An American hero
by Joe Fried, CPA
Sandra Brown is in big trouble. Recently, the Denver Post reported that she pled guilty to “attempting to influence a public servant” and to “official misconduct.” Those charges relate to assistance given by Brown to her boss, Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. The ladies made a backup copy of a county election database shortly before Dominion Voting Systems arrived to perform its “Trusted Build” update operation. Although she pled guilty, Brown won’t be sentenced until next year. The County DA has indicated that she might avoid jail time— but only if she testifies against Peters.
Tina Peters was the elected County Clerk in Mesa, Colorado, and she initially assumed that the election process was entirely secure. However, there were some surprising results in a city election, and her constituents started to question the election process.
As the County Clerk, Peters knew that Dominion workers would periodically show up to perform “maintenance” on the computer system. As a precaution, Peters decided to make a backup copy of the 2020 election database before they arrived, which was near the end of May 2021. Sandra Brown was one of a couple of subordinates who assisted Peters in making the copy.
Months later, blurry images of voting system information appeared on the internet, and the Secretary of State assumed they came from Peters, and perhaps they did. After all, Peters regarded herself as a whistleblower who was pointing out serious potential problems with the Dominion upgrade process.
The Democrat administration in Colorado and the Merrick Garland Justice Department didn’t see Peters as a sympathetic whistleblower. Rather, she was a criminal who recklessly distributed computer images to the public. The Colorado Secretary of State asked a district court judge to prohibit Peters from overseeing the next two Mesa County elections, and that request was granted. Later, heavily-armed FBI agents conducted early-morning raids of the homes of Peters and three associates. In one case, a battering ram was used to break in the door.
After the raids, Tina Peters received death threats, so pillow czar Mike Lindell provided her with security and housing for several weeks. Because of that act of kindness, Peters now faces an ethics probe (for receiving a gift valued over $65). Also, she was arrested for allegedly taking pictures during the trial of one of her workers and resisting the police when they attempted to seize her phone. I hope she is flossing her teeth every day. Otherwise, she might end up in solitary confinement.
Tina Peters has been through a lot, and next year Sandra Brown will probably testify against her but don’t blame Brown. If she does not testify, she will face serious jail time. That is the deal the DA gave her. After all, it is not as if Brown merely robbed a Walgreens, sucker-punched some pedestrians, or sold a little fentanyl: She assisted an ELECTION DENIER!
Enter cyber experts Jeffrey O’Donnell and Dr. Walter C. Daugherity
Somehow, the database copy made by Peters got into the hands of two experts who analyzed it in minute detail. They issued a devastating report that will also be of great interest to Mike Lindell, Sidney Powell, and a few thousand others who are being sued by Dominion for spreading (alleged) lies about the company. The entire eighty-seven-page report is found here.
The two experts examined Mesa County’s election database prior to and after Dominion’s “Trusted Build” update in May 2021. There were several alarming findings:
They discovered that critical files, primarily log files, had been destroyed during the Dominion update process. This destruction may have violated federal record retention requirements, but that is a relatively trifling matter. Much more disturbing were the findings that arose from the examination of the pre-Dominion database files:
“There was an unauthorized creation of new election databases during early voting in the 2020 General Election on October 21, 2020, followed by the digital reloading of 20,346 ballot records into the new election databases, making the original voter intent recorded from the ballots unknown. In addition, 5,567 ballots in 58 batches did not have their digital records copied to the new database, although the votes from the ballots in those batches were recorded in the Main election database” (page 3 of the report).
Here is what it means: After people had been voting for a few days, someone (or something) deleted the election database and installed a “new” database minus 5,567 ballots. As a result of this activity, none of the original voter intent is known. According to the report of these experts, these changes had to occur in one of three ways:
- Direct action by Mesa County personnel
- By some sort of remote trigger from, perhaps, a local network or the internet
- By means of “a software algorithm running inside the DVS [Dominion] computer systems in Mesa County.”
Follow-up: It happened again
Some people might believe that his report involved an isolated anomaly, but that notion was dispelled after a subsequent local election, which was held in April 2021. Voting started in March, however . . .
“They were about 40 percent of the way through the election, and this rogue process woke up. . . . Same unauthorized process occurred again. . . . The working theory is that there is an algorithm running inside these [Dominion] machines that know what the desired results of the elections are in that county.”
In other words, the “glitch” that took place during the November 2020 election took place again during the April 2021 election, and we would know nothing about it were it not for the backup file made by Peters. I strongly recommend that you view O’Donnell’s forty-six-minute video. This is disturbing but vital information from an experienced cyber expert.
Responses from Colorado officials
In August of 2021, the Deputy Secretary of State asked Daniel Rubinstein, the Mesa County District Attorney, to consider launching a criminal investigation. Rubinstein launched the criminal probe despite reporting that it did not necessarily “…meet the mandatory conditions for [criminal] investigation…”
While Rubinstein was conducting his investigation, the O’Donnell-Daugherity report (referenced previously) was sent to him. After analyzing it, Rubinstein issued a 24-page rebuttal that is interesting for what it says and what it does not say.
The tone is dismissive— as if he is debunking a bunch of conspiracies. But read carefully, and you realize that he has not dismissed a single allegation in the 87-page report. The basic points made by Rubinstein are that the final vote count was correct and that no one, including Dominion, intentionally did anything wrong. Okay— nobody claimed otherwise.
Based on several very subjective interpretations of security camera photographs, Rubinstein theorizes that Sandra Brown inadvertently caused the problems identified in the O’Donnell-Daugherity report. What do I mean by “subjective interpretations? Well, Rubinstein interprets security photos taken from one corner of a large room used by about a dozen workers. He circles certain people and things in the photos that are so small and distant that they are practically indistinguishable.
For example, on page 6, he states: “Elections Manager Brown can be seen enabling the automatic results loading setting in the below screenshot, followed by a screenshot of the election judges apparently viewing the first ballot image for adjudication:” Well, for all I can tell, Brown was watching porn, and the judges were viewing a football game. Rubinstein hedges his statements with fudge words, such as “apparent” (5 times), “apparently” (7 times), and “appears to” (7 times). I hope the DA doesn’t prosecute other “criminal” cases with such nonsensical evidence.
The district attorney brushes right by the most significant finding, which is that the data may be lost forever: “Further investigation would be required to determine if Sandra Brown’s actions resulted in a failure … to be able to preserve the election records as required by statute.”
Ahh! Do you see that? He admits that “records required by statute” are gone— possibly forever. And why does he even know about this problem— this illegality— which occurred twice within a few months? He knows because Tina Peters smartly and bravely made a copy of the database and handed it off to some experts who analyzed and identified the problem.
At this moment, the cause of the data loss is not clear. Perhaps it was employee error (as Rubinstein maintains), or perhaps it was something more nefarious. Either way, voter information is gone, and the Dominion upgrade masked the loss. We know about this serious problem because of— and only because of— the efforts of a handful of people, including Tina Peters, Sandra Brown, Jeff O’Donnell, and Walter Daugherity. These people deserve our gratitude – not condemnation or prosecution.
Joe Fried is an Ohio-based CPA who has performed and reviewed hundreds of certified financial audits. He is the author of the new book, Debunked? An auditor reviews the 2020 election— and the lessons learned (Republic Book Publishers, 2022). It provides a comprehensive overview of irregularities that affected the 2020 election.