11 Aug Whistleblower Tina Peters Should Be Acquitted
The case against former Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters will be turned over to a Grand Junction Colorado jury this coming week.
She should be acquitted.
Tina Peters was (over)charged with seven felonies and three misdemeanors stemming from actions taken in 2021, at a time of widespread concerns about electronic election fraud, of which Tina Peters was acutely aware. All charges against her arise out of having arranged for two sets of forensic images to be taken of voting machines, one set before and one after a “trusted build” process.
Comparisons of those two sets of images by nonpartisan cyber experts revealed undeniable corruption. Read just one compelling explanation of the corruption exposed, HERE.
At her trial Tina Peters was not permitted to offer ANY testimony or evidence of why she enabled the forensic images to be taken. Neither was she permitted to offer the proof, the cyber experts’ analysis, that these images revealed undeniable electronic voting machine corruption.
It’s important to remember that before acting, Peters asked those she knew to be in authority to investigate the situation, but they were entirely unwilling. And to remember that there was no victim, no harm to anyone (except to those complicit in or benefitting from what she uncovered).
Imagine a firefighter walking down a city street, spotting a burning building across the street, and seeing that people are trapped inside, he races across the street, rescues them, and then puts out the fire. Only on the way he jaywalks. Then he is charged with criminal jaywalking, and at his trial he is not allowed to testify about why he jaywalked (because he saw the burning building and people trapped) OR about the results (he saved lives and put out the fire.) Because the only crime charged is jaywalking, ALL that the judge will allow is testimony and evidence about whether he jaywalked, whether jaywalking was permitted, etc. If the jury knew why he jaywalked and what resulted, a “not guilty” verdict would be inevitable.
This is a perfect analogy to the Tina Peters case.
She wasn’t charged with a crime arising out of making the images, just with arranging the creation of those images. That is why only evidence of facts related to arranging for those the forensic images was allowed, BUT no evidence of why she believed the images were needed, or about what the cyber experts discovered upon examination of these images, was permitted.
The prosecution’s choice of very narrow charges, along with the judge’s rigidly narrow evidentiary rulings, put Tina Peters in the position of having no ability to meaningfully defend herself. Because of those choices by prosecutors and the court, the jury has no capacity to understand the case.
I attended a significant portion of the Tina Peters trial. My overwhelming perception is that this case is a railroading of her, a determination to silence the messenger who revealed the corruption, rather than deal with the corruption uncovered and embrace a determination to remedy it.
It is logical to wonder if malice is driving this prosecution.
The prosecution’s surgical precision in bringing only charges that would render inadmissible both the reasons for and the outcome of those actions, suggests to me possible malice underlying this entire prosecution. Why charge seven felonies and three misdemeanors but through the choice of charges brought, render the accused unable to present evidence on the meat of the issue, the questions of why she acted and what she discovered.
I hope the jury will send a message to this prosecutor and court that Americans will not tolerate this contortion and abuse of the law. Overcharging, narrowly selecting charges that foreseeably and seemingly intentionally prevent a defendant from presenting any meaningful defense, has no place in the American justice system.
She should be acquitted.
For a fuller understanding of this case that the jury will never hear, listen to THIS interview. And share this article.