Here we go—another action-packed day, fighting for you from the Foxhole of Freedom, making sure you’ve got the right person shoulder to shoulder with you when it matters most. And today, there’s plenty to dig into.
Let’s get rolling. Three big things are driving the conversation right now.
First, psychedelics are on the fast track for potential use in treating PTSD. President Trump signed an executive order aimed at accelerating studies that could help struggling Americans and, importantly, reduce suicides across the country.
Second, despite the doom-and-gloom narrative you might hear, retail sales and the housing market are painting a very different picture. The economy appears to be stronger than some would have you believe.
And third—this is the one that deserves a spotlight—it’s a story that seems to have slipped through the cracks amid the noise: the fate of Tina Peters.
Many of you already know her story, but for those who don’t, here’s the refresher.
Tina Peters was an election clerk in Mesa County, Colorado. After the 2020 election, she became convinced that voting machines under her supervision had been compromised. According to her legal team, she believed critical evidence could be wiped out during a scheduled software update. When the county refused her request to bring in an outside technology expert, she made a decision.
Peters had taken an oath to defend the Constitution. She believed she was acting in line with that oath when she allowed someone connected to Mike Lindell to access the system. That individual copied the hard drive of a voting machine before the update took place.
The consequences were severe.
She was charged with multiple crimes and, in 2024, convicted of four felonies and three misdemeanors. The sentence? Nine years in prison.
A 70-year-old grandmother. A Gold Star mom. A first-time, nonviolent offender.
Nine years.
Even Colorado Governor Jared Polis acknowledged the sentence raised serious questions.
Polis also pointed out the inconsistency publicly. In March, he noted that a former state senator convicted of the same felony charge received probation and community service, while Peters received nearly a decade behind bars.
Still, not everyone in his party agrees.
At least 66 Democrats signed a letter urging Polis not to grant clemency.
Why the resistance? Why the intensity?
Part of the answer may lie in the attention the case has received—especially after Donald Trump weighed in on the situation.
Following that, Polis extended the deadline for clemency applications to April 3rd. The deadline has now passed, and the decision is still pending.
But here’s where things take a turn.
A court of appeals recently ruled that Peters’ sentence was fundamentally flawed—and threw it out.
The reason? The trial judge, Bruce Barrett, didn’t just sentence Peters based on her convictions. He also punished her for statements she made after the trial. The appeals court found that this violated her First Amendment rights. Whether her statements were popular or not wasn’t the issue—the Constitution protects speech, even when it’s controversial.
And Judge Barrett made no effort to hide his personal feelings during sentencing.
The appeals court took issue with that tone and approach. Still, despite calling the sentence improper, the court has directed Peters to return to the same judge for resentencing.
Her legal team is not pleased.
They argue the court missed an opportunity to fully correct what they see as a deeply flawed case. During the appeal, judges even questioned whether the jury had been given proper instructions—raising concerns that Peters may have been convicted of a felony based on what could have been a misdemeanor-level offense.
There’s video of that exchange.
From the defense’s perspective, the entire process has been compromised from the start. They allege that prosecutors misrepresented key facts to secure additional convictions.
The case has been described as a political prosecution—a warning shot.
That characterization isn’t entirely speculative. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser made it clear after the verdict that the case was meant to send a message:
“Today’s verdict is a warning to others that they will face serious consequences if they attempt to illegally tamper with our voting processes or election systems. I want to be clear—our elections are safe and fair.”
Safe and fair?
Recent reporting suggests the conversation around election security is far from settled. According to Just the News, the FBI received intelligence in 2020 alleging a Chinese effort to produce fake U.S. driver’s licenses to facilitate fraudulent mail-in ballots. The report was circulated, then abruptly recalled and ordered destroyed. It was never fully investigated or publicly disclosed at the time.
The reason? It reportedly contradicted sworn testimony from then-FBI Director Christopher Wray.
That raises uncomfortable questions—not just about elections, but about transparency and accountability at the highest levels.
And the concerns don’t stop there.
There are growing alarms about foreign influence in American media, including allegations that the Chinese Communist Party has engaged with executives at Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded broadcaster. Kari Lake has testified before Congress about these issues.
All of this is happening—these global maneuvers, these security concerns—and yet Tina Peters remains at the center of a legal firestorm.
To some, the contrast is hard to ignore.
A Gold Star mother sits behind bars, while larger questions about election integrity and foreign interference remain unresolved.
The debate isn’t over. Not by a long shot.
And with the clemency decision still hanging in the balance, the pressure is building.
Because whether you see Tina Peters as a whistleblower or a lawbreaker, one thing is clear: this case has become about more than one person.
It’s about the system—and whether it’s working the way it’s supposed to.