Whistleblower Tina Peters Goes To Trial This Week

Whistleblower Tina Peters will go to trial this week after attempting to expose evidence of election fraud in her district, as any patriot should have felt compelled to do under the circumstances, and as her duty as an election official and County Clerk required.

Stand With Tina Peters! Tina Peters Upcoming Trial — Stand With The Whistleblower Fighting for Election Integrity!

On February 7th, Tina Peters will go to trial for her role in exposing the rampant election fraud plaguing our nation. Tina is a whistleblower who took necessary steps to shed light on the truth of our electoral system. She has played a significant role in providing evidence that the voting machines are corrupt and fraudulent, making her the target of unrelenting political attacks. Tina is being persecuted for the information she revealed, which is why all our elected officials, including Congress, must stand with Tina Peters during her trial and call for the end of this politically motivated attack. Congress, stand with Tina Peters, stand with whistleblowers, stand with America!

In 2021, Tina Peters made headlines when she did a full backup of her county’s electronic voting machines prior to the State’s “Trusted Build” software update — a backup required by law. This backup contained proof that the elections in Mesa County were fraudulent, leading to nearly three years of constant political attacks to demonize and persecute Peters.

However, three forensic reports have proven Tina’s innocence and justified her actions. On September 15th, 2021, it was confirmed that the data described in the federal elections commission 2002 voting system standards mandated by Colorado law were indeed destroyed by the system vendor and the Colorado secretary of state office. On March 1, 2022, it was reported that Mesa County’s electronic voting systems contained 36 separate wireless devices, allowing connections to the internet. In a third report on March 19, 2022, it was found that there was the creation of shadow databases, enabling illegal software and vote swapping.

A video of the database reveal can be found here:

***CODEMONKEYZ*** Calls Into CYBER SYMPOSIUM

Here's a link to a documentary that covers the details of Tina's case much better than I can.

Selection Code

However...

Tina’s trial, beginning on February 7th, will have nothing to do with these whistleblower efforts. Instead, she is being charged with attempting to influence a public official, which means she cannot bring up anything about the election fraud she exposed. The cards are intentionally stacked against her to demonize, persecute, and discredit the damning evidence she helped to expose.

More on that here, along with a short audio clip from Peters:

Former Colo Clerk Tina Peters Says Fellow Republicans ‘Basically Framed Me’

Peters: They basically framed me and I was found guilty of two misdemeanors. One for lying to a judge that I hadn’t recorded when I was sitting there in the court — in the gallery — in the court when my chief deputy was in court. They basically took the iPad. I thought they broken my wrist. They got a search warrant, delayed a commissioner hearing, called me a sacrificial lamb—we could hear that on the recording—while they’re waiting 22 minutes to get a search warrant.

On Telegram, Peters called on her supporters to pack the courtroom and the streets outside the courthouse.

“Feb. 8 jury selection, impaneled and possibly opening arguments Feb. 9, then Feb. 12-16,19-21,” wrote Peters. “If I’m convicted they will escort me from the courtroom into jail custody straightaway. THIS should be National. If we don’t expose what we found here during this opportunity to have a huge crowd here this will get buried because the prosecution is not letting me say one thing about the real reason that they want to put me in prison. We need huge crowds in the courtroom and with signs outside on the streets here.”

it will be nice and a change of pace to see the facts openly displayed and their veracity challenged and proven true or false for all to see. Sure she may not be truthful, but that will be clear during the testimony. For folks to go against her before that, just seems really shady and like folks are scared and don't want their fraud exposed. I'd want the truth to come out as quickly as possible if all was on the up and up.

a reply to: IndieA

BTW, has anyone heard from Boadicea? I hope she is doing well. I miss her.

This country is over.

Most crimes are committed by someone with a motive. I sure wish someone could explain what possible motive Ms. Peters had. Seems to most people she was only motivated by the truth.

originally posted by: underpass61
Most crimes are committed by someone with a motive. I sure wish someone could explain what possible motive Ms. Peters had. Seems to most people she was only motivated by the truth.

all that should be crystal clear in the court case.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: IndieA

BTW, has anyone heard from Boadicea? I hope she is doing well. I miss her.

Unfortunately, no.

I miss her too and also hope she is doing well.

Last I remember, she had stopped by after having a brain tumor removed and seemed to be doing well, but then found out that she had more tumors, which is when she left us again to deal with the situation. I do what little I can to fill the void she left and maintain her election integrity thread.

a reply to: IndieA

I have noticed and it's very much appreciated. This is another topic I fail to grasp why it's not bi-partisan. To have the position being against election integrity just seems so.....scummy.

a reply to: IndieA

Did you know that Australia and New Zealand are among a number of countries that do not allow voting machines?

And that voting is mandatory for citizens of voting age and above, too? Abstaining from voting usually gets you a fine.

Imagine that, if everyone had to vote. Then you'd get the vote of more than just the radicalized. You'd also know immediately that something was wrong if the numbers came back either over or under.

In New Zealand, there is also a secure digital identity verification service called RealMe that is used for identity verification in the instance of all sorts of government services.

SPAM

a reply to: chr0naut

In the US, we have freedom and don’t have to vote if we don’t want to.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's interesting, I did not know that.

More about the current case against Peter's:

Tenth Circuit won’t delay Colorado trial over leaked voting machine passwords

Prosecutors say in April and May 2021 Peters allowed unauthorized individuals to access voting equipment during a sensitive security update and leaked voting machine passwords to the social media site Telegram.

The 68-year-old Peters faces three felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant; four felony counts related to impersonation and identity theft; and a misdemeanor count each of official misconduct, violating her duties and failing to comply with the secretary of state’s requirements.

Peters pleaded not guilty last September. In public speeches, she has expressed concerns about the integrity of the voting machines in Mesa County, particularly after voters declined to elect several conservative candidates during the 2021 Grand Junction municipal election.

Since then, Peters has been embraced by a community of conservatives who subscribe to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories of election fraud that spread after Biden won the presidency in 2020.

Hey!

In her petition for an injunction Peters denied having broken any laws and said her requests for help went ignored by the district attorney, the secretary of state and the board of county commissioners.

Peters contends that Rubenstein in pursuing criminal charges “seeks to publicly punish Peters for her compliance with federal and Colorado election record retention statutes, for her public discussion of the integrity of digital voting systems, and for her petitions to the county board to abandon such.”

“We were happy to learn of the 10th circuit’s denial of Ms. Peters’ latest effort to delay a trial on the merits,” Rubenstein said via email. “We remain prepared to begin that trial, with a jury she selects, this week.”

a reply to: IndieA

Also from the link above, and at the heart of the matter:

District Attorney Daniel Rubenstein investigated Peters' claims of election fraud and discovered several instances of human error, rather than an attempt to change the results of an election.

It seems that Tina and experts have made their claims that the altered election records are evidence of election fraud, on the one hand.

On the other hand, you have a DA with claims that the altered election records are merely the result of several instances of human error.

I hope discovery includes the evidence that the DA has to support their human error claims.

From an election integrity standpoint, I am very interested in seeing how several instances of human error were allowed to happen, how those errors altered the election records, and how drastically those records were altered.

a reply to: IndieA

I'm sofaking tired of this being politicized. it's election integrity. If you oppose it, it's because you want to cheat and not be caught. There is no other reason to be against it. If she did anything illegal, I'm sure that will be proven. But if there was fraud, be it human error or coordinated effort, that will also be shown, since you can't disregard evidence if you want her put down.

We are deep into interesting times here.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

In the US, we have freedom and don’t have to vote if we don’t want to.

In Australia and New Zealand, we have the freedom to vote as we please. It's just that there are certain practicalities that ensure a fair and trustable secret ballot.

Since those founding fathers were so clever, I wonder why they left out something so simple?

Besides, the popular vote in the US doesn't really matter. The electoral college elects the President and Vice President in the US.

330 million people governed by the vote of just 127 of them - no matter how you misdirect, its clearly just a trick of bait and switch.

And with so few people, and with so much money involved, it would be easy to get people in the EC to vote faithlessly, or to invalidate their vote (for a nominal and relatively small fine that you would cover, so they'd be A-OK).

Then you'd have this weird situation where the popular vote went one way, but the EC vote went the other. But that wouldn't ever have happened, right? Because a 'fixed' race would be hard evidence that there was some major corruption going on in regard to the Presidency.

*Update*

Trial for former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters delayed – again – just days before it was supposed to start

Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, whose efforts to uncover evidence of election fraud on her office’s election equipment have led to ten criminal charges, will not be going on trial this month.

Jury selection was scheduled to start on Friday. But at a pretrial hearing Tuesday, Peters told the judge she was firing her legal team and hiring new representation. In order to give those new attorneys time to get up to speed, Mesa County District Court Judge Matthew Barrett delayed the start of the trial to late July.

Her new trial is set to run from July 29 through Aug. 12.

a reply to: chr0naut

You're right. The popular vote doesn't matter. If it did, every election would be decided by 5 cities and the rest of us would have no say. People in New York and LA have absolutely no idea what is important to people in rural areas like myself. I actually have a voice in the vote thanks to the electoral college. We are not governed by the 127 votes. We are represented by the 127 votes.
It's okay that you don't like or understand why our voting system works the way it works or why it is a good system. You don't have to.
We have an easy way to resecure our elections. Voter ID and scrubbing the voter rolls every so often to eliminate dead people. The funny thing is that only one group of people is against it. I wonder why that could be.