. same DOJ. This is a DOJ that that is, you know, whose loyalty is only to one. man and who is actually very anti-law. and order despite what he claims. And so. and so, you know, to the broader. question, does the fact that this this. Trump administration has extinguished so. much of its goodwill has has. relinquished so much so much of its.

credibility, does that weigh into the. consideration um put forth by these. judges? I think it I think it does, and. I think it actually will reinforce the. lack of credibility they have in future. cases, right? I mean, I I I'm not an. expert in in when the last time the. Department of Justice filed a statement. of interest in a habius petition in a. state court uh involving a state court. conviction. You know, I suspect it. probably happened like in the Jim Crow. South where the federal government would.

be like the local court system is so. biased and there was no due process. But. I I mean there really is not a a a. straightfaced argument to say that uh. that Tina Peters, who was charged in a. conservative area of Colorado, although. frankly that wouldn't that shouldn't. even matter, was convicted by a jury of. her peers, was sentenced by a state. court judge. I mean, there's no there's. no plausible argument here that she did. not receive due process, which is what. the habius standard is really about, right? It's to say you have someone who,

you know, for example, was plucked off. the street, put in a van, sent into a. prison, and then threatened with the. literally what the Trump administration. is doing in other cases. Like like what. you do is you go to right, you go to. federal court to say, "Look, my my my. federal constitutional rights to do. process have been violated, right?" But. like it's just so wild that that they're. that they're that they're intervening in. this case because they want to prevent. the very thing that they're also doing. as it relates to all of these these um. the illegal deportations of these.

immigrants. They're saying we couldn't. possibly have this Trump supporter uh. engage in the court system with what we. don't think was enough due process while. you know with their right hands and then. their left hand they're saying get all. these people out because they're brown. just like we don't they without any. process without any process we couldn't. possibly do all these court these trials. there would be millions of trials we. just we have to send them to a foreign. goolog right so look I think that the. federal judge who's handling this habius. petition knows exactly what's going on. do I think it got that habius petition.

pulled out of the pile. Yeah, I do. I. mean, because the federal government. weighed in and so I'm sure the federal. judge is like, whoa, the Department of. Justice thinks this is worth reading, so. I'm going to read it. Like, I not that. they don't read everything, but you. know, like we're going to pay some. attention to it. I don't think it's. going to help Peter Peters. I mean, I. don't think that like there it's going. to get granted. I I think what this does. is probably further undermine the. credibility, right, of the of the. Department of Justice. I mean whatever. lawyer put his name on this is not going.

to be you know the most credible source. I suspect when he then he or she then. have to file in another case you know on. any topic. So I think it's it it is it. is both undermining their credibility. here. It's also I think going to. undermine their credibility uh in the. future. Right. I mean that that's the. part that I think is especially. interesting in this is every failed. effort that they make themselves a party. to diminishes their credibility more. when they have to try and use the you. know the the good name of the DOJ to. intervene in these cases in the future.

Is that correct? It is. I mean, what I'm. really worried about is that that Pam. Bondi, you know, who is, you know, is. the attorney general, so whether she is. a good lawyer or not, um, uh, presumably. she has access to some lawyers who know. something about the habius standard. I. mean, presumably they have been briefed. that this is not going to work. So what. I'm worried is that like I said they are. going to try some hairbrain scheme to. target you know the prosecutors or the. jury or the court the judge or you know.

I mean you know these are not people who. act rationally and these are not people. above taking some trying I mean look. they they they they arrested a state. court judge in in Wisconsin. I'm not. saying they're going to do that here, but I do worry that they maybe have some. other, you know, more nefarious plan up. their sleeves. Mark, I have to ask the. the Trump administration pretends that. voter integrity is some uh sacrian. principle that they adhere to. And yet. we are seeing more and more that the.

people who have violated this principle. happen to be either Trump supporters, Trump officials, or just Republicans. more broadly. And so what do you make of. the fact that, you know, this is. supposed to be their thing that they're. they're here to protect voter integrity. and yet you have somebody who was. prosecuted for voter fraud and that's. the person they're trying to get out. Yeah. So look, this is the thing like in. a normal world, um, Tina Peters would be. exactly the kind of person that a law. and order party would be say throw the.

book at, right? Yeah. I mean, here is. someone who was entrusted with, you. know, a position of trust to be involved. in helping run elections. This is. someone who breached that trust and and. tried to uh, you know, essentially uh. tried to tamper with and otherwise um, you know, violate uh, Colorado law. And. it is someone who was prosecuted and. convicted. And so by the time Donald. Trump gets into this equation, you know,

by the time he's president and and and. he is uh he's posting on social media, those facts have already been. established. Like that is she has been. convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a. jury of of having committed felonies in. Colorado. And so a party that was. genuinely concerned with law and order, the integrity of elections, you know, would would distance from her. Instead, what we have found is that all Donald. Trump cares is whose side you're on. And. if you're a criminal on his side, he's. on your side. If you are innocent on the.

other side, he is against you. If you're. a hero on the other side, he's against. you. If you are a villain on his side, he is in favor of you. And that it's. just it's just that simple. There is no. there's no there's no um uh principle. here. There's no neutral principle that. he believes in. And one of the things. that drives me crazy about the legacy. media is how much they try to find those. neutral principles. I mean, you know, I. I see it every day. You see it every day. just reading the newspaper. They are. like trying to divine his theories.

behind what he posts on social media. They are trying to figure out what the. grand scheme is that he has about which. businesses he's favoring. You know, I I. read just recently, you know, they're. trying to figure out why he is pro-. crypto. Now, I'm sorry. Why is he pro. crypto? He's pro crypto because people. are using it to put money in his pocket. It's not any more complicated than that. And I so I read the legacy media. sometimes and I think you guys don't get. there's nothing more complicated. Tina. Peters he thinks is on his side. Mark.

Elias he thinks is on someone else's. side. Therefore Tina Peters is is a hero. and Mark Elias is a thug I think he. called me. Well, look, Mark, I think. your diagnosis of what the legacy media. is doing is is absolutely spoton, and it. also underscores uh the work that you've. been doing on YouTube. You now have a. YouTube channel, Democracy Docket. Highly recommend for everybody watching. right now, please help grow the left of. center progressive media ecosystem. Please subscribe to Mark's YouTube. channel, Democracy Docket. I'll put the. link right here on the screen and also. in the post description of this video.

So go ahead, hit the subscribe button. and watch a few videos and make sure. that you get it into your algorithm so. that more people beyond just you can see. it. I'm Brian Teller Cohen. I'm Mark. Elias. This is Democracy Watch. [Music].