Tina Peters interview

Tina Peters was the heroine of the Selection Code movie that I've written about before. I interviewed her to find out what has happened since the movie was released.

Tina is an honest election official in Mesa County, Colorado.

She is featured in the movie Selection Code which I’ve written about earlier.

She discovered discrepancies with vote totals after the voting machine manufacturer updated the software in the machine used to tally the votes.

When she blew the whistle on the discrepancy, the state officials went after her, instead of the people who tampered with the vote totals.

Why would any honest person go after the person who blew the whistle on the corruption?

In my interview, I asked her about what has happened since the movie was released.

Comments from my readers

I thought the most insightful comment was from Bob Krieckhaus who pointed out that there was an investigation and it revealed the problem was caused by operator error. From the DA report:

Video evidence, first hand investigation using a test election environment, and the user logs confirm that she was the cause of the stopped adjudication session and the starting of a new one. Starting a new adjudication session creates a

new adjudication database in the computer file structure, just as Report 3 observes. Stopping adjudication is a specific procedure that in most cases, should not be done during ballot processing and should only be done at the completion of an election. Dominion user manuals in the Mesa County tabulation room note this, …

You may want to keep these two comments in mind:

I tend to believe what she says but she hurts herself by being too emotional and quickly blaming "globalists" for certain things. She lacks the ability to clearly and succinctly state the basis of her claims that "the election was stolen ". Also, she is quick to say that Trump was actually elected President when she does not actually know that. I suspect that there were shenanigans in the 2020 election but the most accurate thing to say is that one has suspicions but can't be certain. Steve, you attempted to bring her down to earth but were not completely successful. For some reason those of us on the right tend to quickly descend into Alex Jones mode and see everything as a conspiracy

and

It's very hard to listen to Tina because she dodges questions, is not a technical person, and sucks at explaining things (maybe because she simply does not understand them sufficiently well).

There are a lot of heavy accusations, a lot of hand waving, and a lot of "I won" statements -- and very little continuity and cogency, explanation of actual facts she mentions (36 devices, recount procedure, etc.).

The movie was also hard to watch for just about the same reasons: it jumps from thing A to B to C and then back to A and so on, so you have to piece it together yourself.

This kind of information presentation would not sway a single person on "the other side."

Lessons

For people on our side trying to convince those who disagree with us, these are important lessons to keep in mind:

1. Be clear

2. Be succinct

3. Don’t step outside your area of expertise

4. Be sure you can back up everything you say

5. If you speculate, note that you are speculating and provide a solid basis for your speculation

6. Be careful in drawing conclusions from the evidence. Look for alternative explanations.

Summary

Tina said she tried to get the authorities to look at the discrepancy between the data images, but nobody was interested. But, as this comment notes, this does not appear to be quite accurate.

To be continued.