Tina Peters disagrees with district attorney’s investigation into election tampering

The Mesa County Clerk and Recorder claimed that the investigation was not thorough
Published: May. 24, 2022 at 5:42 PM MDT
Email This Link
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (KJCT) - For the first time since District Attorney Dan Rubinstein concluded his investigation into election tampering allegations stemming from appropriately named Report 3, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters is responding.

Peters disagrees with the investigation’s results, and claimed that the district attorney was not thorough in his investigation, and the proper people were not interviewed. However, Rubinstein confirmed that all election personnel involved in tabulation or adjudication were interviewed on March 30, 2021. None were interviewed by any other groups or organizations prior to Rubinstein’s investigation, and none had ever met the author of Report 3. Report 3 also does not identify any of the employees they allegedly spoke with.

“Rubinstein and Struwe’s investigation into the allegations into the third Mesa Forensic Report confirms the substance of the report, but reaches flawed conclusions,” stated Peters. However, the report does not confirm that “evidence of potentially unauthorized and illegal manipulation of tabulated vote data during the 2020 General Election and 2021 Grand Junction Municipal Election” exists, as Report 3 and Peters claims.

The additional adjudication databases were confirmed to have been caused by little more than human error during a troubleshooting process, as supported by security camera footage provided within the report where the troubleshooting process is clearly visible. The footage confirms that no evidence of votes being intentionally counted improperly is present.

To date, there have been four reports filed alleging election fraud. Mesa County Commissioner Cody Davis previously stated that three of the reports may have pointed out potential vulnerabilities, but the district attorney has yet to validate any of these alleged vulnerabilities. In Report 3′s case, the proposed vulnerabilities involved an external trigger of some sort, referring to it as a “software algorithm” or “signal.” These vulnerabilities have been confirmed to not exist by Rubinstein’s findings.

Peters claims that Rubinstein’s investigation was biased, and that he determined the results prior to the investigation. “The D.A. is attempting to save face after convening a grand jury to bring flimsy and politically motivated charges against a county clerk who was doing her duty to preserve an election.” Peters stated.

KKCO previously reported on Rubinstein’s presentation to the Mesa County Commissioners, after finishing his report.

No evidence of criminal activity or improperly counted votes has been unearthed at this time.

Copyright 2022 JCT. All rights reserved.