100percentfedup.com
BREAKING: Tina Peters Assaulted In Prison — Now Framed As The Aggressor?
Tina Peters has been reportedly assaulted in prison…
And to add insult to injury, it’s now being spun as though she were the aggressor.
Unreal.
Watch here and scroll down to read the full video transcript if you can’t have your sound up:
This is bullshit!
Tina Peters deemed the aggressor in an assault that took place against her and now faces Felony Assault Charges
Tina was inside a maintenance closet to fill up a water unit when an inmate approached her in the closet and began striking her in anger.
Tina… https://t.co/typJUsJfkZ pic.twitter.com/Gd7wg5HPl3
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) January 20, 2026
TRANSCRIPT:
Speaker 1: Play it. Sure. So here, you can see Tina is performing, essentially, porter duty, and she’s bringing this, it’s a unit, a cooling unit, over to this maintenance closet so that she can fill it up, because there’s a water reservoir.
So you’ll see her open the door to this closet and bring the unit in there. When she opens the door, she is pulling the unit in to make sure it’s clearing the door. So in a few seconds, you will see the inmate walk up to the door.
Tina’s head is between that unit and the door closest to the camera. Right here, the unit approaches and starts saying, “You’re disrespecting me.” And right before she comes out, you can very clearly see that the inmate lunges in.
She is pushing off of her back foot and striking at Tina. So Tina tried to calm the situation down. She pushed her out. Her left arm was restraining the inmate’s right hand that she was striking her with, and the other arm was pushing her back.
Once she calmed down, Tina disengaged and walked away. So they’re trying to say that this was an assault, and that Tina was clearly the aggressor. But truly, it’s just an unfortunate camera angle, and the news is going to do exactly what they always do.
They’re going to try to paint Tina as the aggressor and discredit her, especially on the heels of the very damning, in many ways, appellate hearing that just happened regarding her prosecution.
Speaker 2: Okay. Um, let’s so tell me about the appellate hearing about the prosecution. This is where Polis has talked about some sort of clemency, because of the over-the-top nature of the charges and what her sentence was.
Now you’re at an appellate court. Take a second to walk through that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, Polis said that the sentencing was extreme. Anyone with a pulse and IQ over 50 could tell you that, given what happened in the case. But very serious issues were raised by the appellate judges.
In their own words, they described very clearly the jury being misinstructed, charges being read to the jury and presented in court as misdemeanors but charged as felonies. The Colorado attorney tried to defend the idea that you could be tried on one charge and convicted on another if the charges fit.
There were First Amendment issues and Tina’s inability to speak to her intent, which is important because it is not only part of the felony charge and part of the language, but also because it was included in sentencing that Judge Barrett used to sentence her.
It was used concurrently to this massive sentence. So there were multiple issues raised in that appellate hearing that should constitute a mistrial.
RELATED REPORTS:
BREAKING: Colorado Appears Ready To Fold, Grant Tina Peters Clemency
MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH For Tina Peters As Appellate Court SHREDS Prosecutor
The Tina Peters case has come before an Appellate Court and let's just say the judges do NOT look amused at the gross errors seemingly committed by the State Prosecutors.
In essence, the State somehow charged Tina Peters with a misdemeanor, used misdemeanor jury instructions, and then somehow later on shifted that into a felony and sentenced her to the maximum under the felony.
You don't need to Antonin Scalia to see the problem here!
"GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE" does not even begin to summarize what happened here.
And while the Appellate Court seemed extremely baffled and annoyed with the State's position, I am also wondering what culpability the Trial Court Judge has in this miscarriage of justice.
How did that judge allow this to happen?
Was all of this just one big accident or was it malicious?
The Appellate Judges even say at one point in the questioning: "You know you don't have to take this position" -- pointing out how absurd it is, and basically saying "stop digging the hole" -- to which the State Prosecutor smiles in defeat, almost admitting that she does have to take this position by whoever she is taking orders from.
Also, how old is this State Prosecutor? She looks like she's 13! And she looks woefully unprepared for any of these questions!
Watch here:
TRANSCRIPT:
Appellate Judge: Do you— is it your position that a person can still be convicted of a crime with which they were never charged, and with which the jury was never instructed, as long as the evidence is sufficient?
State Prosecutor: Yes. I think that that is what the case law indicates, that if the— it's just and in this case, I'll just point out too, that, you know, I don't have the language of the hypothetical, you know, the statutes that you're citing in your hypothetical, but it was one word, "might," and it was already—
Appellate Judge: Yeah, but that one word distinguishes it from a felony to a misdemeanor. And this case made an extra sentence, 15 more months in the Department of Corrections, that couldn't have been given had it been a misdemeanor conviction.
It clearly affects a substantial right. And I'll just say, I'm confused as to why the people are continuing to maintain that the proper remedy on this isn't to enter the conviction for the misdemeanor, because the indictment used the word might, and the jury was instructed on that, so that's what the verdict is.
I am baffled as to the position that's being taken, that we can somehow overlook that and still enter the felony, because the evidence that was presented at trial would have supported the felony. Are you still maintaining that position in front of us here today?
State Prosecutor: Yes, that is our position, but—
Appellate Judge: What case law supports that argument?
State Prosecutor: I'm sorry?
Appellate Judge: What case law supports that argument?
State Prosecutor: Um, I cited it in my brief. I don't have it right in front of me, but the case— it's usually the omitted elements case law, right?
Appellate Judge: Yes, correct. But that's just where the element was omitted, and the element that was omitted wasn't in dispute. Here, the jury was affirmatively misinstructed.
It was instructed on the misdemeanor, and it found her guilty of that misdemeanor beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't the omission of an element. This is a misinstructed jury.
How can we correct that by saying, "No, we'll just assume that because she could have also been convicted of the felony, we enter that even though we don't have a jury verdict."
State Prosecutor: That is— I understand it's a difficult position for the people to be in. But—
Appellate Judge: It's not a position you have to take.
State Prosecutor: Thank you. But I do believe that the omitted element language applies, because it— to me, I understand, you know, I can hear from the way you're talking about it that it seems more egregious to add this extra word than it is to omit an element.
But to me, omitting an element is a pretty big deal. And the fact that that can be non-reversible—
Appellate Judge: Except in those cases, at least the person was originally charged with the elemental language. Here, never on the table.
State Prosecutor: That is true, but if I can just add— and again, it seems that I will not be able to convince you, but I just want to put my argument out there, which is that there was no— there wasn't a confusion from the parties about what they were talking about.
Because the correct statutory citation was used, so they were on notice of that statutory citation. The language was incorrect, but the statutory citation was correct, and they—
Appellate Judge: Couldn't that also mean that the prosecution was on notice that since the language was correct, they'd only charged that language and not—
State Prosecutor: Well—
Appellate Judge: I mean, both of them were on notice of something wrong.
State Prosecutor: Oh, yes. I guess what I'm saying, Your Honor, is just that there wasn't a notice problem, because there was the statutory citation. And the parties treated it as though— I think it was an oversight.
I think everybody believed that they had charged and used the language for the felony. That's what the record bears out, in my estimation.
Great summary here:
pic.twitter.com/hkbj3VsTvyUPDATE: Tina Peters — Insane!
Appellate Judges Grill Prosecutors Over "Baffling" Error: Tina Peters Convicted on Felony Charges despite using Misdemeanor Jury Instruction Language
- A judge asks point-blank if it's acceptable to convict someone of a…
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) January 15, 2026
UPDATE: Tina Peters — Insane!
Appellate Judges Grill Prosecutors Over "Baffling" Error: Tina Peters Convicted on Felony Charges despite using Misdemeanor Jury Instruction Language
- A judge asks point-blank if it's acceptable to convict someone of a crime they weren't charged with or instructed on, as long as evidence supports it; the prosecutor affirms "yes," leading to visible judicial confusion and pushback, with one judge stating, "I'm baffled at the position that's being taken."
- The jury was instructed using "might" (misdemeanor language implying potential liability) instead of the felony requirement of actual liability, resulting in an extra 15 months in prison; judges emphasize this isn't a mere omission but an affirmative misinstruction, questioning why the remedy isn't simply entering a misdemeanor verdict.
This egregious error represents prosecutorial misconduct or a fundamental due process violation, and is potentially grounds for overturning the conviction entirely or declaring a mistrial.
RELATED REPORT:
BREAKING: Colorado Appears Ready To Fold, Grant Tina Peters Clemency
I just brought you this report, explaining how the strike in Venezuela just changed everything -- literally -- on the world stage.
Russia and China and all the nations trying to partner with them were all caught completely flat-footed.
The speed and precision President Trump is moving at is dizzying and no one can keep up. More importantly, no one can predict what he will do next.
And he might do ANYTHING next, as he has quite clearly just shown the world:
Incredible New Details Emerge About “Next Gen Weapons” Used By USMIL In Venezuelan Operation
He gave Maduro many warnings before snatching him out of his bed in the thick of night, but when he moved it was swift and over in less than 3 hours.
A sovereign nation a hemisphere away with Maduro bunkered up in a fortress protected by his Royal Guard because they knew a strike was eventually coming soon, and they were powerless to stop it.
Now in the wake of that move, everyone else who President Trump continues to warn is realizing these are not blanket threats and if they don't want to be "Maduro-ed" next, they had better change their course ASAP.
Even Colombian dictator Gustavo Petro has seemingly bent the knee and is coming to met with President Trump soon in Washington, DC:
President Trump Confirms Future Meeting With Gustavo Petro, Here’s When
In light of all of that, what is another group of people President Trump keeps warning?
The Blue State Governors who refuse to stop the killings in their cities, who refuse to stop the billions upon billions of fraud, and who are actively at war with the Federal Government and ICE agents.
President Trump keeps telling them he will soon invoke the Insurrection Act and clean up the whole mess.
You think swooping in and cleaning up fatass JB Pritzker is going to hard in light of what we did to Venezuela? Walk in the park!
How about gay (literally) Jared Polis? You think he's going to put up any resistance when the USMIL Delta Force knocks on his door?
Folks, the jig is up and even these Blue State Democrat Governors look like they might be finally folding.
Because a defiant Jared Polis, the (gay) Governor of Colorado, who has repeatedly been defiant about never releasing Tina Peters from prison is suddenly changing his tune:
?Colorado Governor Jared Polis is considering clemency for Gold Star Mother Tina Peters#FREETINAPETERS
In a recent interview with CBS Colorado (aired January 8-9, 2026), Polis described Peters' nine-year prison sentence as "harsh" and indicated that his office is reviewing… https://t.co/a0k1Nl0Ur8 pic.twitter.com/ogJS0wpi7D
— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) January 10, 2026
CBS News confirms the reports are true after speaking to Polis:
Gov. Jared Polis says he has an ambitious agenda for his final year in office.
He's been full throttle since he was elected governor seven years ago, leading the state through COVID-19, two school shootings, and four of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado history.
"It's hard to sprint. You sprint for 8 years, and that's always the way we've approached it. Our team -- we say we're running through the tape. We're running through the tape here," he said.
As he nears the finish line, he is not only focused on the state budget and issues like affordable housing, but also which state prisoners should receive clemency. Among those who have asked the governor for a reduced sentence is former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted of several felonies in connection with a 2020 election fraud scheme.
"She got a sentence that was harsh. It was a 9 year sentence. So we always look at people's sentences. And when you have people that are elderly, and we're looking at this across a number of many people -- people in their 70s or 80s in our system -- how much of a threat to society are they and how do we balance that in a way that makes sure they can spend their last year few years at home."
President Trump asked the governor to transfer Peters to federal authorities last year so he could pardon her, but Polis refused and Trump pardoned her anyway, but because she was charged in state court she remains imprisoned. Trump has since blocked funding to Colorado for needy families, disaster relief and clean water.
Of course Tina Peters was NEVER a threat to society, so even now he is being disingenuous -- but it's a move in the right direction.
Tina Peters is an American hero who should receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom and go down in the history books as a true hero and not sleeping on the floor in some dirty prison.
FREE TINA NOW!
What’s your take?