The troubled Colorado Republican Party announced February 20th that Steve Bannon, a convicted felon who also pled guilty to fraud charges in New York state, was going to give the keynote speech at the party’s annual Centennial Fundraising Dinner, was set to be held at Denver Tech Center (DTC):
Initial announcement of the Colorado GOP’s Centennial Dinner
On February 21 though, Bannon threw a Nazi salute at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and all hell broke loose. Coloradans organized a public campaign aimed at shaming the DTC Marriott out of hosting the event:
Campaign in Denver promoted on Reddit to urge the Marriott at DTC not to host the GOP event
That campaign worked. Soon the Colorado Republican Party changed the event venue to the Antlers Hotel in Colorado Springs, but kept the venue under wraps, only saying in its revised invitation that the event location was “in Colorado Springs:”
But on March 14, the CO GOP announced the new location would be in Colorado Springs at the Antlers Hotel, and the campaign to push the event out ramped up again as Coloradans started pressuring the Antlers Hotel not to host it:
Denver Redditors switched online campaign instructions to pressuring the Antlers Hotel in Colorado Springs not to host Bannon and the GOP fundraising dinner
At one point, opponents of fascism created fliers portraying the event as a “white supremacy dinner.”
That campaign worked as well.
The Antlers Hotel management cancelled the event as a result of the political pushback. (video)
The GOP ended up holding their fundraising event at the old Boot Barn, which had been turned into a music venue that seats about 300 and is now known as the Phil Long Music Hall. There was a loud protest outside that venue while it was going on. See a video of the protest in this short.
Grand Junction resident and former candidate for District 55 House Rep. Cindy Ficklin poses with Steve Bannon at the CO state GOP’s annual fundraising dinner at the old Boot Barn in CO Springs.
These professional organizers are really on a roll. All they have to do is call someone a racist fascist and a bunch of virtue signaling white people show up with signs…this time for six hours and they didn’t get a red cent…while groups like Indivisible are making millions.
The image of an organ grinder and trained monkeys comes to mind.
Anne forgot to mention that Tina Peters called in to the event. She’s a racist fascist, too.
Remarkable! All these professional organizers have to do is call someone a fascist, racist and a bunch of virtue signaling white people show up with silly signs. They were there for six hours and didn’t get a red cent while Indivisible is making millions.
Something about an organ grinder with a trained monkey comes to mind.
Anne forgot the best part…Tina Peters called in to the event. She’s a racist, fascist, too.
Well, she broke the law and tried to frame an innocent man, just to support a racist and fascist, so…
Yeah, pretty much.
Who paid for the $4/minute call from jail? Mr. Pillow? Hopefully she wore something orange and sexy for him.
Tina looks great in orange, thankfully. I don’t know if it was a video call.
From what I’ve read there has been a falling out between Mike and Tina.
I’ve also detected a rift between Bishop and Peters…something about paying her legal team. It’s hard to get any substantive, unbiased news about Peters but one thing is sure is that the US Justice Department is investigating her trial, conviction and sentence. If there is any justice in the world, the transcript of Barrett’s diatribe during the sentencing phase will show him to be a partisan hack who based the punishment on his “feelings” about Peters speech…not to mention that a nine year sentence was ridiculous.
So it doesn’t matter that she could offer no evidence to prove her innocence? All she did was try to justify her actions, which was irrelevant to the trial. She did the crime, and she got less of a sentence than she could have. If the judge was really out to get her she would have gotten a lot more than nine years.
Yes it does matter that she wasn’t able to present any evidence. That’s the point and somehow that was all decided pre-trial…so that practically every objection by the prosecution was sustained.
Interestingly in January 2024, one of Barrett’s
trials was thrown out because of some pretrial shenanigans he pulled.
The idea of “mens rea” should be a pivotal part of any trial, but Rubenstein, Shapiro and Barrett decided beforehand that she couldn’t present it.
And again Barrett justified her sentence because he considered her speech dangerous. He’s unhinged.
You’re wasting your time. Harry has given up everything for Trump, and others who serve him.
Logic, reason, honesty, simple human decency…all sacrificed to Trump.
PS. now that I think of it Peter’s state of mind was presented…but only by the prosecution. They and Barrett intimated that
everything she did was attention seeking and her deep desire to fly on Mike Lindell’s private plane.
I’d wonder how the hell they got away with that, but since Barrett was the judge, it’s clear.
No, harry, you misunderstood. She wasn’t able to present evidence of her innocence because there was none. She didn’t even try. She tried to justify her actions, not deny she did them. She had every opportunity to present evidence that she did not do the crimes she was accused of. She declined to do so, instead trying over and over to present evidence that her committing those crimes was justified because of the conspiracy. That’s not what the trial was about.
Her, her lawyers and your own inability to understand this simple point is not anyone’s problem but your (and their) own.
Based on the crimes she was convicted of, Tina was eligible for up to 20+ years, so she was lucky to get 9 years.
She has a perfect record, so the sentence was ridiculous.
Barrett was grandstanding for his democrat buddies.
Did you know that the charge that Peter’s was illegally recording in the courtroom was dropped because Barrett had failed to notify the public of his wishes?
Such a careless man.
Badhat, just because you disagree with it or don’t like it doesn’t mean justice wasn’t served. This is something my parents had to teach me on multiple occasions when I was a kid. You’re not a lawyer. You’re not a judge. And you weren’t at the trial. What you don’t know could almost fill the Grand canyon. Judges are always permitted to provide rationale after sentencing, and there are guidelines for both sentencing and his opinion supporting it. Sure, they’ll investigated, but nothing will come of it because nothing was violated. Tina is lucky she only got nine years, and we both know damn well if she was black and had broken in and stolen copies of those hard drives she would have been in jail for the rest of her life.Your legal frame of reference is Fox news, but again, thanks for offering us your unsolicited opinion. I find your contrarianism on this blog amusing on occasion, and I enjoy your pathetic attempts at owning the libs, but at this point you’re so ignorant and wrong it’s not worth reading your opinion. You have mere assertions with no evidence. Feel free to continue exercising your first amendment right, but at this point, you’re getting embarrassing.
Everyone seems to be worried that I’m embarrassing. I’m not worried at all (obviously).
Unlike so many who frequent this blog, I think for myself. I listened to Peter’s entire trial (did you?) And I had/have valid reactions to it, whether or not I am a lawyer.
I am not at all interested in having my opinions fed to me and even concerning matters of law, there are usually various opinions on certian things, unless all you consume is liberal media.
Lots of people who respond say I have no proof…Yet, I usually offer more basis for what I say than anyone here, including you.
PS. as far as what you see as trying to “own the libs”…In case you haven’t noticed, Anne’s entire “raison etre” is to vilify and slime the right, so this is the perfect place for me to express my opinions.
And just one more thing. A judge cannot cite reasons/issues that were not decided during the trial as basis for sentencing. Tina’s “dangerous speech” was not what she was convicted of.
You should recognize this. But, maybe your parents never told you.
Scott,
Peters was under no obligation to prove her innocence.
Lawschool 101.
She wasn’t even given to opportunity to make excuses. She felt she was doing her duty as a the county clerk. There was at least one person on the jury who didn’t know she was obligated to keep election records for 2(?) years. Griswold ordered that the records from the machines be essentially wiped.
I wonder how much of the trial you actually listened to or if you just go by what Anne and the Sentinel says.
I’m not saying Peters was a saint or even a hero Letting some guy into the room was a crime, but in the end, nothing was damaged…just like when Griswold’s office published election machine passwords for months prior to our most recent election. Peters had no part in what
Code Monkey published, just as Griswold says it was an aid who spilled the beans.
Tina Peters got duped by some people who convinced her she was part of an important cause. I guess that’s a crime, but not a nine year sentence crime.
And Barrett’s comments at the end show that he was catastrophically biased.
Barrett’s comments were totally reasonable in light of Peters’ belligerence and blatant refusal to follow the rules of the court; like Trump and all of his followers, she doesn’t believe the law applies to her.
She knew what she was doing was against the law, that’s why she tried to implicate Gerald Wood, an innocent man who had his name, his business and his reputation trashed, all for the sake of Trump.
And you think that’s all no big deal.
Billionaires (and their kids) have lost their lives trying to sink as low as you do, so very easily.
You’re absolutely correct, she didn’t have to prove her innocence. And she didn’t. She didn’t even try. Yet you keep harping on how she wasn’t given the chance to. She never denied doing it. She just tried, over and over, to convince the judge and the jury that she was justified in doing it.
That is not what the trial was about.
The trial was about whether she did it. And the jury determined, based on the evidence, that she did it. And nine yewars was a lighter sentence than she could have gotten.
Your opinion about Barrett’s comments are just that – your opinion. He spent the entire trial keeping her defense team from going off on tangents that were not related to the facts at hand.
She did the crime. She was convicted of the crime. She got what she deserved, whether you agree or not.
To Scott:
Pretty much everything I post here is my opinion, and I’ve
never said otherwise… so?
To Seamus:
Gerald Wood was in on the scheme, as was shown in court on several text exchanges with the always charming Sherronna Bishop. He congratulated everyone for a job well done. I’m not surprised you missed a fact that goes against your narrative.
His sob story is self serving and I guess he got away with it.
This was a low level Keystone Cop operation that got blown way out of proportion for nakedly political reasons. Griswold’s demands that Mesa County replace the machines were unlawful, but the commissioners were gutless and went along to avoid public scorn. When Cody Davis railed against Peters in his impact statement, it made me realize what a self serving snake he is. What a bunch of clowns that run this place!
Peters should have been given a “time served” sentence or, at most, a year.
Hopefully the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice will act quickly.
Yes, everyone conspired to frame Tina.
Seriously, it’s just pathetic.
“Mens rea”? More like diarrhea, badhat–of the vocal chords. Christ do you have some time in your hands!
One can hardly blame the first two venues; can you imagine how much it would cost to scrub the slime left in the building after that many Republicans have defiled it?
At least the old Boot Barn is used to hosing out the joint.