GRAND JUNCTION • As justice came knocking at Tina Peters’ sentencing, the tension in the room was so thick, you could cut it with a knife. Two sides starkly opposed yet watching the proceedings with utmost intensity as the former Mesa County clerk was held accountable for her role in orchestrating a 2021 election security breach to prove a stolen election.

“You are no hero,” Judge Matthew Barrett declared. “You’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

He sentenced Peters to nine years for seven convictions, including four felonies for attempting to influence public servants and conspiracy to commit impersonation. After six months in county jail, Peters will serve the remainder in prison. She owes thousands of dollars in fines and was swiftly taken into custody.

“I’m convinced you’d do it again if you could,” Barrett added. “Prison is the only place that duly meets the purposes of sentencing in this matter.”

During her 40-minute testimony, Peters clashed with Barrett — launching into false claims of ballot manipulation that Barret wasn’t buying.

“I’ve let you go on enough about this. But the votes are the votes,” he said. When he acknowledged reading her voting machine reports, Peters jumped to conclusions. “So, you know what I’m saying is true.”

Barrett, audibly exasperated, retorted: “You’re saying that as if I believe you. I did not say that.” Peters apologized. “It gets a little fiery when your life is on the line.”

Rule No. 1 of sentencing: Don’t argue with the judge deciding your fate.

“This case is about deceit to do what she wanted to do,” 21st District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, a Republican like Peters, told me after the hearing. The case had nothing to do with elections and voting machines, he stressed. “We were very deliberate in the way we charged the case to make sure (it wouldn’t) turn into a sideshow about election security.”

Yet, Peters did just that — flaunting her criminal convictions on podcasts and social media and showing defiance at sentencing by justifying her actions and laughing at times.

“I don’t like being the center of attention. I never have, but this has uprooted my life, and for that, I’m sorry,” Peters said. “I really am remorseful that it came out that way, and I ask you for leniency and probation… I did not do it, your honor, to disrespect the court or the law.”

Let’s be real: No one should be surprised Peters is doing time. Her crimes were serious; her refusal to take the case seriously only invited a harsher sentence. Disrespecting the judicial process and showing no remorse is a recipe for stiff penalties.

For Jerry Wood — whose identity Peters used, without his knowledge, to deceive public servants to sneak in a computer hacker and facilitate the breach — this is vindication.

“She did it in the name of election integrity, but she did it all wrong and actually hurt the election integrity effort,” he told me. “I’m glad justice has been served.”

“Rehabilitation is for those who are remorseful, for those who see the need for it, and she did not,” added Wood’s wife, Wendi. “She absolutely would repeat this if given the opportunity.”

Both Woods read victim impact statements, highlighting how this has disrupted their family for three years and affected their children.

Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, lamented Peters’ actions sparked “death threats and general threats” to elections workers and their families while sowing widespread distrust in elections.

“In part, I believe she did this because she simply did not understand her job,” Crane said. “Tina never even attempted to master any of these processes.” He noted Peters left CCCA’s training for new clerks early and never obtained her required Colorado Election Official certification.

Peters’ saga is a cautionary tale amid resurging, disproven claims about Colorado’s elections, including the assertion — stemming from Peters’ debunked reports — that voting machines are vulnerable to remote access via WiFi.

Recent upgrades across 52 counties to Dominion’s Version 5.17 election software have eliminated wireless components altogether, while only ten counties — Cheyenne, Elbert, Grand, Hinsdale, Jackson, Mineral, Otero, Phillips, Routt and San Juan — have yet to upgrade, according to state records. Douglas and Garfield counties use ClearBallot’s software, which is pending certification for use without WiFi components.

Although their election equipment retains wireless components, it’s disabled at the computers’ BIOS level and protected by secure passwords, badge access, security cameras, voting system testing and audits.

As Colorado bolsters voter confidence, some narratives from Peters’ camp persist. From my radio interviews in 2022, it was clear Peters understood neither the technology nor the role of the clerk. Now, she doesn’t seem to grasp the judicial system, either.

“The message I hope this sends is that we want people to raise their hand and say I think we have a problem, not to commit a bunch of crimes because you think they have a problem,” Rubinstein told me. “Mesa County showed the world that we expect our elected officials (to hold) themselves to a higher standard, follow the right laws and procedures, and do it right.”

Until now, Tina Peters has played the role of the hero-victim. Now, she’s about to find out what it’s like to portray the martyr for a lost cause.

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.