Tina Peters interview
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:
Be clear
Be succinct
Don’t step outside your area of expertise
Be sure you can back up everything you say
If you speculate, note that you are speculating and provide a solid basis for your speculation
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.
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."
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.