In a meeting with County Commissioners and Mesa locals, Commissioner Janet Rowland and County Attorney Starr ignore citizens. Accuse locals and Clerk Peters of criminality – Fail miserably. Potential collusion exposed.
[Mesa County Colorado, September 2, 2021] – In a last-ditch effort to convince Mesa County Commissioners to opt out of a seven-year contract with Dominion Election Systems, America’s Mom, Sherronna Bishop asked for a private meeting with the local officials. The goal of the meeting was to present information on voting system security vulnerabilities, facts about the machines including built-in wireless modems, and several alternatives for running elections if Dominion voting systems were to be eliminated in Mesa County.
Following the lack of understanding the Commissioners displayed in previous hearings, Bishop wanted to offer Commissioners a private forum to ask questions to expand their understanding of complex electronic voting systems which are outside the Commissioner’s expertise. The meeting was expected to be private among local officials and stakeholders from Mesa County. Prior to the meeting, Bishop was asked to submit a list of her limited team members including systems testing expert Ret. USAF Col. Shawn Smith from the U.S. Election Integrity Plan.
In a shocking twist, the meeting was open and attended by a large cadre of people who have chronically dismissed citizen’s concerns and expert testimony on election integrity. Surprise attendees included:
- The hostile establishment press: including CNN, KUSA/9 News, and Grand Junction’s Daily Sentinel.
- Law enforcement: Including Mesa County Attorney Starr and the FBI.
- Dominion representatives: Steven Bennett a holder of two U.S. Patents for Dominion’s adjudication in voting systems using ballot images.
- Colorado County Clerk’s Association leadership: Carly Koppes, Chuck Broerman, and Justin Grantham. Noticeably absent was the CCCA’s Executive Director, Matt Crane whose conflicts of interest keep mounting. His wife worked for Dominion for years while Crane was a CO County Clerk. Missing from Crane’s Linkedin is his current Executive Director position at the CCCA.
- Secretary of State’s senior staffers: Trevor Timmons, Judd Choate, Matt Dombeski, and Jessi Romero.
- A paid national anti-election integrity activist: Ryan Macias who works with Matt Crane at the Lafayette Group. Macias is known for attempting to sabotage the Maricopa AZ audit by sneaking into the secure facility and lying about having press credentials. Crane invited Macias to speak at the summer CCCA Conference. Macias stated, in the secrecy of the CCCA-hosted meeting of the Colorado County Clerks, that his organization intends to discredit the Maricopa Audit Report before it’s even released.
It remains unclear whether the private meeting link was leaked or deliberately shared by the Commissioners. The fact that so many anti-election integrity media, bureaucrats and law enforcement attended a meeting between local citizens and their county officials raises serious questions for these County Commissioners. Why would so many anti-integrity officials, who are on the record defending Colorado’s failed election security as the “Gold Standard,” care to attend a local meeting discussing a Dominion voting machine contract? What is the connection between Mesa County Commissioners, anti-election integrity elected officials, the Sec State, and law enforcement?
The reason there may be a connection between the Mesa County Commissioners, law enforcement, and the Secretary of State is because of their intense interest in Tina Peters the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder. Peters became the global face of election integrity in August by upholding her oath as an elections official. Her crime? Preserving 2020 election records, mandated by State and Federal law. In anticipation of Griswold’s and Dominion’s voting system “Trusted Build” hardware and software “update”, Peters had Mesa County’s Dominion system records completely backed-up. After Griswold and Dominion executed their “Trusted Build update” Peters backed-up the systems again. When the before and after backups were compared by technical professionals, it was found that election records had been deleted in apparent violation of the Federal law’s definition of election records preservation. In their analysis of the backups, cyber experts identified open access points on the Dominion voting systems through which votes and vote tallies can be secretly altered without detection. Once it was discovered that Peters had properly backed-up her voting systems in accordance with the law, it unleashed a chain of illegal and unethical actions by a panicked Griswold. Griswold commandeered local, and Federal law enforcement to target Peters and her staff. Whether the law enforcement officials know they’re being used to deny public transparency or cover up potential evidence of Griswold’s illegal conduct is an open question. As undeniable technical proof-points mount, the motivation for the state’s attacks on Peters become clear.
The blatant government overreach included multiple raids on Peters’ office. In one raid, an armed fatigue-clad warrantless squad went to Peters’ home presumably at the direction of the Sec State and Mesa D.A. The raids, their severity, and threating nature shocked Peters given the fact that it’s her right and obligation to back-up election records. In addition, Dominion and the Sec. State directed all the CCRs to “back-up” their systems without any restrictions prior to the scheduled update. Now, Griswold and the D.A. are attacking using the full weight of the state claiming first-term Peters, a 65-year-old, Gold Star Mother, and cancer survivor is a criminal for following the law and upholding her sworn duty to the public who elected her.
In fear of her safety, Peters is now being protected by patriots, much to the ire of the Mesa County Commissioners. In yesterday’s meeting, Commissioner Janet Rowland aggressively used it as a forum to try Peters in the court of public opinion. Rowland parroted Griswold’s and D.A. Starr’s accusations as if she’d been briefed. During questioning appeared as if Rowland, CNN reporter Paul Murphy, and County Attorney Starr were working in tandem to pin criminality on Bishop or Smith. Nearly hysterical Rowland repeatedly asked who was in possession of “the images” (the before and after backup records) that show unequivocally that Mesa’s election records had been deleted from the Dominion machines.
By the end of the meeting, Rowland outed her own arrogance and disinterest in the concerns of the people she represents. Rowland was presented with an extensive list of Dominion’s system vulnerabilities by a military expert Ret. USAF Col. Shawn Smith who has deep domain knowledge. However, the proven vulnerabilities weren’t enough to convince Rowland and the other commissioners. Rowland claimed that the citizens must obtain and prove there were internet connections, cyber-attacks, and hacking before Rowland and the Commissioners would opt out of the Dominion contract. Rowland showed she had no grasp of what she heard in the meeting, given her ask. Citizens and experts couldn’t possibly prove internet connections, attacks or hacking without a forensic audit of the machines. It appears Rowland proved the predicate and the necessity for a full forensic audit in Mesa County. However, Rowland’s actions pale in comparison to the orchestrated acts of Dominion and Griswold.
To share and distribute a .pdf copy of the above press release, download the file below,
# # #
9 thoughts on “ANTI-ELECTION AUDIT HEAVYWEIGHTS ATTACK MESA LOCALS FOR DEMANDING ELECTION INTEGRITY”
OMG Colorado’s Conejos County Clerk Needs Questioned! I tried as a citizen and he shut me down as if he was reading the s riot Mrs. Peters spoke of! Thank You So Much!
Tim, Jeff, John – this is an interesting read from a solid source connecting the dots – good work on Bishop’s part. Lyndell’s Cyber Symposium has started this quest for forensic audits.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 3:28 PM U.S. Election Integrity Plan wrote:
> Holly at Altitude posted: ” In a meeting with County Commissioners and > Mesa locals, Commissioner Janice Rowland and District Attorney Starr ignore > citizens. Instead accuse locals and Clerk Peters of criminality – Fail > miserably. Potential collusion exposed. [Mesa County Co” >
It’s not a “shocking twist” for the meeting to be open. It’s the law. When two or more commissioners are meeting to discuss the county’s business it must be an open/public meeting. There is no such thing as a ‘private meeting’ with county commissioners and no one was ever promised it would be private.
Why is Griswald on PR campaign on Western Slope(meeting with Vail Daily: https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle-valley/griswold-secretary-of-state-offices-job-is-to-run-a-great-election/
I think she is freaked out about having voter fraud exposed.
What is the best web addresses could this information be shared to get most positive impact ( besides Facebook, whom I’m pretty sure will cancel me sooner than later) . I have been sharing the audit50 website to as many Colorado Republican Facebook pages, and continue to do this. This kind of concrete information (which most people can understand and relate its honest) is really appreciated. So I will be leaving my e-mail address for you to give me any updates in your findings. I’m really sad and somewhat afraid that major news outlets are taking the stance to be SILENT about this and others. How are we ever going to trust another election again… if we keep using these machines???
A warrantless search?
If you’re expecting your readers to believe the Mesa County District Attorney and/or the Colorado Secretary of State commissioned and was able to convince a law enforcement agency to execute a warrantless search, you must not think highly of their intelligence and critical thinking.
A “shocking” twist that the Mesa County Commissioners meeting was public?
1) It’s required under Colorado law when 2 or more commissioners meet on official business that the meeting is open to the public.
2) Don’t you want local government meetings transparent and open to the public?
3) Put the shoe on the other foot. If the Democratic Party wanted a private meeting, would you approve?
4) Why wouldn’t you want as much light on the information you have? If it’s proof like you say it is, you would want as much coverage and visibility as possible.
Your cause is not being advanced by obfuscation of the truth. To be credible, you must be objective.
Thanks for your input Chase. The thing is… Sherronna Bishop was not trying to have a private meeting with the County Commissioners as a way to hide information from the public. The intention of the meeting was to allow the (now proven ignorant) County Commissioners a forum to learn and be able to ask questions about the electronic voting systems in Mesa County to educate themselves without having to suffer the possible shame of having to admit in a large group they were woefully uninformed about a domain (computers, computer systems, security, and cyber security). You are correct that if two Commissioners are together, the meeting must be made public. Which it was… What was shocking is who the Commissioners invited to the meeting. A who’s who of election fraud deniers including reps from Dominion and political operatives from out of state, one of which was publicly outed trying to sabotage the Maricopa Audit. So as we now know, the County Commissioners are in a serious bind given they’ve had a chance to educate themselves and refused. They’ve been offered an off-ramp by the citizens of Mesa County to save face on election voting systems which the Commissioners sped past… Now – they’re involved and will be held accountable in their role in being on the wrong side of election integrity.