Trial Summary
Last week, The Gateway Pundit reported that former Mesa County, CO clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to a total of nine years in prison over her actions following a 2021 municipal election in the small Colorado county. Tina Peters had been told that there was to be a “Trusted Build” performed on the Dominion Voting equipment in her custody as the elected official in charge of elections for the county.
Prior to the “Trusted Build,” Peters had sought to perform an imaging of the voting system prior to any updates, as the system contained election records that were to be maintained by both State and Federal for 25 months (52 USC 20701 requires 22 months retentino). It is a fairly standard process prior to conducting any updates on systems that require preservation.
During her trial in August, it was learned that her IT Department in Mesa County had refused to conduct the system back-up prior to the “Trusted Build” because they were unfamiliar with the systems. So Peters took it up on herself to obtain an outside expert. The criminal charges revolved around whether or not Peters lied to State officials during the “Trusted Build” process by having her expert, Conan Hayes, anonymously present in the room. Hayes had used the key card of another individual, Gerald Wood, who was originally screened by Peters’ office.
During the trial, Wood claimed he was unaware that his ‘identity’ was being ‘stolen’ to allow Hayes access to the systems. However, during the testimony of Sherronna Bishop, a close associate of Peters, it was discovered that there was a conversation through an encrypted messaging app known as Signal in which Wood acknowledged the use of his key card to enter the facilities. It was quite shocking that this exculpatory evidence was discovered since all of the individuals privy to the conversation had their devices confiscated by authorities. One device that was party to the conversation, however, survived the confiscation. There did not seem to be any concern from the judge, Judge Michael Barrett, about why this evidence was withheld not just from Peters’ defense, but from the State’s investigator as well.
Throughout the trial, Judge Barrett refused to allow almost any evidence that would suggest vulnerabilities in the voting machines or the deletion of records through the “Trusted Build.” For example, former Elbert County Recorder (now a Commissioner) Dallas Schroeder testified during the trial, but his testimony was so limited that most of his 30 minutes of testimony was spent in a side-bar with the judge after Schroeder was asked about a June 17, 2021 “rule change” by the Secretary of State’s Office. The rule change is believed to pertain to the number of people allowed in the “Trusted Build” on behalf of the county clerk, but he was not permitted to answer that question following an objection and a 20-minute sidebar.
After seven days of trial, Peters was found guilty on 7 out of 10 charges. Here is a summary of the judgements:
The Trial of Tina Peters Verdict (V) and Sentencing Guidelines (SG) on all counts:
(1) Attempt to influence public servant Jesse Romero (F4)
V: GUILTY
SG: 2 to 6 years prison (presumptive), 3yr mandatory parole; $2,000.00 to $500,000.00(2) Attempt to influence public servant… https://t.co/kWuaRisgYz
— Ashe in America (@AsheinAmerica) August 13, 2024
Judge’s Sentencing Remarks
During the sentencing last week, several witnesses both for the defendant and the prosecution made comments to the judge prior to his decision. But the most concerning portion. The judge alluded to several claims he presented as fact despite no findings of such. Any allusion to impropriety in the elections or election systems in Mesa County and Colorado in general were shot down during the trial.
The judge’s remarks started off with a harsh condemnation of Peters by calling here ‘privileged.’
Judge Barrett remarked:
“You don’t have those histories of drug and alcohol abuse…there’s no lifetime of trauma, not even close to the type of mitigating circumstances that I would see from folks who sit in that chair. No, to the contrary Ms. Peters, you are a ‘privileged’ person. You are as ‘privileged’ as they come. And you used that privilege to obtain power, a following, and fame. And to be sure there’s no doubt in my mind that it is exactly what you wanted. And it defies all sense of common sense to believe when you suggested to me a few moments ago that you didn’t want this attention. No, no you crave it, ma’am. And there is no one in this courtroom who would consider that to be anything other than the absolute truth.”
The judge essentially compared, as tragic as it may be, self-inflicted ‘traumas’ such as alcohol and drug abuse with losing her son (during her campaign) during his service to this country as a Navy SEAL and then losing her husband under controversial circumstances during this persecution. It is worth noting that her son’s death also raises eyebrows as he died during a parachuting accident when both his primary and back up chutes failed to deploy. Peters revealed during the trial that her son had been working with officials in his capacity as a SEAL to thwart human-trafficking.
“Privileged.” Sympathy for drug addicts and alcoholics while casting sheer disdain at a gold-star widow.
Watch the judge’s remarks here:
The judge in Tina Peters’ sentencing calls her “privileged” because she didn’t have struggles with alcohol or drugs.
Those are self-inflicted struggles. As tragic and awful as they are, they are no fault of anyone but the user.
Instead, Clerk Peters instead lost her son,… pic.twitter.com/1NfLBFAlB8
— CannCon (@CannConActual) October 4, 2024
He wasn’t done. In the next clip below, Judge Barrett starts out stating,
“…ultimately, it was a belief that the echo-chamber in which you live couldn’t be wrong, among other things, that led you to do what you did here. This thought process unfortunately seems to consume so many in our country, regardless of race, gender, political affiliation or the like, that what it is we hear and think can’t possibly be wrong. There are many things in my mind that are crystal clear about this case. You are no hero. You abused your position. And you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to pedal a snake-oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again. In your world, it’s all about you.”
Once again, Tina Peters has never been afforded the opportunity to present the facts in a court of law regarding her findings, her beliefs, or her claims. But the judge took it upon himself to label them “snake-oil.” Remarkable.
Peters may have gone about the method she used to get her cyber expert access to the systems, although even the investigator admitted it is not identity theft if you give permission of someone to use your identity (the example given was a hotel key card knowingly used by someone other than the occupant of the room). However, what Peters did was essential to not only standard accounting and auditing practices, but also was required for preservation of records under state and federal law. And most importantly, evidence presented showed that the “victim” of the identity theft was in fact aware of the use of his key card by Peters’ expert.
In this clip, the judge seems to be referencing Peters’ actions in creating a forensic image of the Dominion tabulators that were mandated by state and federal law to be maintained for minimum 22 months.
He would not let her argue anything having to do with election fraud or… pic.twitter.com/lVXll2Z5vK
— CannCon (@CannConActual) October 4, 2024
Lastly, and perhaps most concerning, the judge scolded Peters that “you have no respect for the checks and balances of government, you have no respect for this court, you have no respect for law enforcement, and you don’t have respect for your fellow colleagues when you are a clerk and recorder who weren’t lockstep in your beliefs.”
Orwell just rolled over in his grave.
Tina Peters actions on that day ensured checks and balances. It ensured that election records were properly and adequately preserved prior to an outside private corporation performing a “Trusted Build.” The ensuing Mesa Reports from an analysis of those images she made were not permitted in court.
The judge ruled those reports “irrelevant” and then in his summary remarks before sentencing claimed Peters sold “snake oil” that’s been “proven to be junk time and time again.”
Yet another concerning remark. What Clerk Peters did was not illegal (making a forensic image). What the argument was is that she did it illegally by allowing someone to use someone else’s ID card without their knowledge.
It came out during the trial that the government-held… pic.twitter.com/W1gG3LiNhm
— CannCon (@CannConActual) October 4, 2024
Below is the entirety of the remarks during Tina Peters’ sentencing last week:
