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.
The claim that no officials in Colorado, Mead County, the DA etc has looked into the Tina Peters claims is inaccurate. The DA for that district has looked into them very explicitly. Here is his report:
And here is the report that Jeff O'Donnell prepared and refers to in the Selection Code. This is MUCH clearer and more specific that what either he or Walter Daugherty says in the film.
And here is my summary of the issue (repeating my comment made 6 hrs ago) :
..........
Much easier to understand than (S)election Code is the actual report done by the two experts featured in it: mesa-forensic-report-3. It is also clear and very persuasive. HOWEVER, the DA has issued this equally persuasive and detailed report on that one: summary-of-findings-and-conclusions-of-report-number-3. It directly contradicts the absolutely essential claim made by the experts (actually only by Jeff O'Donnell, not Walter Daugherty) that all of the election workers strongly deny that the system was stopped and restarted during the count. The DA states that they all deny they were even interviewed by O'Donnell, except for Tina Peters's Back Office Elections Manager, Sandra Brown. She refuses to answer on advice of counsel. But video surveillance shows Sandra Brown alone in the counting office room, having sent the rest on break, and apparently stopping and restarting the count machine. As all parties agree, this would have had the effect of producing a second set of the databases. And it is those differing sets of two databases that are the evidence of nefarious manipulation according to O'Donnell, the younger of the two experts seen together in the (S)election film, and the one most quoted. So settling this disagreement between the two extensive reports on what happened would be dispositive. My reading is that the DA has it right. O'Donnell may be the victim of a simple CYA story that Brown told him and that he did not bother to check out with the other election workers. But the report does state that "Mesa country personnel are very clear that they did nothing of the sort," referring to "stop and restart adjudication."
Don’t know if anyone else thinks this is a good idea, but I’m thinking about the info that would red-pill SK even more if we all encouraged him to interview Dr Douglas Frank. I believe Frank would catch Steve up about how the algorithms were set on the machines.
How would one explain (if the cause of the database copies was that clerk doing a reset of the machine)...the claim in the last 15 minutes of the movie that only a certain set of votes differed between the presumed original database file and the copy of it: And that the set of these votes differed significantly in the proportion of the two main candidates--I guess Biden and Trump? Way beyond the margin of error. That was stated and a graph shown by the two forensic people in the last 15 minutes of the movie.
OK, Number6, I have carefully reviewed the last 15 minutes of the movie now. (See my previous response below this one.)
... It is easy to think the film says something like what you say there. However, as I listened to it for the third time, but now having read the whole pdf report and understood it, I see that the movie only makes it look like the database changes show a vote count change from A to B. For instance when they give us that bar graph at about 52.40. However, due to the way the DVS software works, when changes like that are made, and it certainly looks like they could be made, there is no record of A. The new voting tally, B, just shows up in the main database, the running tally database. The adjudication and tabulation databases do not reveal the way the ballot images they are reading voted. That determination is simply sent on to the main tally database. Not good practice, as O'Donnell says, but that's the way it is. He calls it "Lack of Referential Integrity in DVS Database Tables."
... You can read this yourself on p. 24 of the pdf:
"First, when the ballots were reprocessed as described above, including re-adjudication, it is logical to conclude that whatever votes had been initially recorded could well have been replaced by the reprocessed votes in the Main election database. The differences in the Manual Adjudication numbers certainly supports this possible conclusion. Thus, this procedure could change votes in the Main database without leaving any evidence to indicate changes had been made, or any way to determine the nature of the changes or what the original vote data was."
... As for the talk and the graph at about 52.40, the core of it is the statistics (?) of large numbers thing. How come if the early votes looked this way, the later total was so different? For that to be persuasive, we have to know that the first, early vote sample was a random sample of the whole large number set. (And that graph lacks info in that regard. The heading says it's about mail-in votes, but the labels of the bars themselves appear to refer, in part, to all-source votes. Just can't be figured out without more specifics.) In any case it is not a reference to anything they see when they look at the hard drive. Look again at the p 24 quote above.
... Maybe this could be cleared up by a hand recount. Is machine counting really safer, more trustworthy than people counting?
Good Q Nr6. I need to review the film last 15 and will get back to you after I do. But for now, I'll say that a similar Q occurred to me, too -- if this was done by some permitted reset provided for by DVS, as Report # 3 says is legitimately possible, why would a standard reset produce any alteration at all in the already recorded batches and records? Maybe duplication with allowance for redoing the last adjudication ballot or the like, but only something like that. O'Donnell and Daugherty say nothing about this. And that makes sense, I suppose, because they have eliminated the possibility of a deliberate reset by their repeatedly claimed questioning of the election workers as to whether or not a reset occurred. If it turns out that the DA is right about those workers (except for Brown) denying being interviewed, and Brown did do something to the machine when she was alone with it, then it would seem obvious (to you and me anyway) that she must have done something more to it than a simple reset. This is the big question: did she or didn't she?
Steve - thank you for looking into the details. There is also a rebuttal to the DA's rebuttal, with many points I think you will find interesting. Please note the straw-man arguments which are not obvious to the casual reader, and the question why the camera stopped recording for 2 minutes and 34 seconds. IMHO the best statement regarding the above point was:
"The DA’s office discussed a possible method by which the new database could have been
created, should a clerk perform a highly unusual procedure which is extremely dangerous when done in the middle of tabulating an election. The video presented as “evidence” shows absolutely no definitive screen detail to support the DA’s claims that this “nuclear option” was ever performed. In addition, the EMS logs, which show in great detail the operations performed by both the clerks and the normal automated processes within the Dominion software application, show no corresponding commands being initiated. This fact alone is evidence that the unauthorized operations were triggered by code running within the EMS server but outside of normal procedure. "
Hi, just a mom -- I'd sure like to read that report, but the link doesn't work for me. Does it work for you? Can you send it another time? I repeatedly get this message:
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
Sorry, I didn't realize it was showing up that way. Not sure how to get one simple URL (search engines seem to be making it difficult!), but you can find it by going to https://causeofamerica.org/TheLibrary and doing a search on "tina peters corporon". It is the PDF entitled 2022-May-20-CO-Official-Response-to-Mesa-DA-Investigation-from-Randy-Corporon.pdf. Let me know if that doesn't work for you.
Hi HardeeHo. The first link doesn't work for me (see my same note to just a mom above -- I get the same or a similar thing). Does it still work for you?
And as for the second link, which does work for me, did you find that "rebuttal to the DA's rebuttal in there anywhere? I'd sure like to read it.
That URL didn't work for me but I'll try to get there via some link off of what may be the main page, causeofamerica.
I'm still hypothesizing, even after the DA's report, that the DA's report may be a fabric of truths plus lies, but overall a lie-> support for making an example of those two election workers.
If there were nefarious data manipulation inside an election machine actually caught by the likes of competent forensic people, exactly this would happen: A competent-sounding "nothing to see here" for the adults in the room, the blue-pill crowd, by an authoritative adult, like a DA. Who has ever heard of a dishonest DA? (sarcasm).
Is it just me or do the searches and seizures seem a bit extreme, and maybe tell a tale?
Number6, I think you have the right of it. When you look at the totality of the evidence, it is hard to accept that this election was free and fair. Sure, maybe Tina and O'DONNELL could have worked on clarity and accuracy... that is true I suppose of the entire effort to prove fraud in 2020. However, I cut Tina quite a bit of slack. She is neither a technical expert nor a lawyer. She's a gold star mom who did her job and has been treated worse than most criminals. Alec Baldwin allegedly killed a woman and yet he has been handled with kid gloves, though it does look as if justice is finally coming his way. Tina made a forensic copy of an election machine before a software update could be done. Election data was deleted during that update despite the fact that election records are required to be kept for 22 months. Dominion lied about the purpose of the update. Then, the searches, seizures and so on.
So we know that 1. She was just doing the job she was elected to do, 2. She discovered that Dominion deleted data and 3. Tinas political rival (SOS) abused her power - searches, seizures, etc.
Now we have DA report vs Selection Code. The DA report is professional, clear, and compelling. It builds a fact based argument to draw a conclusion but mixes in just enough supposition to suggest an alternative theory of the facts.
It could be easy to find yourself thinking maybe the DA has the right of it.
But then you remember 2000 mules, you remember the illegal rule changes, you remember Biden getting 81M votes while campaigning from his basement, you remember Trump losing despite winning tge key bellwether counties and adding 6M votes, you remember all the mathematical impossibilities that have been shown by people like Dr Frank and Daria and others, you remember that Pennsylvania sued Dominion for IP addresses in the logs from Canada when the machines aren't supposed to be connected to the internet, and you remember that Ratcliff was supposed to produce a report on election interference by Dec 18th 2020 but did not do so because the intelligence agencies couldn't agree... though he did say there was Chinese interference. And of course let's not forget the planned coup on Jan 6th where we now know that FBI informants were in the crowd agitating for violence in order to press congress to stop objecting to the vote and just affirm Biden as the winner which us exactly what happened.
Once you remember all that, that supposition the DA used to make the facts tell another story suddenly becomes a big red flag. Because while the supposition can provide an alternative theory of the cause and meaning of the reset, it cannot explain everything else.
By your question it seems obvious you are already thinking like this. We just have to make sure we don't lose the forrest for the trees here. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming.
Hi again, Number 6. Note Just a mom's reply to me above. And now I have the report she is referring to, but haven't read it yet -- this is the pdf itself, called "OFFICIAL STATEMENT" by "Randy Corporon, Attorney for Tina Peters." --
Woops, change of mind, that link I was going to drop in is what she used from the pdf and yields garbage. You can get it, the pdf by the lawyer, from this page:
The two comments you lifted for us are spot-on in regards to Tina. Having said that, she's just one of those "regular people" who got involved in a complicated and, therefore, confusing set of circumstances, spoke her mind, and now is being unmercifully punished for it. What her state's election commission in concert with a prosecutorial abuse intent exercised by its Colorado Department of Law is doing to her is unspeakable. Speak up and you will be punished is the norm these days. Unfortunately, she's not a good speaker to begin with and she's understandably emotional. She's facing some serious prison time. Not sure how this is going to go down for her. She seems like a nice enough person.
As Steve is known for being a great inventor, I would like to ask, if he'd consider designing open systems to help elections? Like calculators or punch card sorting machines for printed ballots, open source hardware that's built, tested, and maintained by common people; Define a standard that addresses the issues in practical terms.
Pennsylvania County Sues Dominion Voting Systems for 'Unauthorized Python Script' & 'Foreign IP Address'
==============================================
The report alleges that Fulton County’s log files show “an external IP address” located in Quebec, Canada, and that an unauthorized “python script” had been installed after the certification date.
Moreover, the system’s security patch had not been updated since April 10, 2019, and default usernames and passwords had not been changed since the time of installation.
The report says, "This python script can exploit and create any number of vulnerabilities including, external access to the system, data export of the tabulations, or introduction of other metrics not part of or allowed by the certification process."
What’s more, this “external IP address” was found on the very same adjudication workstation that contained the “post certification python script”.
==============================================
I also highly suggest Kanekoa's own investigation into Konnech and other issues dealing with voting integrity:
The 36 wireless devices --I'm curious what these were and how they connected. Is it possible one of these devices (maybe 36 for redundancy but only one connects at a time) creates a rogue hotspot that connects with the tabulation server? Maybe like USB WIFI dongles? The nano usb wifi dongles are the size of small usb jump drives -- not pencil lead thin.
Honestly, they're using Microsoft technology which is the least secure software. Why don't they put the tabulation server in the middle of a public street while they're at it.
I found the part about how easy it would be to connect to the EMS network starting on pg. 76. It also says there were 35 devices with the DVS-supplied equipment that had a built-it wireless card or device installed. So it sounds like these were spread across multiple systems/devices and anyone could have been leveraged for an attack.
Thank you for all of your efforts and hard work on the COVID vax debacle. Also, thank you for shedding light on Election Integrity to your followers. Many of the frustrations, attacks and censorship that the medical community is fighting is also happening on the election integrity front. Please consider reaching out to Capt. Seth Keshel and interviewing him on his intelligence analysis on elections (national and state by state). His analyses is based on open-source information and independently corroborates 2000 mules findings.
Capt. Seth Keshel's Substack if you would like to take a peek:
I'm not familiar with the Selection Code and all that, but I do think these general rules and guidelines make a lot of sense. Great job. Whenever a person embraces a theory that counters the mainstream narrative, it really helps to be *more* persuasive, careful in reasoning, patient and just plain likable as a personality.
As a general rule, anyone who argues for a so-called "fringe" theory should try really hard to avoid becoming an unreasonable, bloviating, rude, screaming, angry voice that cannot answer questions in an honest and factual way. Such behaviors do not persuade.
In reply to your ‘keep in mind’ commenters’ criticism, let’s also keep in mind that the candidate who beat her vote total in the recent SoS primary election by 70,000 votes didn’t even move the needle in the pre-election polls and raised only 4 figures of campaign funds compared to Tina’s 6 or 7 figure campaign chest and poll leading numbers. His 70,000 supporters could not be found on his Twitter or FB account either. Oh, and he didn’t win, but the gal who did? Well she took the Zucker money in 2020. Colorado is a mirror of the corrupt national election system; it stinks, and if you think we’re going to “take back the house and senate” with this kind of thing going on in November, you’re sadly mistaken. So, critical commenters, go ahead and diss the only chance you had to veer away from the iceberg of total domination by the left in your MJ-smoke filled state. Choke on it once more until there’s nobody left to Heimlich you.
Steve, I watched the Tina Peter's video. It was very informative but I have been aware of a lot of what Tina mentioned because I have been following her for a long time. Colorado is so corrupt!! Bannon's show is such a great place to see and find facts. It seemed you were a little taken aback by some of Tina's information. It seemed some of Tina's information showed doubt on your face. I hope you do more research to find her truth. Just think of everyone on the left who don't know or won't want to know more of the truth about what Tina has been through. Such a nice and informative video. Your Covid information is great reading and truthful. Thank you for informing me more. We, the right, have so far to go to get America back to normal. We must vote November 8 to change this horrible direction.
Unlike many who shamelessly ignore their sworn oaths of office, Clerk Tina Peters has unwaveringly fulfilled her sworn duties despite the mercyless lawfare by those in Colorado who don't want the corrupt system to change. Yet, the evidence is there for all to see. The legal fees for Peters are staggering, while the state has limitless funding, thanks to the taxpayers and out of state sources. Go to her site and help if you can.
The claim that no officials in Colorado, Mead County, the DA etc has looked into the Tina Peters claims is inaccurate. The DA for that district has looked into them very explicitly. Here is his report:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqrGFD_Eai2yidcUFbKZ4xwVoCAG5A?e=ZuHE37 (my non-editable copy with highlights showing the key claims at issue)
https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2022/05/Summary-of-findings-and-conclusions-of-Report-3.pdf (the version on line)
...
And here is the report that Jeff O'Donnell prepared and refers to in the Selection Code. This is MUCH clearer and more specific that what either he or Walter Daugherty says in the film.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqrGFD_Eai2yidcV0-3UrVcVHFbV7Q?e=G1sMW2 (my copy with highlights)
https://freedomforce.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/mesa-forensic-report-3-signed1.pdf (what I found on line via a Steve Bannon interview)
And here is my summary of the issue (repeating my comment made 6 hrs ago) :
..........
Much easier to understand than (S)election Code is the actual report done by the two experts featured in it: mesa-forensic-report-3. It is also clear and very persuasive. HOWEVER, the DA has issued this equally persuasive and detailed report on that one: summary-of-findings-and-conclusions-of-report-number-3. It directly contradicts the absolutely essential claim made by the experts (actually only by Jeff O'Donnell, not Walter Daugherty) that all of the election workers strongly deny that the system was stopped and restarted during the count. The DA states that they all deny they were even interviewed by O'Donnell, except for Tina Peters's Back Office Elections Manager, Sandra Brown. She refuses to answer on advice of counsel. But video surveillance shows Sandra Brown alone in the counting office room, having sent the rest on break, and apparently stopping and restarting the count machine. As all parties agree, this would have had the effect of producing a second set of the databases. And it is those differing sets of two databases that are the evidence of nefarious manipulation according to O'Donnell, the younger of the two experts seen together in the (S)election film, and the one most quoted. So settling this disagreement between the two extensive reports on what happened would be dispositive. My reading is that the DA has it right. O'Donnell may be the victim of a simple CYA story that Brown told him and that he did not bother to check out with the other election workers. But the report does state that "Mesa country personnel are very clear that they did nothing of the sort," referring to "stop and restart adjudication."
Don’t know if anyone else thinks this is a good idea, but I’m thinking about the info that would red-pill SK even more if we all encouraged him to interview Dr Douglas Frank. I believe Frank would catch Steve up about how the algorithms were set on the machines.
How would one explain (if the cause of the database copies was that clerk doing a reset of the machine)...the claim in the last 15 minutes of the movie that only a certain set of votes differed between the presumed original database file and the copy of it: And that the set of these votes differed significantly in the proportion of the two main candidates--I guess Biden and Trump? Way beyond the margin of error. That was stated and a graph shown by the two forensic people in the last 15 minutes of the movie.
OK, Number6, I have carefully reviewed the last 15 minutes of the movie now. (See my previous response below this one.)
... It is easy to think the film says something like what you say there. However, as I listened to it for the third time, but now having read the whole pdf report and understood it, I see that the movie only makes it look like the database changes show a vote count change from A to B. For instance when they give us that bar graph at about 52.40. However, due to the way the DVS software works, when changes like that are made, and it certainly looks like they could be made, there is no record of A. The new voting tally, B, just shows up in the main database, the running tally database. The adjudication and tabulation databases do not reveal the way the ballot images they are reading voted. That determination is simply sent on to the main tally database. Not good practice, as O'Donnell says, but that's the way it is. He calls it "Lack of Referential Integrity in DVS Database Tables."
... You can read this yourself on p. 24 of the pdf:
"First, when the ballots were reprocessed as described above, including re-adjudication, it is logical to conclude that whatever votes had been initially recorded could well have been replaced by the reprocessed votes in the Main election database. The differences in the Manual Adjudication numbers certainly supports this possible conclusion. Thus, this procedure could change votes in the Main database without leaving any evidence to indicate changes had been made, or any way to determine the nature of the changes or what the original vote data was."
... As for the talk and the graph at about 52.40, the core of it is the statistics (?) of large numbers thing. How come if the early votes looked this way, the later total was so different? For that to be persuasive, we have to know that the first, early vote sample was a random sample of the whole large number set. (And that graph lacks info in that regard. The heading says it's about mail-in votes, but the labels of the bars themselves appear to refer, in part, to all-source votes. Just can't be figured out without more specifics.) In any case it is not a reference to anything they see when they look at the hard drive. Look again at the p 24 quote above.
... Maybe this could be cleared up by a hand recount. Is machine counting really safer, more trustworthy than people counting?
Good Q Nr6. I need to review the film last 15 and will get back to you after I do. But for now, I'll say that a similar Q occurred to me, too -- if this was done by some permitted reset provided for by DVS, as Report # 3 says is legitimately possible, why would a standard reset produce any alteration at all in the already recorded batches and records? Maybe duplication with allowance for redoing the last adjudication ballot or the like, but only something like that. O'Donnell and Daugherty say nothing about this. And that makes sense, I suppose, because they have eliminated the possibility of a deliberate reset by their repeatedly claimed questioning of the election workers as to whether or not a reset occurred. If it turns out that the DA is right about those workers (except for Brown) denying being interviewed, and Brown did do something to the machine when she was alone with it, then it would seem obvious (to you and me anyway) that she must have done something more to it than a simple reset. This is the big question: did she or didn't she?
Thank you for the links.
wow. Adding this to the text of my post. My reading of your documents, I agree with you.
Steve - thank you for looking into the details. There is also a rebuttal to the DA's rebuttal, with many points I think you will find interesting. Please note the straw-man arguments which are not obvious to the casual reader, and the question why the camera stopped recording for 2 minutes and 34 seconds. IMHO the best statement regarding the above point was:
"The DA’s office discussed a possible method by which the new database could have been
created, should a clerk perform a highly unusual procedure which is extremely dangerous when done in the middle of tabulating an election. The video presented as “evidence” shows absolutely no definitive screen detail to support the DA’s claims that this “nuclear option” was ever performed. In addition, the EMS logs, which show in great detail the operations performed by both the clerks and the normal automated processes within the Dominion software application, show no corresponding commands being initiated. This fact alone is evidence that the unauthorized operations were triggered by code running within the EMS server but outside of normal procedure. "
https://storage.causeofamerica.org/coa/05a3b2d9-f85a-43dc-8c74-f25f3059f54c.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=NTk0N2E5ZjdmNDJkNWM2%2F20220921%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220921T211756Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=01d1fa2f0c6057c43622e8c26237a1110bc7d5e3bd3b1ac30d4c07e748b6a279
Hi, just a mom -- I'd sure like to read that report, but the link doesn't work for me. Does it work for you? Can you send it another time? I repeatedly get this message:
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
<Key>05a3b2d9-f85a-43dc-8c74-f25f3059f54c.pdf</Key>
<BucketName>coa</BucketName>
<Resource>/coa/05a3b2d9-f85a-43dc-8c74-f25f3059f54c.pdf</Resource>
<RequestId>1717AE08F81FDF18</RequestId>
<HostId>8a948439-4264-4c31-bfc3-599ff9dd7577</HostId>
</Error>
Sorry, I didn't realize it was showing up that way. Not sure how to get one simple URL (search engines seem to be making it difficult!), but you can find it by going to https://causeofamerica.org/TheLibrary and doing a search on "tina peters corporon". It is the PDF entitled 2022-May-20-CO-Official-Response-to-Mesa-DA-Investigation-from-Randy-Corporon.pdf. Let me know if that doesn't work for you.
ok :-) GOT IT. For the record and in case anyone else reads this, the link to the results of that search are here --
https://causeofamerica.org/Documents/Category?query=tina+peters+corporon&btnSearch=Search
THANK YOU!
This URL worked https://storage.causeofamerica.org/coa/05a3b2d9-f85a-43dc-8c74-f25f3059f54c.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=NTk0N2E5ZjdmNDJkNWM2%2F20220922%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220922T002724Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=32c4797a6e417e7ee51ad1f18e752c3215110532769a9634b9c8d2bd0c73495c.
But it might be more fruitful in the search https://causeofamerica.org/Documents/Category?query=tina+peters&btnSearch=Search.
One can imagine the difficulties in really understanding what these reports are saying. You can quickly get exhausted by minutia.
Hi HardeeHo. The first link doesn't work for me (see my same note to just a mom above -- I get the same or a similar thing). Does it still work for you?
And as for the second link, which does work for me, did you find that "rebuttal to the DA's rebuttal in there anywhere? I'd sure like to read it.
That URL didn't work for me but I'll try to get there via some link off of what may be the main page, causeofamerica.
I'm still hypothesizing, even after the DA's report, that the DA's report may be a fabric of truths plus lies, but overall a lie-> support for making an example of those two election workers.
If there were nefarious data manipulation inside an election machine actually caught by the likes of competent forensic people, exactly this would happen: A competent-sounding "nothing to see here" for the adults in the room, the blue-pill crowd, by an authoritative adult, like a DA. Who has ever heard of a dishonest DA? (sarcasm).
Is it just me or do the searches and seizures seem a bit extreme, and maybe tell a tale?
Number6, I think you have the right of it. When you look at the totality of the evidence, it is hard to accept that this election was free and fair. Sure, maybe Tina and O'DONNELL could have worked on clarity and accuracy... that is true I suppose of the entire effort to prove fraud in 2020. However, I cut Tina quite a bit of slack. She is neither a technical expert nor a lawyer. She's a gold star mom who did her job and has been treated worse than most criminals. Alec Baldwin allegedly killed a woman and yet he has been handled with kid gloves, though it does look as if justice is finally coming his way. Tina made a forensic copy of an election machine before a software update could be done. Election data was deleted during that update despite the fact that election records are required to be kept for 22 months. Dominion lied about the purpose of the update. Then, the searches, seizures and so on.
So we know that 1. She was just doing the job she was elected to do, 2. She discovered that Dominion deleted data and 3. Tinas political rival (SOS) abused her power - searches, seizures, etc.
Now we have DA report vs Selection Code. The DA report is professional, clear, and compelling. It builds a fact based argument to draw a conclusion but mixes in just enough supposition to suggest an alternative theory of the facts.
It could be easy to find yourself thinking maybe the DA has the right of it.
But then you remember 2000 mules, you remember the illegal rule changes, you remember Biden getting 81M votes while campaigning from his basement, you remember Trump losing despite winning tge key bellwether counties and adding 6M votes, you remember all the mathematical impossibilities that have been shown by people like Dr Frank and Daria and others, you remember that Pennsylvania sued Dominion for IP addresses in the logs from Canada when the machines aren't supposed to be connected to the internet, and you remember that Ratcliff was supposed to produce a report on election interference by Dec 18th 2020 but did not do so because the intelligence agencies couldn't agree... though he did say there was Chinese interference. And of course let's not forget the planned coup on Jan 6th where we now know that FBI informants were in the crowd agitating for violence in order to press congress to stop objecting to the vote and just affirm Biden as the winner which us exactly what happened.
Once you remember all that, that supposition the DA used to make the facts tell another story suddenly becomes a big red flag. Because while the supposition can provide an alternative theory of the cause and meaning of the reset, it cannot explain everything else.
By your question it seems obvious you are already thinking like this. We just have to make sure we don't lose the forrest for the trees here. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming.
Hi again, Number 6. Note Just a mom's reply to me above. And now I have the report she is referring to, but haven't read it yet -- this is the pdf itself, called "OFFICIAL STATEMENT" by "Randy Corporon, Attorney for Tina Peters." --
Woops, change of mind, that link I was going to drop in is what she used from the pdf and yields garbage. You can get it, the pdf by the lawyer, from this page:
https://causeofamerica.org/Documents/Category?query=tina+peters+corporon&btnSearch=Search
The two comments you lifted for us are spot-on in regards to Tina. Having said that, she's just one of those "regular people" who got involved in a complicated and, therefore, confusing set of circumstances, spoke her mind, and now is being unmercifully punished for it. What her state's election commission in concert with a prosecutorial abuse intent exercised by its Colorado Department of Law is doing to her is unspeakable. Speak up and you will be punished is the norm these days. Unfortunately, she's not a good speaker to begin with and she's understandably emotional. She's facing some serious prison time. Not sure how this is going to go down for her. She seems like a nice enough person.
Call Mike Lindell. Even better - have Mike connect you with Douglas Frank out of Cincinnati Ohio.
https://truthandliberty.net/bio/dr-douglas-g-frank/
As Steve is known for being a great inventor, I would like to ask, if he'd consider designing open systems to help elections? Like calculators or punch card sorting machines for printed ballots, open source hardware that's built, tested, and maintained by common people; Define a standard that addresses the issues in practical terms.
Similar issues were documented before as "Fraction Magic"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob-AGgZn44
Have you seen this recent news?
https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/pennsylvania-county-sues-dominion
Pennsylvania County Sues Dominion Voting Systems for 'Unauthorized Python Script' & 'Foreign IP Address'
==============================================
The report alleges that Fulton County’s log files show “an external IP address” located in Quebec, Canada, and that an unauthorized “python script” had been installed after the certification date.
Moreover, the system’s security patch had not been updated since April 10, 2019, and default usernames and passwords had not been changed since the time of installation.
The report says, "This python script can exploit and create any number of vulnerabilities including, external access to the system, data export of the tabulations, or introduction of other metrics not part of or allowed by the certification process."
What’s more, this “external IP address” was found on the very same adjudication workstation that contained the “post certification python script”.
==============================================
I also highly suggest Kanekoa's own investigation into Konnech and other issues dealing with voting integrity:
https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/us-election-company-previously-registered
as well as collected reporting of other news:
https://substack.com/profile/49200940-kanekoathegreat
Steve, you are a good journalist.
Thankyou for revealing this again and also including the thoughtful and unbiased comments regarding Tina
The 36 wireless devices --I'm curious what these were and how they connected. Is it possible one of these devices (maybe 36 for redundancy but only one connects at a time) creates a rogue hotspot that connects with the tabulation server? Maybe like USB WIFI dongles? The nano usb wifi dongles are the size of small usb jump drives -- not pencil lead thin.
Honestly, they're using Microsoft technology which is the least secure software. Why don't they put the tabulation server in the middle of a public street while they're at it.
I found the part about how easy it would be to connect to the EMS network starting on pg. 76. It also says there were 35 devices with the DVS-supplied equipment that had a built-it wireless card or device installed. So it sounds like these were spread across multiple systems/devices and anyone could have been leveraged for an attack.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/620c3af99f21b965e2cbef44/t/62268289a0e00c56951c5044/1646690974087/mesa-county-forensic-report-no.-2+compressed+1.1.pdf
Hey Steve, check out Patrick Byrne's Rumbles regarding Fulton County, Pa.
The government is suing Dominion and has found things on its machines similar to what Tina Peter's has found.
https://rumble.com/v1kykbf-fulton-county-pennsylvania-sues-dominion.html
Thank you for all of your efforts and hard work on the COVID vax debacle. Also, thank you for shedding light on Election Integrity to your followers. Many of the frustrations, attacks and censorship that the medical community is fighting is also happening on the election integrity front. Please consider reaching out to Capt. Seth Keshel and interviewing him on his intelligence analysis on elections (national and state by state). His analyses is based on open-source information and independently corroborates 2000 mules findings.
Capt. Seth Keshel's Substack if you would like to take a peek:
https://substack.com/profile/53559721-capt-seth-keshel?utm_source=about-page
I'm not familiar with the Selection Code and all that, but I do think these general rules and guidelines make a lot of sense. Great job. Whenever a person embraces a theory that counters the mainstream narrative, it really helps to be *more* persuasive, careful in reasoning, patient and just plain likable as a personality.
As a general rule, anyone who argues for a so-called "fringe" theory should try really hard to avoid becoming an unreasonable, bloviating, rude, screaming, angry voice that cannot answer questions in an honest and factual way. Such behaviors do not persuade.
In reply to your ‘keep in mind’ commenters’ criticism, let’s also keep in mind that the candidate who beat her vote total in the recent SoS primary election by 70,000 votes didn’t even move the needle in the pre-election polls and raised only 4 figures of campaign funds compared to Tina’s 6 or 7 figure campaign chest and poll leading numbers. His 70,000 supporters could not be found on his Twitter or FB account either. Oh, and he didn’t win, but the gal who did? Well she took the Zucker money in 2020. Colorado is a mirror of the corrupt national election system; it stinks, and if you think we’re going to “take back the house and senate” with this kind of thing going on in November, you’re sadly mistaken. So, critical commenters, go ahead and diss the only chance you had to veer away from the iceberg of total domination by the left in your MJ-smoke filled state. Choke on it once more until there’s nobody left to Heimlich you.
Steve, I watched the Tina Peter's video. It was very informative but I have been aware of a lot of what Tina mentioned because I have been following her for a long time. Colorado is so corrupt!! Bannon's show is such a great place to see and find facts. It seemed you were a little taken aback by some of Tina's information. It seemed some of Tina's information showed doubt on your face. I hope you do more research to find her truth. Just think of everyone on the left who don't know or won't want to know more of the truth about what Tina has been through. Such a nice and informative video. Your Covid information is great reading and truthful. Thank you for informing me more. We, the right, have so far to go to get America back to normal. We must vote November 8 to change this horrible direction.
Here's the instructions for the Dominion voting machines:
https://360newslasvegas.com/the-complete-dominion-election-system-manual/
https://360newslasvegas.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/UG-RTR-UserGuide-5-11-CO.pdf
Chapter 8 is how to change teh votes to anything you want.
Unlike many who shamelessly ignore their sworn oaths of office, Clerk Tina Peters has unwaveringly fulfilled her sworn duties despite the mercyless lawfare by those in Colorado who don't want the corrupt system to change. Yet, the evidence is there for all to see. The legal fees for Peters are staggering, while the state has limitless funding, thanks to the taxpayers and out of state sources. Go to her site and help if you can.