Summary
âž¡ A mother of four, Sharona, became involved in a legal case concerning election fairness due to its impact on her children. She testified in a trial where Tina Peters, a county clerk, was accused of identity theft. Sharona introduced Peters to the people who would help investigate the election’s legitimacy. Despite obstacles and accusations, Sharona stood by her actions, believing in the importance of supporting officials who truly represent the people.
âž¡ Jerry Wood was forced to testify to the grand jury, leading to a complex legal situation involving Clerk Peters, who ensured her actions were lawful. The situation also involved a group chat, which included Peters, Sandra Brown, Belinda Knisley, Kurt Olson, and Conan Hayes, who were preparing for the creation of forensic images. Congresswoman Lauren Bovert, who initially supported Peters, later served a cease and desist order, seemingly abandoning her support. Conan Hayes, a government asset with clearance, was brought in to create the forensic images, but his involvement was kept secret to avoid raising red flags.
âž¡ The text discusses a complex situation involving a county clerk named Tina Peters, who is facing legal issues. The author believes that Peters is being unfairly targeted for investigating potential issues with county voting machines. The author also suggests that there is a lack of transparency and fairness in the legal proceedings, and expresses concern that Peters may face jail time. The author criticizes the local authorities and media for their handling of the situation, and suggests that Peters is being used as a scapegoat.
âž¡ The text discusses a controversial trial, where the author believes the defendant didn’t receive a fair trial due to bias from the judge and ineffective defense attorneys. The author suggests that the defendant was targeted for political reasons and was denied the opportunity to present crucial evidence. The author also mentions a similar case involving a former presidential advisor, suggesting a pattern of political persecution. The author hopes for an appeal and better representation for the defendant in the future.
âž¡ The speaker discusses their concerns about the current political climate, comparing it to a “satanic bolshevik communist coup.” They express fear that if the current government remains in power, it could lead to a deadly purge. They also mention a potential constitutional crisis if President Trump is not allowed to take the oath of office due to the 14th amendment. The speaker criticizes the Colorado Supreme Court for alleged corruption and expresses doubt that justice will be served in the current system.
âž¡ The power of election clerks in Colorado has been reduced, with authority now centralized to the secretary of state. This change has been met with resistance from regular citizens who feel their voices are being ignored. In response, they are encouraged to file ethics complaints against judges they believe are behaving unethically. The actions of a former clerk, Peters, who exposed corruption, are highlighted as an example of standing with the people.
Transcript
Been accustomed in addition to advertiser for almost seven years. And I wouldn’t go anywhere else. And I’ll tell you, if you don’t see the problems in the economy, you’re not paying attention. The banks can take your money. Dodd Frank 2010 that you’re an unsecured creditor. So you really need to diversify. Noble Gold is the expert at doing this. So I’m going to give you a place to go, and I’ll send you a free information packet. Davehodgesgold.com davehodgesgold.com dot federal government wants me to tell you that anytime you do something like this, there can be a risk.
They should be including putting your money in the bank. Today is a risk, but nonetheless, we give that warning in good faith. Like I said, I’ve been a customer almost seven years. Davehodgesgold.com dot our guest in this segment is Sharona Bishop. And Sharona is known for a lot of things. One, she’s been the victim of FBI thuggery and Gestapo tactics on behalf of Merrick Garland and his family’s financial interest and critical race there, as she had her door kicked in for daring to protest at a school board meeting. And she took the lemon and turned into lemonade.
And she’s become a prominent talk show host. Her climb has been astronomical. And we’ll talk to her a little bit about that. But more important to the topic of today, Sharona has engaged herself in the fight for Tina Peters. And as you know, we’ve had conversations on this show with Tina, and we know the injustice going on. And Sharona was actually now called as a witness, and we want to get her perspective. Sharon, I really appreciate you taking the time to be on with us. I know how busy you are. And I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you did for a great patriot.
And Tina Peters. Dave, thank you very much. And thank you for having me on your show again. You are such a great patriot, such a loud voice for truth and just common sense and reasonableness. I was thinking about your opening there where you said there’s so many people who are still not engaged, who don’t understand what’s going on. And I’m hoping those numbers are dwindling, because if you can’t look outside and see, you know, I drove down a road in Dallas, Texas yesterday, and there was groups of illegal immigrants parked on the side of the road, just waiting for someone to come along to pick them up, to take them to go do work or something.
I’m not completely sure, but they weren’t. They weren’t here legally. They weren’t here following our laws. And they were pretty forward, I will just put it that way. As I drove past and I just thought, you know, in a regular, everyday situation, just driving up street, you’re seeing America change. And I think that the more that people are seeing that it’s affecting their everyday lives. They’re waking up to the reality that they have to get involved. And when you think about 15% to 25% really is the numbers of those who actually vote in this country, that’s alarming.
We’re leaving our ballots open to being hijacked by, you know, people who don’t have good in mind, who want to select candidates that will do their bidding. And it’s time for the american people to take ownership of their vote, utilize their voice, and take what’s happening to this country seriously. Because as we look at abroad, over at the UK right now, who is demonstrating our future, what our future looks like if we don’t get proactive, they’ve been reduced to carrying forks in their pockets to fend off illegal immigrants who are attacking and assaulting their women. It is the future of America.
If we don’t show up now and get ready for this most important election ever. No, you’re absolutely right. I’m very familiar. In fact, the London police chief has threatened to extradite people like me for being critical of them. I don’t see how he could possibly do it. But I guess in this administration, anything is possible. But you’re right. And then what did Australia do yesterday? Full digital id, no services without it. They’ve gone full blown china. And so it’s going to come here, people. It’s all part of the master plan. And isn’t it interesting? I didn’t watch the entire speech.
I’ve gotten clips of it. But Kamala Harris left the DNC without even giving a platform, because they can’t, they don’t want to scare the heck out of America. People don’t, people don’t realize, Sharona, how much danger we’re in, and I mean real danger. When they were chanting death to America on the DNC floor, I think that tells you what their platform is. They fundamentally, Obama said it. He wanted to fundamentally change America, and that is exactly what they’ve done. They’re not satisfied yet with the full destruction until there is full destruction. And that is what they’re aiming to do.
There’s so many avenues, but I think one of the reasons you’re having me on today is to talk about what happened in Mesa county, what happened with Clark, Tina Peters, why this is essential to everybody, everybody across our country listening. I want to just kind of remind if it’s not at the forefront there. I lived in Mesa County. I grew up in a 6th generation Colorado, and I was involved in elections. I moved to a neighboring right next door, Garfield county, and continued to be involved in elections. So I was working there in Colorado, in that community that was my home.
And I had ran several city council races in Mesa county, in the Grand Junction area. And the results of those elections were highly suspicious. They did not seem to trend with our culture and our community. And I felt that this can’t be right. This just cannot be right. And Clerk Peters, when she went to share the results of that election with the community, she also had a major gut check and said, this can’t be right. Now for the people watching, I was acquaintances with Tina Peters at that time, but we weren’t friends, we weren’t close, so we were friendly.
If I saw her, it’s like, hi, how are you? But, you know, we weren’t hanging out or anything like that. She was an elected official and so we didn’t have, I didn’t call her and say, hey, did you see that? We didn’t have that kind of relationship. On her own. And on my own, I said, this isn’t right. She said, this doesn’t seem right. And then we had an affidavit from a person who was at an after party with the, the four on the left that won, you know, unanimously, who said 30 minutes before Clerk Peters pulled those results of the election, they announced that their full slate had Wondez.
She signed an affidavit. She was prepared to testify at Tina Peters trial as to the indicator of what happened, what ignited our concern for the community. And she was denied her opportunity to be a witness by the way. But she did sign an affidavit, and she’s continued to hold to her story three years later and has been an ardent supporter of clerk Peters because of what happened that night. She had reached out to me personally, actually, and I said, you need to call clerk Tina Peters, because she’s the only one that can do anything about that.
So that’s what started it all. We began a canvassing effort, and I began taking some of these issues to clerk Peters. Calling her office again, I was seeing her as an elected official. I wanted to bring real information. We had over 100 people show up to start our canvassing effort in Grand Junction to verify whether or not these were legitimate elections that were happening. Did the. Did the voter roll, the people who were on the voter roll, did they vote? That was pretty much. That was the question. Did you vote? And we found a lot of problems and a lot of baffling things that are legal but shouldn’t be, and then things that were just blatantly illegal and stolen identities at that time.
It’s so important for people to understand. I was a mom. I was getting involved in this stuff. I was learning. I was going to trainings. I was doing trainings for leadership development for people who wanted to run for office. I was learning right along with everybody else. But I was very committed. And people have asked, why did Sharona Bishop have any say about anything? She didn’t work in the clerk’s office. She wasn’t an elected official. She didn’t have an official role. Why is Sharona in the middle of this? Because I’m a mother of four kids. Because I saw the impact of policy on my own children and what happened to them.
When I trusted government with my kids, and it awakened something in me. It turned me into this person who has become relentless and will not stop until things are right and resolved for our kids. That is my qualification. I’m a mom, and that’s the only qualification anybody needs to be concerned about what’s happening with the children, mine in particular. So that question has come up quite a bit. Why was I in the middle of everything? And that’s why it affected my kids. I think that’s fantastic. And you raised a real salient point that Tina covered with me.
I interviewed her the day before her trial started, and she told me she wasn’t allowed to present any defense. We should say this for the background. Let me not get ahead of myself here. Tina, being the clerk of Mesa county, was in charge of elections. It’s her duty, her statutory duty to make sure the elections are free and fair. And she was simply doing her job and investigating whether or not the election that she was overseeing was fair. And there are forces in Colorado that steal elections, and it leads right to Jenna Greswold, the secretary of state.
And she ordered Tina to stop, and she didn’t have the statutory authority to do it. I mean, legally she didn’t. How it’s worked out in the courts is something else. And Tina told us in the interview that she was not allowed to present the reasons why she was investigating the legitimacy of the voting results. And so I want you to take it from there. What was your role in the testimony? What did you, they asked you to testify for? Well, clerk Peters is exactly right. The judge, Judge Barrett, literally, in the pretrial rules, declared that there was not to be any utterance of why Clerk Peters made the images.
You were not allowed to talk about any concerns about elections, period. It was, it was the pretrial rules that they came up with. And, you know, this has been shocking to me to find out that the judge, the constitution says that you have the right to present evidence to defend yourself, whatever evidence you need to present. That’s what the constitution says. But Judge Barrett and these judges who are dictating from their benches our rights and obliterating our protections are coming up with all kinds of nonsense that prevents you from giving a defense. It’s 100% true. I was testifying in this trial because I introduced Tina, clerk Peters to the attorney that would turn, introduce her to the tech man.
That would be, that would eventually make the images. Conan Hayes. This is all public knowledge now. And I also had introduced clerk Peters to Gerald Wood. Gerald Wood was talked about because he was, he had told me he was a tech guy. And if you needed any technological things done, reach out. So Clerk Peters said, hey, we need a guy that can do a forensic image. Do you know anyone? I was like, oh, there’s that guy, jerry Wood. Let me see if he does that. I was under the impression he had his own business at the time.
And I called him and he said, yeah, I can do that. And then a couple days later, he said, you know what? I don’t have the skillset to do a forensic image. I don’t know how to do that. So we had reached, I was contact. I reached out to doctor Frank and said, hey, I think clerk Peters is going to need somebody who knows how to do this. Our guy can’t do it. So arrangements were made, and this was all presented during court the text messages and the signal groups that I created and put all of our people in together so they could communicate, we could figure out what we needed to do to support the clerk again.
And I stand by this 100%. When you have an elected official who is willing to do their actual job, which is to represent the people, and they listen to you, you need to go to the map for them. You can’t just tell people to do something and then not help, not provide any avenue forward. And I’ve always done that. No matter what I’m doing, for me, it’s in my nature. And I’ve met many other people. We’re not willing just to tell people what to do. We’re there to help and support and make sure it gets done.
I don’t trust elected officials, quite frankly. And even at that point, I didn’t necessarily trust that things would be done right. So again, just as a citizen, I’m like, hey, here is this, here is this. What do you want to do? And so I testified in the trial because clerk Peters was accused of committing identity theft. Okay? Three of her felonies were identity theft, and that was a lie. Jerry Wood happily surrendered his key badge to be used by Conan Hayes, who ended up doing the forensic images. And it’s evident by the signal chat that we were having through the course of the creation of the forensic images.
I was not there in person, but I was getting updates from clerk Peters, and I was letting him know that things were going well. Everything’s great. Thank you so much. And he’s saying, oh, this is so great. I’m so glad everything’s working out. And I read those text messages which the prosecution tried to say were created by Tina Peters, that they were fake. So it was really good to be there to validate and verify the authenticity of that signal chat where Gerald Wood was saying, awesome. This is great. So good. I’m so glad. And obviously, and very clearly apart and condoning and giving permission to Conan Hayes to use his key badge.
Now, he lied in court and said that he did not. He lied. He perjured himself. There’s nothing that can be done about that now because he took an immunity deal, but he lied. He was always a part of it because there was nothing wrong with that. There was nothing wrong with letting someone else use your key badge. That wasn’t illegal and that wasn’t a crime. Is he also a pastor? His wife is a pastor. Okay. I saw his testimony. My gosh, how lack of credibility. This man handled this to you, encouraged you could tell he was lying.
He lied all the way through here. So he took a plea deal to lie. He was brought in and given a badge and with permission to go in and see. Okay, is everything okay with these machines? And they’re doing their job. Okay. That’s all there was to it. Everything was awesome. Everything was on the up and up. And something else we should mention. Tina told us in our interview that she was not allowed to have any communication, nor were her lawyers with anyone that worked with her in the clerk’s office. So presenting an affirmative defense on, hey, it was all in the up and up.
This was not a crime, was taken away from her. Do you agree with that assessment? Yeah, that was declared pretty much right out the gate after the August raid at her office. It was pretty shortly after that that they. They. It was, yes. The court declared she could have no contact with Belinda Knisley or Sandra Brown. And that whole situation has just been devastating. One last thing I want to say about Jerry Wood, if you don’t mind, just a little bit of tea here for your audience. Here’s the reality of what happened was this. Jerry Wood was all, you know, he was set.
I think that he was committed to staying the course and to seeing this through, to help, to help his country. I think he believed that at one point his attorneys were changed. And I think this is really critical. He was given a new attorney, hired a new attorney. I didn’t hear about it until after the fact. Now, I grew up in this county. I know everybody. My husband worked in the judicial, 21st judicial. He knew all of these guys. And they were routinely asking me about the attorneys before they would hire them to make sure that we had good attorneys for Belinda, for Sandra Brown, and for Jerry Wooden.
And Jerry Wood, unfortunately, they hired Andrew Peters, I believe is Peter Andrews or Andrew Peters to be his attorney. While Andrew Peters and the district attorney, Dan Rubenstein, were very best friends since college. And I used to wait on them when I was like 19 years old at Bennett’s barbecue, where one of their dads owned it and one of their dads both funded both boys college for law school. I mean, these guys are super tighten. And you have no doubt that they were exchanging information? There’s no doubt in my mind. They were exchanging information. And Dan Rubenstein was letting Andrew know what he needed in order to prosecute this case and get Jerry Wood to flip.
So after much pressure, after repeatedly saying that Jerry Wood was going to go to jail if he did not testify to the grand jury, he did eventually testify. And it’s just a very sad thing in my mind, what’s happened here. It’s important that people be honest, they be courageous, and they just really trust the Lord for where the cards are going to fall. Because there was nothing that was done without thought, without running it past attorneys using experts. Clerk Peters, she crossed her teeth, she dotted her eyes, and she made sure that everything she was doing was lawful.
Yeah, but you take away your ability to prove that the prosecution can do anything they want. You know, what you’re reminding me of here is Fannie Willis. I mean, the relationship between prosecutor, this is unbelievable, what you’re telling. This is what we see in Atlanta right now today. This is what’s going on in Atlanta. Yeah, it’s criminal. It is criminal. It’s a blatant conflict of interest. Was it known to the judge and was this brought up as an objection by Tina’s attorneys? I alerted Tina’s attorneys already to that. And I and Clerk Peters attorneys, I don’t know what they did with it.
Of course, Judge Barrett already knew about the relationship within the 21st, so I have no doubt that these guys are buddies on the weekends. You know, this is how this system works. And unfortunately, it’s not for the defense of the witness. It’s not to secure and protect the rights of the witness of the defendant. It is about the prosecution getting their pound of flesh to put a notch on their belt. And that’s really what it came down to in this particular situation. They were not going to let Tina Peters go, and I think we all knew that.
I was thankful to give my testimony and see three of those felonies drop away because I was far more believable than Jerry Wood. I stand by everything that I did. I stand by clerk Tina Peters and what she did to secure those images. I absolutely support her and she should have been given whistleblower status. Now, one thing that people also do not know, and Dave, I will be spilling this for the first time on your show today, is in the evidence that was presented to me to read during the court proceedings. It was a signal group that I had created with clerk Peters, myself.
Sandra Brown and Belinda Knisley had added themselves to the group along with Kurt Olson, the attorney, and Conan Hayes. Very clearly, Belinda and Eisen and Sandra Brown knew Conan had discussed with him before, gave him information. They absolutely knew what was going on. Nothing was a surprise to them. Let’s just be very clear about that. They lied also on the stand, which is very unfortunate. You’re talking about the process of you’re talking about this group was talking about the process of uncovering legitimacy of the vote. Was that right? The group was only there to prepare for the making of the forensic images.
Okay? That was what the group was for. It was just to prepare for the making of the forensic images. Sandra Brown was providing information to Conan Hayes ahead of time so that it would be a very smooth process. And nothing was illegal about that. There was nothing illegal or anything about that at all, this public information. But she was just helping prepare him. But in there, on the bottom of page 26, again, this is public information. Now, everyone should read that signal group chat, because on the bottom of page 26, I write in there, Congresswoman Lauren Bovert is looking forward to meeting Conan Hayes tonight.
And she did. She met Conan Hayes prior to the trusted build. She told clerk Peters, you go, girl, I’ve got your back. And then in September of 2021, she served me a cease and desist order completely out of the blue, wildly unexpected. But knowing that the district attorney had this chat, they had all this information, I can only speculate that she was given a talking to and therefore, she would not be supporting clerk Peters moving forward. She barely won her congressional race because obviously, when she chose not to support clerk Peters, not to secure whistleblower protection for her and save her, basically do a CyA.
We abandoned her. And that’s what’s happened. That’s the real story of what’s happened to Lauren Bovert. She abandoned the people she said she would be there for utilizing the law, by the way, not special favors, nothing, nothing like that was asked. She knew everything. She met Conan Hayes, and then when things got tough, she promptly abandoned us all. What’s Conan most especially just so the audience knows. What’s Conan Hayes role in all this? CoNAN hayes, so this is fascinating information, too. Conan Hayes was, is a cyber guy. He worked for the CIA. He worked for the FBI.
He’s been an asset many times, done special projects for them many times. He has government clearance. Clearance. I mean, there’s nobody more secure to do this forensic image. So he was brought in to do the forensic image. The reason that he used Jerry Wood’s key badge was because he said, I cannot use, you cannot do a background check and use my real identity. They, I can’t let them know that I was here to do this imaging, and that will be a red flag, and it will shut everything down. And so why would that have been a red flag? I don’t, I don’t see the problem, because Conan Hayes is a government asset, so he was only worried about damaging his credibility for future jobs.
Okay, okay, I got it. I can’t understand, to be honest with you. There were some things that were said that I don’t think I should repeat. But he had some very big concerns. And him being there in Mesa county to do a forensic image, to be in the it position would have flagged the background check. And I don’t think it would have ever happened that we would have had these forensic images. And I think he’s correct on that. Well, the guy is stupid and let me tell you why he’s stupid. And he should have known this once the word got out of what you guys were looking at.
And because it’s an electronic forum, it was already known to the powers that be. I guarantee you when the NSA picked up on that, it went to the CIA and it went directly to the people in the county and the state so they could monitor. I promise you that happened. I know how this game is played. And this guy would have known what I know. He would have known exactly what I know the first time a city camera caught his face on facial recognition. He’s there for a reason and they would have known it. Shrona. I can’t even speculate on that.
I really believe they didn’t have any clue about the forensic images being made until that video was released by code monkey in August. I don’t have any reason to believe that anybody knew anything leading up to that. No. A video was released by code monkey who had nothing to do with the making of the forensic images. And it’s disappointing. It was disappointing at the time even to see people for likes and clicks risk putting tweeters out there before the time before those reports were ready, they would have. But I guarantee you when they found out he was there, they would have been, pardon the expression, crapping in their pants because they know what he’s about.
They had a heart attack when that happened. Oh, 100%. Once they found out. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Once that video hit the airways in August and they realized that it was Conan Hayes who had been there. Absolutely. That’s why they raided clerk Peter’s office. That’s why they came with the full force of the law of the FBI. Absolutely agree with that. You’re right. That was the, they had a rebellious county clerk who wouldn’t follow directives of the elite until then. And that’s probably what made them, I wondered what made them throw the book at her. And I think we just discovered what it is.
Yeah. Yeah, it was that. It was she, she was smart enough to make forensic images. I’m going to say this too. I do not believe Kirk Peters was rebellious. I have to say this. I don’t think so either. But they did. The other side would’ve. They saw it. They saw it maybe that way. But I mean, the prosecution tried to make the case that she wanted fame and stardom and all this stuff that honestly could not have been further from the truth. And that was a lot. Why I was there because I was already, I already had a platform, I already had a voice.
I already was out there. Clerk Peters did not want to do that. She was simply there to protect the vote. That was it. And being thrust into the spotlight was wildly uncomfortable for her. She did not anticipate that. She did not seek that. And like I said, code monkey putting out this video that, I don’t even know how it came to be exactly. But showing images of the Mesa county machines is what caused this insane reaction by the secretary of state and the acquiescing by the district attorney Dan Rubenstein, to turn over our county to the feds.
So they were freaked out. There is no doubt about it. If Tina didn’t make that available to this code monkey, that means, no, she did not. I don’t believe she did either. No. Well, my point is, code monkey is not everything that this code monkey appears to be. There’s collaboration there and something was going on after hours behind the scenes. Otherwise how would they have got that information? You know, I realized, and maybe you realize this today, people will do a lot of things for likes and clicks. Exactly. They will even put other people in harm’s way.
And around that time, I happened to be in the office when a phone call came in from an attorney in Washington, DC who was quickly trying to get whistleblower status for clerk Peters. And we really didn’t understand what was going on. We didn’t, you know, again, I was just running local campaigns, you know, being a mom. I was a makeup artist. I did weddings on the weekends, politics during the week. I wasn’t, I wasn’t in the know about how all of this works. And it seemed very evident to me that things were very shady. Very evident to our over 100 volunteers who were coming out every single week to do canvassing, that things were very shady.
I was alerting our county commissioners. I was alerting our representatives. I was alerting my local sheriff. We were not keeping anything from people. In fact, Janet Rowland, the county commissioner who just lost her race, thank God, was alerted to the, to the images and the reports that were being created shortly after the images were done. So she was in full knowledge the entire summer. She knew exactly what was going on and then pretended like she didn’t when the rubber hit the road. So that’s. That’s the situation that we’ve been in now. As far as clerk Peters moving forward, the prosecution again, they were going to have their pound of flesh no matter what.
I’m thankful we could get three of those felonies dropped and move forward just with the four and the misdemeanors. There was enough bizarre behavior by the judge and the district attorney and the prosecution that it looks like an appeal is going to be effective, and they’re hoping for the absolute best. I just talked to one of the attorneys yesterday to just kind of get a handle on exactly what’s going on now. So clerk Peters will be sentenced on October 3, and then hopefully the appeal process will start right away. But we don’t know yet what Judge Barrett is going to decide.
Will she be taken into custody immediately? Will it be 60 days from now, you know, turn yourself into Mesa county jail or wherever they’re going to sentence her to? We don’t know. But if there’s been any indicator by the previous behavior, they want to see her in jail. And I, you know, I have no doubt personally that that’s what they’re going to do, that she will spend time in jail because it will satisfy all of their ego. They’ve been made to look foolish. We have called them out publicly, repeatedly. The people don’t trust them. I have it on good authority that the district attorney is going to retire because he’s absolutely been undone by this case, and rightly so.
He never should have allowed it to happen. He should have demonstrated leadership, talked with clerk Peters, and not allowed our county to be turned over to the feds. But it is what it is, and they allowed what they allowed. None of us had ever been here before. Nobody intended harm or foul play. Nobody did. And for Tina Peters to not be able to give her defense at the trial and that jury be able to make a truly educated decision about what her judgment should be was horrifying. To be there and watch that happening. I mean, the prosecution, no matter what I said.
Sustained, sustained, sustained. You know, they weren’t even going to let me talk because then I would seem too normal, too regular. And I think that it would have continued to move the jury. Tina Peters being able to give a defense for why she did what she did would have moved the jury 100% and are you aware, Dave, that they were. That there was the potential for a hung jury? I have heard that. And my reaction, I actually said this on someone else’s show. I said if I would have been on the jury, I would have said I would vote for acquittal because it’s not a crime to investigate a crime.
That would have been my position. But you see, they didn’t even allow the conversation about what the crime was or the investigation was about. They wouldn’t allow any conversation whatsoever about elections. When I even spoke about how I got involved, because I knew people are wondering, like, why is she in the middle of this? They wouldn’t even let me explain it. So it really was. It was just so disappointing play out like that. I understand the judge precluded all this evidence, but the people in Mesa county aren’t in a vacuum. I’ve heard a stat. I don’t know if it’s true, but I believe the principle is true.
Over 700 stories in the local paper, above the fold, most of them in Colorado, basically going after Tina Peters. And somewhere in these discussions, if I were a casual citizen, I would have seen she’s investigating a crime. That would have been my reaction as a citizen. And even though they tampered with the jury pool by allowing that to happen, I still think that these people shouldn’t be able to see she’s investigating a crime that’s not a crime because of all the publicity. I mean, it’s a vacuum in the courtroom. I get what you’re saying, but it’s not a vacuum in society when the media is nonstop going after Tina.
The majority of the jury were probably under age 25. We had one woman who ended up being a jury member who actually deliberated over the age of 50, and no older men over the age of 50. Then. Attorneys didn’t do the job in jury selection if that was the composition. I mean, they did. I don’t know that I can express how vile and how unjust and unfair Judge Barrett was, but, I mean, I wasn’t there. I don’t know. I honestly can’t cast stones now because I just don’t know. Sure. But. But I. What we had to work with, where people who could not possibly understand the complexities of the situation didn’t know the questions to ask and, quite frankly, wanted to get home.
How long did they deliberate? Three and a half hours. For that many counts? That’s it. Three and a half hours to have someone’s life, you know, end with prison. And I think that was really the most disappointing part of it all was. I want to interrupt just for a second. I’m sorry, but you said a real key thing we need to emphasize. Tina is going to be 69 and she’ll spend the rest of her life in prison if these people have their way. Yeah, that’s correct. Yeah, that is the facts right there. You know, and she didn’t even get into this job.
She told me what motivated her to run for office in the first place. She said, I was tired of standing in line at the DMv for 3 hours and I knew I could fix this. I’m a businesswoman. I knew I could do better. And that was what motivated. She didn’t come in with an axe to grind to prove there’s voter fraud. She discovered it to the course of her duties and now she’s going to spend the rest of her life in prison. So people like Jenna Griswold can keep stealing elections. Yeah, I mean, again, she is the scapegoat for them.
She’s going to satisfy the left’s need for revenge and the establishment’s need for revenge for exposing what they’ve been doing. I mean, remember, dominion voting machines were brought into Colorado by a republican secretary of state who personally ordered the Bluetooth modems that went into the machines and then has lied to the public for the last ten years. So that’s Wayne Williams, by the way, of Colorado Springs. And Wayne Williams has never, had never been held accountable. There’s been no criminal charges brought against him for violating the state constitution that says you can have no wireless access.
Right. You must be air gapped. The machines must be air gapped. He ordered the Bluetooth modems. He put them in there. He knew they were there all along and he knew that Tina Peters was not lying, that the reports were true, they were accurate. And they just, they are not going to allow nobodies to come in and disrupt what they have built. They’ve built a system where they select who they want to be in charge, who will further their agenda. And in the state of Colorado, the agenda is welcome to gay Colorado. The agenda is mutilation of children.
The agenda is grow pharma as big as possible and have as many lifetime clients as possible. The agenda is no more ranching, no more farming, no more animal ownership, no more property ownership, no more gas, no more oil, no more energy. It is literally going to be a playground for the disgusting, perverted elites of this country and the world because they travel in also to take part. In Colorado, we have the gay games to look forward to in 2030. And Jared Polis, the most corrupt governor, first openly homosexual governor in the country, is going to continue to make sure people are selected who will advance his pedophilia agenda for Colorado and for the country at large, because they’re creating the legislation that’s being passed around.
And Clerk Peters, she interrupted that. She pointed out she was able to demonstrate with facts, with evidence, by science, exactly what these people have been doing. And I just, I’m really, I know that God is not going to abandon her or us, but these people are evil. They’re evil. Yeah. I asked Tina in our last interview, I said to her, with all the pre trial publicity, why don’t you change venues? And I did not know this until she told me, this corrupt judge who’s just like the judge in New York that can got Trump convicted, he gets to choose where it goes.
And she said, I bet he’d send it to Boulder and we won’t gain anything. So, I mean, she had negative pre trial publicity. She had a judge that did not allow an affirmative defense of any type. And you had a jury that was too young and unrepresentative of the community. That’s why, listen, I’m going to be honest with you, and you don’t have to comment, but I’m just saying, watching the trial from afar, I didn’t watch it all, but I watched probably about a third of it. I was not impressed with her attorneys. They should have been objecting an open court as to why can’t we present this evidence at this time to refute this testimony.
And they should have made the judge put it on the record in front of the jury. I had a fit when that wasn’t happening. So I go to my attorney friends and I asked him, I said, what would have happened? They said, well, he could be a real, you know what, and say, you’re in contempt of court. But he probably wouldn’t have done that, because then that turns it into a circus like we have in Atlanta. And they said he would had to have explained and he would had to have cleared the jury, and the jury would start asking questions, what are they hiding from us? And now you’ve got them.
Quite. See, this is what lawyers have told me about this case. And I don’t think she got good defense. That’s my personal opinion. I won’t put you on the spot, but I thank you. That’s how I feel. That’s how I feel about this. And I hope to heck if she goes for appeal, and she should, that she has a different set of attorneys, and I’ll be happy to help her fundraise for that. Well, thank you for that. Again, I can’t play Monday morning quarterback. It was definitely a precarious situation. Judge Barrett had already demonstrated his bias against clerk Peters.
He had already ruled in the previous issue with the iPad and the officer and all of that. He already had a particular bias, and we all were aware of that. He’s had his own problems, though. He actually just had a case overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court for not allowing evidence into the trial, and the Supreme Court sided with the defendants. So I think what would be so great is to see people writing ethics complaints to the judiciary regarding Judge Barrett, because it was unconscionable what he did and how he governed that room and the obvious favoritism that he bestowed on the prosecution.
He declared publicly that he had to. He had to weigh in in favor of the prosecution. He made that clear from the very beginning. He literally said that one other stunt that they did pull that was just, you know, again, fear and punishment and all of this trying to silence defendants, trying to silence the witnesses. They basically cast out all of Tina’s witnesses, by the way, I’m thankful I made it into the pile, but only because I had those text messages before I went to give my testimony. They had a big circus show, you know, a conference with the judge.
It was all urgent and decided they needed to let me know about my fifth Amendment rights and that my testimony could lead to criminal charges. So was I sure that I wanted to go forward with this testimony? Because I was called. They called me an unindicted conspirator. Unindicted conspirator in the courtroom. You didn’t do anything. I helped. They called me a connector when they raided my home and they bashed in my door, terrified my children, handcuffed me outside for 40 minutes, did all the things they did. When I asked them what warranted all of this, they said, you connect people.
And they always knew, and I guess that’s one thing I would say, too, that we found out during the proceedings. They always knew I didn’t commit any crimes. They always knew I never had any images. They always knew I had not broken any law. They always knew that. And yet they used the full weight of the federal government at my home to intimidate us, to shut us up. My husband worked for criminal justice for 24 years. You know, he. He was part of the judiciary. He. All they would have had to do was talk to us.
But that’s not what they wanted. They wanted to scare us, silence us. And they tried to do it again at Kirkpeters trial by threatening me with criminal charges. And this way, though, you know, the parallels that you went through are similar to Peter Navarro, the economic advisor to the president, to President Trump. And they arrested him at the airport. Here he is, a public official. There’s no flight risk whatsoever. They should have gone to his lawyers. He lived two blocks from FBI headquarters, and they had to make a show of putting leg irons on a 72 year old man, and he did nothing.
If he would have testified at j six, which he went to prison for not doing, he would have violated the exclusive confidentiality agreement he had as an advisor to the president. He could have lost his license to practice anything. And so they had him between a rock and a hard place. And this is what they did to you. This is what they’ve done to Tina. And this is what the audience needs to understand. If you are in the way of their political machine, they will break every rule in the book to get you imprisoned. Look at, they’re trying to put a presidential candidate in prison right now.
And the parallels between Judge Barrett and Merchant and what’s going on in New York are striking about Trump wasn’t allowed to present evidence as well. And I’m sure the jury instructions sucked. I didn’t hear the jury instructions with Trump. It was terrible. It was. You don’t have unanimous. He brought in things that weren’t even trial they could consider. What were the jury instructions like? Can you tell us about that? You know, I didn’t hear the jury instructions, but when they, and that is just fascinating now to realize that they told the jury in Trump’s case that they did not have to have unanimous decision.
You must have a unanimous decision, or it’s a hung jury. You must have a unanimous decision and be clear about what the charges are that they’re being charged with. I mean, that is basic fundamental rights in the court system. Oh, my gosh. So I did not hear the jury instructions, but what I was aware of was when the, the head of the, you know, the one who was kind of leading the charge for the jury members came out and said, you know, what happens if we can’t all agree? And the judge told him, go back. Go back until you do.
And, you know, I don’t know what happened in that room. I don’t know. There was so much that was stricken. They were told not to regard as they considered the judgment against Clerk Petersen, the issue with Conan Hayes. The issue with why Clerk Peters made the images, why she did what she did, the reality is this. There had to be. Elected officials are in a very different role than regular people. They make decisions that they believe are in the best interest of the community, and we believe that they’re making those decisions in good faith. What was unique about the situation is literally the people.
The people were holding clerk Peters accountable to fulfill her duty. And she was skeptical. She asked tons of questions. She sought information. She did all her research. She got elected officials on her side to support her, to do it, and proceeded with the greatest experts in the country. She went above and beyond to make sure things were being done right lawfully, and she was never able to present that to the jury. Yeah, you know, history shows something interesting here, Sharona. One of my undergraduate degrees was in history, and I learned a lot about coups. We’ve gone through what I describe as a satanic, bolshevik communist coup.
And the satanic you’ve already alluded to Colorado with regard to immorality and cutting off kids genitals and so forth. Okay, so satanic bolshevik communist coup. Every coup uses the court system to prosecute and persecute its political enemies. Every coup has always done this. The other thing every coup has done is when they’re successful, it leads to a purge in body bags. And I’m not being melodramatic. That’s a fact. We in America, and I want to get your reaction, is my position. And I’ve been telling my audience, and they, some people followed me now for almost 20 years, and they’re saying, Dave, you’ve never talked this way before, because we’ve never been here before.
We’re completing a stage of a coup. And if we go into January with the same people in charge of our government, they are going to turn this into a deadly purge, because that’s what history teaches us. Do you have a reaction to that? And if you disagree with me, please, please, feel free to. My reaction would be this. I spoke to one of Trump’s attorneys yesterday morning, and we are looking at a massive constitutional crisis come November. Was it November 5? This whole insurrection talk, the 14th Amendment, which, by the way, was never legally ratified. It’s not a lawful amendment to the Constitution at all.
It was not legal. It is still not legal. But because of the barnacle theory, they refused to get rid of it because of the 14th amendment declaring that a president, someone who is running for federal office, cannot run if they are an insurrectionist, if they have been dubbed an insurrectionist, and cannot serve in office. Their attorneys, literally, this is 100% factual. They are deeply concerned that President Trump will not be allowed to take the oath of office in November, in January, and there will be a massive constitutional crisis. And that could be the final linchpin that throws this country into turmoil.
Because I’m telling you right now, with the unbearable situations that have happened with families, daughters who are lost, sons who’ve been killed by illegal immigrants, fentanyl poisoning, over 300,000 people already now by open borders, the lawlessness, the crime, the feelings of instability and safety is no longer a luxury anymore in America. No matter where you live, you have fears and concerns all the time with that kind of destabilization. As you mentioned, the bolshevik revolution, that was what they did. The destabilization of a country by these radical organizations and complaints and antagonism with the government, all of that.
I just pray that each person is really just before the Lord right now, and we’ll just listen to what he is telling them to do, not listen to what anyone else is telling you to do. Don’t get caught up in the frenzy. The reality is, though, I don’t know what God is going to ask each person to do. I agree. I don’t know. I said this this morning on a broadcast I did, that we don’t have a natural solution for these problems. It’s going to take a supernatural intervention. And I broke it down into biblical terms like, is it Nineveh or Babylon? Will we repent and have a revival? And then God will bless this nation again? Or will we go the way of Babylon and be destroyed? And if these people stay in power, we will be destroyed.
There’s no question about it. You can’t get this many things wrong in government and not expect it to be intentional. It’s their mission to destroy this country. And Donald Trump has even got as far to say that I don’t think Tina is going to get justice in the Carl Supreme Court. And here’s why I say that. This is the same Supreme Court that said that Donald Trump couldn’t be on the ballot and they got overruled at the federal Supreme Court level. Musk, Otis, they’re not going to give Tina the light of day on this. This is the same Colorado Supreme Court that was blackmailed and bribed by one Mindy Macias from Colorado state probation in terms of millions of dollars being laundered to her to silence the color of Supreme Court and have them do her bidding just a few short years ago.
This is the same Supreme Court who went under a fake investigation by the Colorado legislature only to come out smelling like flowers, even though they had absolutely undermined the faith and the trust of the people of Colorado. Not one single judge, not one was held accountable. They cried big crocodile tears, so sorry. Not one of them was removed. Not one of them was held accountable. This was just 2020. So this is a, it is a rigged system in the state of Colorado. I don’t for one thing, 1 second think that criminals are going to give an innocent woman any form of justice.
No, I do not. Yeah. Listen, I pray for Tina and I hope God intervenes because she’s not going to get justice at any level of court. And here’s why I say this. The Colorado Supreme Court has shown who they are. Okay? Yesterday the Supreme Court in DC showed who they are, too. In Arizona, we have 40,000 people in Maricopa county on the voter rolls where they can’t prove citizenship, but yet it’s our law. You have to be a citizen to vote. So what the Supreme Court did yesterday with Amy Coney Barrett, totally deserting the conservative constitutional clause, she said, no, no, we’re going to allow the 40,000 to stay.
But Arizona, you can stop all this in the future. But 40,000 illegitimate votes would have swung every one of four of the last five gubernatorial elections in Arizona. Okay, so what the Supreme Court said is, yeah, we know that’s criminal, but we’re not going to stop it. It can continue. And here comes Tina showing criminality. They’re not going to show her favor. That’s my opinion there. I mean, this person right now, without intervention from the Lord, is facing life in prison. That’s right. That’s right. It is definitely a. How dare you? You are a nobody. We did not appoint or anoint you to this position.
You will not, you will not come for us. And that, that’s literally what’s happened. There’s a technical question I wanted to ask you, and it bothers me, and I raised this with Tina in our interview. One of the felonies was failure to obey Jenner Griswold. That’s not the legal term, but that’s effectively what it is. How does she, as secretary of state, supersede her authority to come into Mesa county and tell county clerk what you will and will not do with basically authorizing your election? I don’t get that. I’m glad that you asked the question because I remember having this discussion with the attorneys prior to the imaging and because the clerk was the secretary of state, was saying it had to be these two people that were designated by them, that were approved by them.
All of that. And Clerk Peters, that was part of. Part of what made her so suspicious was she was like, they’ve never done this before. We’ve always had. You remember Clerk Peters wanted to have a public. She wanted people from the community coming in to watch them do the trusted bill. I remember that. And they denied that. Yeah, they denied that. And because they were so secretive, it, you know, her, it threw red flags for her. So I guess the fact of the matter is, is that elected officials like the district attorney Dan Rubenstein, the attorney general Phil Weiser, and his little sidekick, Robert Shapiro, decided that the secretary of state has more power.
Remember what they did? They allowed the secretary of state to remove another elected official. Never been done in this, in the history of Colorado, because that’s not how you remove an elected official. It must be done by a recall according to our Colorado state constitution. So they violated our constitution. They allowed the secretary of state to remove clerk Peters from her position unlawfully. So they’ve granted that to her. It’s a belief system, Dave, is the best I can say. They believe they are in charge. Therefore, they are all going to work together to further that belief that who they’ve designated to be in charge is who is in charge.
And everybody’s looking at. I asked Tina this question, though. I said, what’s the statute that gives her the authority to order you? There isn’t one. There is none. I actually had an attorney friend of mine look this up, and he says, dave, if it exists, it’s. It’s. It’s in the ethos somewhere, because I don’t see it in their books. Dave, Dave, it’s understood. That’s not a law. Understood. Is. Is not. Is failing to obey an understanding. Is that a felony or misdemeanor? I mean, it’s ridiculous. It would have. I mean, if you really wanted to make a stretch and then argue it out in court, misdemeanor, maybe, but it’s not.
Because, first of all, it’s a rule, not a law. And secondly, as you pointed out, there’s no law on the books. And clerk Peters, at that time, clerks in Colorado still had authority in their positions. They do not anymore. Now the elections of Colorado have been centralized now to the secretary of state. So the clerks are effectively just headpieces. They don’t have any real power. They don’t have any real say. They’re not really going to be able to do anything anymore. So they fixed that. They fixed that. And it wasn’t. It’s just a belief system. This is what we’re up against.
We’re up against the political elite who support one another and the judicial elite that support one another. They like their system. They do not want you. Nobody’s coming in. Us regular people saying, we don’t like this, we don’t want it. We’ve had enough. We’re done. They don’t like that. So they’re fighting, and, you know, good on them. They’re going to fight for their way of life. We have to dig in just as deep. We have to figure out clever ways that we can fight back, that we can push back and we can regain some ground. And, you know, one of those ways, it takes time and effort.
But again, filing ethics complaints against Judge Barrett, he’s already in trouble for what he did in the last case that was overturned. Can you do that outside of the county or does that have to be a case? Yes. Okay. Yeah. You, I don’t believe you have to be just in the county. It can be anybody throughout the state. The complaints can come from anywhere. Just, I mean, especially professionals who are, who are attorneys who have all those letters behind their names, just verifying what we saw there, that this is egregious behavior and unethical and those sorts of things would be powerful to help in this situation to, you know, which is really minimize the impact of Judge Barrett, that he’s not someone who should be regarded, his ruling should not be taken as meaningful and he should be questioned on all of his rulings, especially pertaining to Kirk Peters and this whole situation.
Well, we’re out of time, but you’ve really cleared a lot of things up for me. I’ll just close with this real quick. Guillermo Vidal, as the public knows him. I knew him as Bill. We grew up playing basketball together, and we were on a lot of rec league teams and AAU and stuff. And he served as the Denver mayor for part of a term when Hickenlooper left to go run for governor, and he left Colorado and moved to Florida. Do I need to tell you why, people, you’ve got a case history right here about why Bill left.
Anyway, I got to tell you, Sharona, you’ve been terrific. I appreciate all you did for Tina, and we’ll continue to do, and I appreciate you coming on the show. Tell people how to follow your show. Absolutely. It’s America’s mom on every platform, americasmom.net, and you can catch us on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. 01:00 p.m. central time on Patriot TV. I just want to say to I appreciate so much, and I will forever be grateful for what clerk Peters did to expose corruption, to stand with the people, even though they don’t know exactly what it was that she did.
And at the time, none of us understood, none of us understood the magnitude of what was happening and what was going to happen and how important those images would be. But they are now in courtrooms across the country, helping to decide how we protect our electronic voting systems and our election systems across the country. And she, this tide will turn, and I think, I believe that history is going to remember her favorably. I agree with you. Well, thank you very much for joining us, Sharona. God bless you, and we’ll talk to you soon. Thank you for having me.
[tr:tra].
Author
