Mesa County Colorado - Belinda and Tina's big adventure

[p0rtia]

A quite informative article on the case, including Bishop's testimony/history.

I had no idea that Bishop was an outside influence and former Boebert campaign manager. Which explains why she is so aggressively insane. I couldn't understand how an Elections office anywhere would hire such an outspoken wingnut.

Something that jumped out at my yesterday: None of the women in the Mesa elections office had a college degree. Bishop, it turns out, started out as a make-up artist.

Bishop testified about conspiring with Peters, Wood and two other Mesa County elections officials to set up a secure account for access to the Mesa County voting system. The plan Bishop described had Wood agreeing to allow his identity to be used so that a self-described computer expert named Conan Hayes could pretend to be Wood to access confidential voting equipment.

Bishop made the arrangements to bring Hayes from California to Grand Junction to make a “forensic image” of the election system.

She said she later apologized to Wood because he wouldn’t be getting the credit he deserved for helping to expose election fraud.

That proof of fraud was promised but never delivered.

Bishop also admitted bringing in national election-fraud promoters to plan the scheme. She hosted an event with high-profile 2020 election denier, mathematician Douglas Frank. Mesa County election officials were ordered to attend Frank’s talk that described how “phantom voters” could be found on the voting system database if they only had access to inner workings.

https://coloradosun.com/2024/08/09/sher ... -colorado/

Sharrona Bishop.jpg (356.35 KiB) Viewed 1285 times

[p0rtia]

Okay. Popcorn and diet cheerry coke to hand.

Burl is wearing a charcoal grey suit today, but the whine and mischaracterizations (quoting the judge) are still there.

Judge is reaming him out within five minutes: "You're not abiding; I don't know if it's a stragetey or what it is, but going into prohibited areas over and over again, knowing that I'm going to sustain the objections, is just troubling."

Burl: "I am trying to stay away from areas the court has foreclosed upon."

Judge: I don't want to go down this road any more. Let's see how things go this morning. I spent time thinking about the prosecutions motion for contempt, and that is still on the table. ... YOu have to play within in the bounds. We're wasting a lot of time with this. Let's get the jury in."

Burl: "I have one more request. Would like to call David Clement (!) to rebut rules and orders, since I was limited in my questioning. A rebuttal witness."

More and more back and forth, concerning admissibility of rebuttal witnesses. Burl asks for excpetion "I've been doing this for 26 or 27 years and I've never seen this."

Judge: It's case law.

Pros: They had an endorsed legal expert; they've known the testimony for eight months. We didn't even get a courtesy call last night about this.

Judge with head in hands already.

Burl: Previous rebuttal witness is out of the country.

Judge: You've had eight months. Let's get the jury.

!!!

[p0rtia]

Barrett1.jpg (342.76 KiB) Viewed 1260 times

Barrett2.jpg (340.57 KiB) Viewed 1260 times

[p0rtia]

Barrett3.jpg (122.33 KiB) Viewed 1259 times

Barrett4.jpg (106.86 KiB) Viewed 1259 times

Barrett5.jpg (162.31 KiB) Viewed 1259 times

Barrett6.jpg (276.51 KiB) Viewed 1259 times

[RVInit]

A quite informative article on the case, including Bishop's testimony/history.

I had no idea that Bishop was an outside influence and former Boebert campaign manager. Which explains why she is so aggressively insane. I couldn't understand how an Elections office anywhere would hire such an outspoken wingnut.

Something that jumped out at my yesterday: None of the women in the Mesa elections office had a college degree. Bishop, it turns out, started out as a make-up artist.

I made a comment earlier about the fact that Belinda had been promoted way, way, way up the chain of command to second in charge. She had been essentially in the position of an administrative assistant prior to that. Tina Peters promoted her.

I used to date someone who was in the same position that Belinda had been promoted to, but in a county in Florida. He had advanced degrees and he had to have personal hands on experience within every single department in the County Clerk's office in order to qualify for that position. He worked for the county for more than 20 years prior to that promotion, having extensive experience in every aspect of the County Clerk's office. It's important to have someone like that in that position for the same reason we have career expertise in every department of our government. Having nothing but political hacks and their sycophants in those positions is exactly why Tina was able to do what she did and why (among many other reasons) Project 2025 is so damn dangerous.

Tina put people into those high positions of authority who had the same election denial, right wing nutjob beliefs. They could order the others around, keep them out of the loop. Whenever some of the ones who were already in those positions expressed any discomfort with what was happening inside that room or in meetings they were required (by Tina) to attend, she would dismiss them. Several of them testified as to having been required to attend meetings where election conspiracies took place and then dismissed when Tina realized they were not going to go along with all the BS she was doing.

[northland10]

If a defendant's or their lawyer's games risk tainting the jury, can a judge declare a mistrial so the prosecution can refile?

[RVInit]

Ms Bishop is wearing the same clothing she wore yesterday.

Cross exam has started. He's on a roll. It's going to be good, I can tell.

[bob]

If a defendant's or their lawyer's games risk tainting the jury, can a judge declare a mistrial so the prosecution can refile?

Mistrials serve to protect a defendant's rights.

A court would more likely admonish/punish a misbehaving lawyer outside of the jury's presence, or more rarely, in the jury's presence. And/or give jury instructions related to the lawyer's bad behavior.

[Chilidog]

43BCDCE3-299B-48E4-8441-A2A3C67F33AF.jpeg (323.23 KiB) Viewed 1212 times

[Rolodex]

That photo of the judge is so telling. He is trying his best to avoid a mistrial; judges hate them.

I was on a jury a few years back. During the trial, we were on one of the waiting times in the jury room. I observed a juror looking at his phone and then he started to talk about the defendant's criminal history. I talked privately with another juror and we agreed that he shouldn't be doing that and the judge should be aware. So, I went to his office to tell the clerk what had happened.

We all got called back into the courtroom and the judge asked the jurors if that had happened and asked who'd googled the defendant. The juror copped to it and boy oh boy was the judge mad. He had his face in his hand and looked just like this judge. He was so pissed, but of course he can't scream and rant. He was VERY upset because he had to call a mistrial. Huge waste of time and money. This case has been delayed so much, I know this judge wants to get through this and to the jury.

I'm not sure how Sharronna is helping Peters. Why did the defense call her? I know it's of a piece with their crazy conspiracies. But how does she rebut anything about the actual charges - ID theft, conspiracy. She seems to be confirming everything and could have been a prosecution witness! Not to mention, she's in jeopardy for charges against her, too.

Redirect from the Clown Firm, LLC and it's objection land again.

[Rolodex]

A quite informative article on the case, including Bishop's testimony/history.

I had no idea that Bishop was an outside influence and former Boebert campaign manager. Which explains why she is so aggressively insane. I couldn't understand how an Elections office anywhere would hire such an outspoken wingnut.

Something that jumped out at my yesterday: None of the women in the Mesa elections office had a college degree. Bishop, it turns out, started out as a make-up artist.

I made a comment earlier about the fact that Belinda had been promoted way, way, way up the chain of command to second in charge. She had been essentially in the position of an administrative assistant prior to that. Tina Peters promoted her.

I used to date someone who was in the same position that Belinda had been promoted to, but in a county in Florida. He had advanced degrees and he had to have personal hands on experience within every single department in the County Clerk's office in order to qualify for that position. He worked for the county for more than 20 years prior to that promotion, having extensive experience in every aspect of the County Clerk's office. It's important to have someone like that in that position for the same reason we have career expertise in every department of our government. Having nothing but political hacks and their sycophants in those positions is exactly why Tina was able to do what she did and why (among many other reasons) Project 2025 is so damn dangerous.

Tina put people into those high positions of authority who had the same election denial, right wing nutjob beliefs. They could order the others around, keep them out of the loop. Whenever some of the ones who were already in those positions expressed any discomfort with what was happening inside that room or in meetings they were required (by Tina) to attend, she would dismiss them. Several of them testified as to having been required to attend meetings where election conspiracies took place and then dismissed when Tina realized they were not going to go along with all the BS she was doing.

I noticed this, too. These folks that Peters put in the office were not particularly well educated or trained especially in the area of elections. The more we hear about this issue, the more evident just how complicated election systems are and how much security is involved. Between their lack of expertise and their friendly relationship with Peters as well as their own distrust of Dominion and other conspiratorial far right beliefs, it's amazing this ever came to life.

I had felt sorry for Belinda and Sandra at first and felt they were victims more than co-conspirators (due to their ignorance and lack of knowledge...just doing what Peters said because they trusted her). It took getting arrested for them to understand that yes, they were "bad guys" to who broke the law. And if they'd been better educated and trained they would have known that this was a criminal plot.

[RVInit]

I agree with all of Rolodex comments above.

My favorite part of her cross exam. She was asked if she knew that Hayes (the man that used the identity of Wood in order to gain access to the server room) was from out of town. She fumbled through the papers trying to pretend like she was looking for that information somewhere in those papers.

The prosecutor continued "in fact, you made reservations for him at the (local) hotel, didn't you?" She immediately put those papers down and began staring at the prosecutor and had to answer "yes, I did" once she realized that he knew information she hadn't known he knew about. That was priceless and completely destroyed her credibility. Good job, Shapiro.

[RVInit]

Oh my. The defense has called one of the investigators as their own witness. I think they are going to be sorry. his testimony is not helping Peters at all. His cross exam by the prosecutor is highlighting the security risks involved with the actions taken by Peters and Hayes.

[p0rtia]

Oh my. The defense has called one of the investigators as their own witness. I think they are going to be sorry. his testimony is not helping Peters at all. His cross exam by the prosecutor is highlighting the security risks involved with the actions taken by Peters and Hayes.

That was crazed. Apparently Burl Ives didn't get enough of being destroyed by the SOS lawyer, Thornton, yesterday. So he came out with some log-in record, supposedly of the tabulation room, and demanded that Thornton discuss whether or not Belinda or Sandra's name was on it. Thornton pointed out that it not the log-in record of the tabulations room, but the log-in record for the county internet. That's right! says Burl, with that "I knew that!" vibe. He then fumbled for about two agonizing minutes, then demanded if the incorrect record showed if Belinda/Sandra had been logged into the computer system. "Probably," said Thronton. "There would have been hundreds of employees logged in to the internet, including me." JHK

Then came the Aha Moment: Woods and Belinda/Sandra never told you they were on a Signal chat thread with Sharrona and Tina, DID THEY!!!" No, says Thornton, they never did.

Except that under Cross, Thornton testified that he/the feds had searched Woods' and Belinda/Sandra's confiscated phones and Signal apps, and the infamous chat thread (which still hasn't been identified) wasn't there.

Lunch.

[RVInit]

Oh my. The defense has called one of the investigators as their own witness. I think they are going to be sorry. his testimony is not helping Peters at all. His cross exam by the prosecutor is highlighting the security risks involved with the actions taken by Peters and Hayes.

That was crazed. Apparently Burl Ives didn't get enough of being destroyed by the SOS lawyer, Thornton, yesterday. So he came out with some log-in record, supposedly of the tabulation room, and demanded that Thornton discuss whether or not Belinda or Sandra's name was on it. Thornton pointed out that it not the log-in record of the tabulations room, but the log-in record for the county internet. That's right! says Burl, with that "I knew that!" vibe. He then fumbled for about two agonizing minutes, then demanded if the incorrect record showed if Belinda/Sandra had been logged into the computer system. "Probably," said Thronton. "There would have been hundreds of employees logged in to the internet, including me." JHK

Then came the Aha Moment: Woods and Belinda/Sandra never told you they were on a Signal chat thread with Sharrona and Tina, DID THEY!!!" No, says Thornton, they never did.

Except that under Cross, Thornton testified that he/the feds had searched Woods' and Belinda/Sandra's confiscated phones and Signal apps, and the infamous chat thread (which still hasn't been identified) wasn't there.

Lunch.

Based on testimony and research I did on Signal I have some theory about that chat. Testimony established dates that various parties were introduced to each other, phones being confiscated, and apparently Tina had a "hidey hole" in her home where she had another phone that was not confiscated. She had encouraged everyone to get burner phones, so there are likely lots and lots of phones that nobody knows about. But this chat was something HER lawyer got off SOME phone and that chat does not appear on any of the phones that were obtained INCLUDING Wood's phone. That's important because they are insinuating that "Trebuchet" in that chat was Woods.

However, here's what I found about Signal. If I am misunderstand PLEASE someone who actually uses Signal PLEASE correct me. My understanding is that Signal requires you to set up a profile name and a user name. The user name has to be unique, but the profile name can be used by any number of people. And....on any given phone using Signal, the person can go into their Signal settings and determine whether they want to display the profile name or user name of the participants in the chat. So, to authenticate that "Trebuchet" was in fact Woods, the phone that those screen shots were made from would have to be available to see what the Signal settings are. Otherwise "Trebuchet" could be a profile name (possibly used by countless persons) or the user name (that would presumably confirm it was Woods in that conversation. I don't know if the prosecutor is aware of that or not, it seems they are not aware of it because they haven't brought up any such questions. They are questioning the authenticity of it, but just "in general" not using any specifics of how Signal actually works. They are questioning it based on the dates of those supposed conversations and the fact that they don't appear on any confiscated phones, including Wood's phone.

[RVInit]

OMG. Tina essentially asking the judge for advice prior to making her decision to testify. Also, she wants assurances on how he will rule on things before she testifies. He says this is highly unusual and calls the attorneys to the bench.

I have a feeling she will chicken out. She was trying to testify to the judge, I think she wanted him to assure her that she could say those things to the jury without sustaining objections. Lordy.

[Luke]

Now:






Holy sh*t.

[p0rtia]

OMG. Tina essentially asking the judge for advice prior to making her decision to testify. Also, she wants assurances on how he will rule on things before she testifies. He says this is highly unusual and calls the attorneys to the bench.

I have a feeling she will chicken out. She was trying to testify to the judge, I think she wanted him to assure her that she could say those things to the jury without sustaining objections. Lordy.

Agreed. She's not going to testify--unless her lawyers lie through their teeth and claim that cross won't ask her anything she doesn't want them to!

The Conan Hayes stuff still puzzles me. I've read that the judge has already ruled that Hayes was not an gov't informant, and whether or not Tina believed he was is irrelevant. She, obviously, is basing her innocence on the idea that she was trying to protect* his identity. So contorted. These insights into MAGA mindset and delusions are enlightening. These are thhe people Kari Lake is trolling. Ugh!

[RVInit]

Tina is not going to testify because she wanted to tell the jury things that were not allowed during this trial and since she can't do that she is going to decline. She says that "I am not being allowed to put on a defense". I agree that the judge did everything he could to prevent this from becoming a complete politicized shit show.

[RVInit]

Your honor, we only prepared to defend for the specific acts spelled out in the indictment, we weren't prepared to defend for other criminal facts that came out in trial. So....you HAVE to give us a directed not guilty verdict.



Well, that is at the very least one of the most unique legal arguments I have ever heard.

[Rolodex]

RV, I want to be on a jury with you!

[RVInit]

RV, I want to be on a jury with you!

I'm not sure how to take that! I do think the law is fascinating and tend to enjoy hearing some of these cases.

[RVInit]

I'm listening to the jury instruction arguments while I start on yet another pair of socks. I have a ton of sock yarn, so my sock drawer is going to be full by the end of the year. I've made four pair in the past month, this is the fifth pair I've cast on in as many weeks.

Anyhoo...when they were discussing charges that involve coconspirators Sharronna Bishop's name came up. She has not yet been charged, but now I'm wondering if she will be charged. I thought it was funny that her lawyer is a nut job that is not licensed in Colorado, so she may not be getting the very best of advice for charges she could face in Colorado. Oops.

[Luke]

Today I compared Tina to Jennifer Holiday in Dreamgirls


8/9/24 Tina Peters' DREAMGIRLS moment: "AND I AM TELLING YOU...I'M NOT TESTIFYING!"
#TinaPetersTrial Day 8 Live
1: Sherronna Bishop, James Cannon





2: Clay Parikh, Dallas Schroder, Mark Cook, TINA SAYS NO





8/12/24 Day 9: 9AM MT

**************

8/9/24 Tina Peters' DREAMGIRLS moment: "AND I AM TELLING YOU...I'M NOT TESTIFYING!"
#TinaPetersTrial Day 8 Live
1: Sherronna Bishop, James Cannon
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1821 ... 49241.html
2: Clay Parikh, Dallas Schroder, Mark Cook, TINA SAYS NO
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1821 ... 48754.html
8/12/24 Day 9: 9AM MT

[pipistrelle]

Tina is not going to testify because she wanted to tell the jury things that were not allowed during this trial and since she can't do that she is going to decline. She says that "I am not being allowed to put on a defense". I agree that the judge did everything he could to prevent this from becoming a complete politicized shit show.

How poot-y. Political prisoner, not allowed to put on a defense...