• Former Mesa County, Colorado, clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison for crimes related to a breach of her county’s voting system.
  • Peters espoused the false conspiracy theory that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to President Joe Biden due to ballot fraud.
  • She was accused of allowing access to the voting system to an expert affiliated with My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, a leading proponent of the Trump election conspiracy theory.

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-59 points

Allowed access to the voting system as in to investigate or as in to tamper? One is hopefully unnecessary but harmless and one is obviously worthy of prison time, in my opinion.

permalink
report
reply
54 points
*

It is a shame that the article doesn’t have those details.

Oh wait, it does!

Peters, 68, was convicted by a trial jury in August of seven criminal counts, including attempt to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, violation of duty, and failure to comply with secretary of state requirements.

She was accused of using another person’s security badge to allow someone else to gain access to her county’s election system.

The person who used that badge was affiliated with Mike Lindell, the CEO of My Pillow and a leading proponent of the claim that Trump’s defeat for a second term was due to ballot fraud.

There is no reason for this kind of access except to tamper, because the system is formally audited by people who don’t have to sneak in through illegal access.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

Thanks for summing it up for me and no thanks for the hostility! Reminds me of Reddit, so I feel right at home.

Yep, she should be in prison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

I’m sick of people trying to pretend like the people trying to interfere with elections would have some kind of non-malicious intent.

Also I was being snarky, not hostile. Words mean things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

From what I gathered in the article, she wasn’t allowed access. She stole someone else’s access card to get in. So, worthy of prison time absolutely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Yeah I’m very much against that but not nearly as against the idea of transparency in voting.

The obvious drawback being it could affect the anonymity of voting, which is an essential cornerstone to healthy democracies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What the fuck are you talking about with this irrelevant bullshit?

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

She was not authorised to allow access, whatever the reason. You don’t get to break the law just because you think you have a reason.

Regardless, it was to tamper (or to find a way to tamper, more specifically).

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I’m not on board with the Law = Morality argument and I doubt you are.

Gandhi? Rosa Parks? MLK? Would you tell them they shouldn’t have broken the law just because they think they have a reason?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Get a grip. It’s absolutely crazy to compare Tina Peters to MLK Jr., Rosa Parks, or Gandhi. These people fought against deep systemic injustice, risking their lives for civil rights and freedom. Peters’ actions, spreading lies tied to election denial and abuse of power, don’t come close to that level of sacrifice or historical importance. Trying to equate the two is a huge stretch and undermines the legacy of true leaders who changed the world for the better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Your use of the word “you’re” is bad and you should feel bad.

Edit: We all know what your edit was. Own it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points

You don’t think she deserves prison? Why?

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 463K

    Comments