Having watched the trial as you know, I knew that the real election fraud defense was not being allowed into evidence.  The outcome was therefore foreordained. 

I can’t accuse the Colorado Sec. Of State of being a part of the fraud using Dominion Computers, but I can say that she, just as the writer of this following article must be very naïve, at the very minimum.  

But on the other hand I doubt that very seriously to be the actual case with elected officials.  If the Democrats, who are accused of aiding in the theft of elections through the use of computers were really interested in unifying the country on this issue and were actually interested in it being put to rest; then they would want to see forensic audits.  In fact, they would be insisting on them being done. But they would rather use Election Fraud in law fare against as many of their political opponents as possible.

I do not know if the forensic audit that was done on the Mesa Co computers at Tina’s instigation of that audit did actually meet the legal requirement’s, as to chain of custody, but had they not; then that should have been the reason for not allowing them in admission for the Defense of the charges against Clerk Peters.  If they had on the other hand they certainly should have been allowed in for her defense, because the facts are: she was not allowed this backup up by the county IT department from whom she requested it. And she was responsible for the preservation of her election result for audit. Those facts are on the record. 

If elections are in fact being rigged as is being constantly thrown about; then who are the recipients of such rigging?  You guessed it:  it would be the elected officials fighting these cases in court, and the Judges ruling in these cases. They will not allow these audits of machines to take place.  So yes I will stick to naive if you do not in some way question just what is going on in our country’s elections. 

I am hopeful that Clerk Peters has grounds for Appeal.  She is a 70 year old, Christian woman, whose son was a special ops soldier killed in action. She is not someone going around attempting to steal elections, but was truly attempting to get to the bottom of questions about her election, about which she was being questioned by her constituents.  She was not charged with election fraud, but with profiting from her actions, which were illegal, because she brought into the room an undercover auditor.  Yes that made her look bad, but without doing so she likely would not have gotten him in to do what she thought she needed in order to find the answers sought in her county’s election. 

Officials have denied access in most every state where cases have been brought seeking access to these computer records. WHY?  What do they know, that they do not want us to know?

Tina Peters guilty: Former Mesa County clerk convicted on 7 charges