Last week, Tina Peters filed a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin (to stop) everyone from seeking to hold her accountable for her efforts to surreptitiously copy Mesa County election data and distribute it outside of Colorado to so-called “experts” for the purposes of trying to prove the 2020 election – at least in Mesa County – was stolen. The lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, and Secretary of State Jena Griswold claims retaliation, but smacks of desperation. It is premised on a dubious legal theory and is ethically questionable.

Peters’s lawsuit was drafted and filed by a team of attorneys that includes one Colorado attorney and a Virginia law firm whose previous legal work includes a lawsuit against the Georgia secretary of state to prevent him from certifying the 2020 election. Eight days after they filed their suit, the federal court in Georgia dismissed it. Expect the same outcome here (it may be dismissed by the time this goes to print).

Peters’s claims are wild and gratuitous. She alleges the three named government officials engaged in “retaliatory” conduct in investigating and prosecuting Peters for the “singular goal of achieving political power and maintaining it.” Keep in mind Griswold was not on the ballot in 2020 and Rubinstein – who was on the ballot – is a fellow Republican to Peters.

Peters admits in her complaint she gave the secretly made election data to three different people for analysis. Peters’s assertion is there is no law that prevented her from doing so, thus it was A-OK. The natural conclusion to Peters’s argument is she could have made as many copies as she wanted and distributed them to anyone she chose for any purpose… because nobody said she could not.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Peters spends 43 pages arguing issues and defenses either irrelevant to the charges against her, or more appropriate for the 21st Judicial District court in which her second criminal trial will commence in February.

Unsurprisingly, Peters uses her pleading to continue the narrative the 2020 election was stolen, although she never uses those specific words. Peters’s three hand-picked experts allegedly reviewed the data she secretly gave them and concluded there was “an unusual phenomenon” in the 2020 general election and 2021 municipal elections in Mesa County. This, Peters claims, “calls into question the integrity of the vote and the validity of the election results.” Such a conclusion has been disputed repeatedly and persuasively by experts who have actually managed elections previously.

The issue is irrelevant to the charges against Peters. The court hearing her criminal case has already ruled the “choice of evils” defense – that the bad she did was outweighed and justified by the bad she was trying to prevent – is inapplicable. In this context, the suggestion “I had a suspicion something bad was happening, so I violated the law to reveal it,” is offensive to the notion of the rule of law.

Peters alleges “the investigation… was undertaken to punish and retaliate against her” for exercising her First Amendment rights in seizing and publishing Mesa County election data. I am aware of no protection under the First Amendment for violating state and federal law for Peters’s conduct. Likewise, Peters alleges Griswold’s violations of state and federal law have gone uninvestigated and unprosecuted, and it should be permissible for Peters to provide evidence to the jury Griswold’s claimed criminal conduct necessitated or justified her own.

Within those dozens of pages, Peters accuses DA Rubinstein and the others of bad faith, maliciousness, and malfeasance – to include “unbridled viciousness” and false swearing on an affidavit. She continues to push the stolen-election narrative, stating “Biden assumed power,” rather than he was elected. Peters uses the stolen-election narrative as a justification for her bizarre conduct – which she claims is 100% legal. However, there is one topic Peters glaringly omits from her legal tome of grievances.

Peters never addresses her efforts to appropriate a false ID card for her co-conspirator to have access to the otherwise protected election site and download the election data secretly, anonymously. Nor does she address why she had surveillance cameras turned off during the download. It is the common calling card of those who knowingly break the law: they act guilty. There is no innocent reason for a person acting within the scope of the law and their authority to act as Peters did. Why hide lawful conduct from scrutiny? Perhaps it is coincidence that Peters did what burglars do – try not to get caught by obscuring their identities and avoiding detection.

In the end, there is one forum to address the allegations against Peters and her discretionary response to them – a criminal courtroom. I expect the trial to happen in February. I hope Peters has the courage to take the stand and testify to her truth, rather than seeking refuge from justice by firing off a flailing pleading in federal court to derail the resolution of this long overdue case. Colorado deserves the truth. Peters deserves justice.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. He hosts “The George Brauchler Show” on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter: @GeorgeBrauchler.