Nicolais: If the DOJ review of Tina Peters’ trial “wins,” America loses

The choice by the U.S. Department of Justice to “review” Tina Peters’ prosecution demonstrates that the bulwarks protecting the rule of law in America have been breached. If you are not terrified, you must not understand the entire picture.

The Peters review is not a singular event, but one in a pattern during President Donald Trump’s second administration and reign of terror. He promised to be a dictator on “day one” — but as anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows, dictators and autocrats never voluntarily relinquish power, much less after the first day.

But Trump did telegraph his intentions toward the justice system on day one.

Trump signed pardons for more than 1,500 people who engaged in the January 6th insurrection on his first day back in office. These are people who were convicted of assaulting police officers and violently attacking the U.S. Capitol. The criminal histories of these individuals included rape and domestic violence. Within days of the pardons, one of those pardoned had been arrested for child sex charges against a prepubescent girl and another under the age of 12. Another had been shot and killed after resisting police during a traffic stop.

And those are just the everyday awful crimes committed by the people Trump chose to protect.

Enrique Tarrio, leader of the far-right hate group “Proud Boys,” had been sentenced to 22 years in jail for planning and organizing the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump had him released and Tarrio was promptly arrested again for assaulting a protester. He then chased and harassed police officers who defended the Capitol against his attack through a hotel, hurling insults at them.

Trump’s actions have made Tarrio and his followers feel invincible, unaccountable for their violent actions and prepared to act as a private army for Trump and his agenda.

But even a group as emboldened as the Proud Boys could never pose as much danger as the sycophants Trump has installed in the country’s top law enforcement agencies and legal departments. They do their damage with the imprimatur of official action.

Whether it is Kash Patel leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation or Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General, Trump has put the levers of government into hands of people beholden to him rather than the American people. That has trickled down to their lieutenants across the country.

For example, U.S. Attorney Ed Martin is the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He threatened Georgetown Law School, one of the country’s most prestigious legal institutions, if they refused to change their policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Martin threatened the private Jesuit and Catholic school with retaliatory actions including refusing to hire any of their students. Georgetown Dean William Treanor refused to budge and noted that the threat constituted a direct assault on the First Amendment and a private organization’s right to dictate its own policies.

Against that backdrop, multiple legal challenges to the Trump agenda have been working their way through courts across the country. Any judges ruling against them — and there have been many — have been subject to immediate discussion of retribution.

In reaction to a judge’s decision against a Trump executive order, Elon Musk, both the world’s wealthiest man and Trump’s cohort in the assault against the judicial system, proclaimed on his social media platform that “This evil judge must be fired! The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges.”

That sparked an immediate response by the American Bar Association: “There have now been statements by officials criticizing judges for not following the will of the people. Judges swear oaths to follow the law, not public opinion polling or political chatter or what someone contends is the will of the people.”

Yet in the battle between the Trump-Musk agenda and nearly 250 years of checks and balances, it appears the former is winning. Case in point? Even Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by Trump and rushed through the Senate by Sen. Mitch McConnell to the applause of Trump’s base, has been subject to attack by MAGA for putting the law ahead of their priorities. Barrett has been targeted as a “DEI hire” by the same MAGA movement that once cheered her loudly.

Which brings us back to Peters.

In 2023 when Peters initially pursued a federal blockade to her prosecution, I wrote that she was engaged in “brazen gaslighting embraced by far-right extremists.” Last year I live tweeted her trial and subsequent sentencing. And I wrote about how well the judge in her trial acquitted himself, including regularly allowing Peters more leeway than most defendants usually get during a criminal trial.  

The DOJ review would turn that process, and the jury decision, on its head. And it would do so for no reason other than to reward Peters for her blind loyalty to Trump. Because he cannot directly pardon her for crimes, his agents have engaged in the next best thing.

The stakes are the rule of law and our system of government. If they are successful, our country will have failed.

Mario Nicolais is an attorney and columnist who writes on law enforcement, the legal system, health care and public policy. Follow him on Bluesky: @MarioNicolais.bsky.social.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.