Tag: Tina Peters

Why Democrats are Against the SAVE Act: How else can “the will of the people” be determined without secure elections

The federal law in question, which has major implications for retirement savings, is not some hidden raid on IRAs or 401(k)s held by those over 60. Recent IRS updates for 2026 have actually increased contribution limits, including catch-up provisions for older savers, and executive actions have aimed to expand investment options in these accounts, such as greater access to alternative assets. Claims of it being the “single biggest threat” to retirement often stem from broader debates over taxes, inflation, or regulatory shifts, but the real vulnerability many see in the system lies elsewhere: in the integrity of the democratic process that ultimately decides who controls fiscal policy, spending, and the rules governing those very retirement accounts.

In my observations from years of following politics closely in Ohio and nationally, the maintenance of razor-thin margins in elections has preserved a balance of power that benefits entrenched interests. Close races allow for leverage, delay, and negotiation that keep big decisions hostage. Without stronger safeguards, speculation persists about how votes are cast, verified, and counted. This ambiguity creates opportunities that should not exist in a representative republic. The push for basic security measures—like requiring proof of citizenship to register and photo identification to vote—is not about making it harder for legitimate citizens to participate. It is about removing doubt so that the true will of the people can be known without question. When elections are secure, majorities reflect actual voter intent rather than procedural fog.

Consider the recent history in Ohio. In 2024, Republican Bernie Moreno defeated longtime Democrat incumbent Sherrod Brown in the U.S. Senate race, flipping the seat and contributing to Republican gains. Brown had held the position since 2006, but the state’s shift toward stronger Republican performance at the presidential and statewide levels made the outcome decisive.  Following JD Vance’s election as Vice President, Governor Mike DeWine appointed former Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State Jon Husted to fill the vacancy. Husted, with his background in election administration, has brought a focus on common-sense integrity measures. In early 2026, Husted proposed an amendment requiring photo ID at the polls for federal elections, listing straightforward options such as a state driver’s license, state ID, U.S. passport, military ID, or tribal ID with photo and expiration date. This aligns with practices already in place in Ohio, where photo ID has been required for in-person voting. 

Despite polls showing overwhelming public support for voter ID—often cited at around 80% or higher across parties—Senate Democrats blocked Husted’s standalone push and amendments tied to broader legislation, falling short of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance. Opponents labeled it unnecessary or intimidating, echoing arguments from figures like Chuck Schumer. Yet the logic is straightforward: if showing ID to board a plane, purchase alcohol, or handle banking transactions is uncontroversial, why resist it for the act that selects our elected representatives? In Ohio, we have seen how paper ballots, voter-verified trails, and ID requirements provide layers of protection. Electronic systems can have vulnerabilities, as demonstrated in various audits and tests nationwide, but the ability to cross-check against a physical record and confirm identity reduces the risk of unauthorized or duplicate votes. 

This debate ties directly into the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, also referred to as the SAVE America Act in its iterations. The bill, which passed the House multiple times, including in 2025 and again in 2026 with versions, requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections and mandates photo ID at the polls. It also directs states to maintain cleaner voter rolls by cross-referencing with federal databases. Proponents argue it closes loopholes that allow non-citizens or ineligible individuals to register, while ensuring one person, one vote. Critics claim it creates barriers, but evidence from states with similar rules shows turnout among eligible citizens remains strong or even increases when trust in the system rises. The bill has faced filibuster threats in the Senate, highlighting how procedural tools and narrow majorities sustain the status quo. 

Sherrod Brown’s path back into contention for the 2026 special election in Ohio underscores the stakes. After his 2024 loss to Moreno, Brown has signaled interest in reclaiming influence, framing voter ID efforts as voter suppression. This rhetoric aligns with Democrat resistance to the SAVE Act and Husted’s proposals.  Yet in practice, making voting “easier” through loose verification—mail-in voting without strict ID matching, same-day registration without robust checks, or reliance on systems prone to untraceable alterations—opens the door to abuse. Practices such as ballot harvesting, vote-buying, or remote manipulation of tabulation equipment have been alleged in tight contests. While courts often dismiss broad claims due to procedural hurdles and resource disparities, the pattern of suspiciously close outcomes in key races raises legitimate questions. Maintaining ambiguity benefits those who thrive in fog, allowing legal maneuvers that drain challengers’ resources through prolonged litigation rather than transparent resolution.

Look at other examples. In Colorado, former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters faced prosecution after attempting to examine voting systems following the 2020 election, resulting in a conviction. In April 2026, a Colorado appeals court upheld her convictions but reversed her nine-year sentence, ruling that the original judge improperly considered her public statements on election integrity, and remanded the case for resentencing. Peters became a symbol for those questioning machine security and access protocols. Her case illustrates how efforts to audit or expose potential weaknesses can lead to severe personal consequences, while defenders of the system emphasize existing safeguards. 

Ohio stands as a stronger model. With requirements for in-person photo ID, options for absentee verification, and a mix of paper ballots in many counties, officials have maintained that elections here are among the most secure. Voters receive receipts or can confirm their selections, and machines are not internet-connected in ways that allow remote interference. Yet even here, vigilance is needed against mail-in vulnerabilities or chain-of-custody gaps. Husted’s experience as former Secretary of State gives him credibility on these issues—he understands both the administrative realities and the public demand for confidence. 

The broader point is structural. When elections remain artificially competitive due to lax rules, it distorts representation. Democrats have argued that stricter ID laws suppress turnout among certain groups, but data from implementing states contradicts widespread disenfranchisement. Instead, secure processes deter fraud, whether through ineligible voting, duplicate ballots, or sophisticated interference with tabulation. Public examples of vulnerabilities in voting machines—such as flipping votes in controlled tests or weak passcodes—have been documented over the years. Without paper backups and identity confirmation, trust erodes. Opponents of reform often pivot to “voter intimidation” claims, but requiring basic documentation is no more intimidating than everyday transactions.

This connects to retirement security because policy outcomes depend on who holds power. With secure majorities reflecting genuine voter will, Congress could more effectively address threats to savings—whether through inflation control, tax stability, or protecting accounts from overreach. Loose election practices have historically enabled narrow Democrat leverage in the Senate or House, stalling reforms or forcing compromises that favor special interests. If Republicans secure clear mandates through integrity measures, they can deliver on promises without constant obstruction. The SAVE Act and photo ID amendments are foundational: they eliminate speculation, affirm citizenship as a prerequisite, and make “making it harder to vote” mean “making it harder to cheat.” 

In my view, based on observed patterns, media suppression of dissenting voices, and the incentives in tight races, the system has rewarded ambiguity for too long. Platforms and institutions have incentives to throttle visibility on controversial topics, pushing creators toward paid promotion to reach audiences. This mirrors how legal and procedural barriers discourage challenges to outcomes. Courage means facing these realities without apology. Voter intent should drive governance, not backroom balances or fear of scrutiny.

For those over 60 relying on IRAs and 401(k)s, the true long-term threat is not a single “federal law” targeting accounts directly, but rather unstable policy driven by questionable electoral foundations. Secure elections lead to accountable majorities that prioritize economic strength, lower inflation, and protection of private savings. Proposals like Husted’s—allowing multiple common forms of ID—are logical, minimal barriers that align with public opinion and existing successful state practices.

Further reading and sources for deeper exploration include official congressional records on the SAVE Act, Ohio Secretary of State voter ID guidelines, Husted’s Senate statements on his amendment, court filings in the Tina Peters case, and analyses of 2024 Ohio Senate results. Public polling on voter ID consistently shows broad bipartisan support. Engaging these materials reveals that the push for integrity is about restoring faith in the republic, not restricting rights. When every eligible citizen’s vote is verifiable, and every ineligible one prevented, the system self-corrects toward the actual preferences of the people—often favoring policies that safeguard retirement security and individual prosperity.

This is not speculation but a call grounded in witnessed close contests, administrative experience, and the simple principle that a republic functions best when its elections are beyond reasonable doubt. Implementing the SAVE Act and supporting leaders like Husted who advance photo ID requirements would remove the fog, deter abuse, and allow true majorities to govern without perpetual hostage-taking over funding or critical legislation. The path forward requires rejecting the narrative that basic verification equals suppression. It equals confidence.

Footnotes

1.  H.R.22 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act, Congress.gov.

2.  Text of H.R.22, Congress.gov.

3.  Jon Husted Senate press release on photo ID amendment, March 26, 2026.

4.  Bernie Moreno defeats Sherrod Brown, 2024 Ohio Senate results, Politico, and Wikipedia summaries.

5.  Ohio voter ID requirements, Ohio Secretary of State website.

6.  Tina Peters case, Colorado Court of Appeals decision, April 2026.

7.  Public polling on voter ID, Gallup and Pew Research references via White House summary, 2026.

8.  Husted bill on photo ID blocked, Senate actions reported March 2026.

9.  Sherrod Brown 2026 special election context, Ballotpedia and Ohio Capital Journal.

10.  SAVE America Act provisions, Congress.gov, and related analyses.

Bibliography

•  Congress.gov. H.R.22 – SAVE Act, 119th Congress (2025-2026). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22

•  Congress.gov. H.R.7296 – SAVE America Act, 119th Congress (2025-2026). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7296

•  Husted, Jon. Senate Press Releases on Voter ID Amendment (March 2026). https://www.husted.senate.gov/media/press-releases/

•  Ohio Secretary of State. Voter Identification Requirements. https://www.ohiosos.gov/elections/voter-ID-requirements

•  Politico. 2024 Ohio Senate Election Results. https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/ohio/senate/

•  Colorado Judicial Branch. People v. Peters, Court of Appeals Opinion (April 2026). https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2026-04/24CA1951-PD.pdf

•  Pew Research Center and Gallup. Polling data on voter ID support (referenced in 2025-2026 summaries).

•  Ballotpedia. United States Senate Special Election in Ohio, 2026. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Ohio,_2026

•  White House. Fact Sheet on Voter ID Popularity (February 2026).

These sources provide the factual backbone drawn from public records, official statements, and court documents. They support the emphasis on election integrity as essential to a functioning republic and, by extension, to stable policies that protect retirement savings. My opinions on the patterns of close races and the need for courage in addressing them are based on long-term personal observations of Ohio and national politics.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

Hiding Crime in Colorado: Keeping Tina Peters in jail keeps the bad guys from getting in trouble

The Tina Peters case represents one of the most egregious examples of government overreach and suppression of whistleblowers in modern American politics. As someone who has followed and discussed this story extensively on my platforms—including the Overmanwarrior podcast, my blog, many other places—I view Tina Peters not as a criminal, but as a dedicated public servant who uncovered serious vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems, only to be punished severely for shining a light on potential election manipulation. Her nine-year prison sentence is disproportionate and politically motivated, designed to silence dissent and protect entrenched interests in election administration, particularly those tied to companies like Dominion Voting Systems.

This report draws from my perspective, informed by ongoing discussions of election integrity, corporate influence in politics, and parallels to other cases of suppression I’ve encountered locally and nationally. It represents my own analysis of the facts as they have unfolded.

Timeline of the Tina Peters Case

To understand the gravity of this situation, a clear chronological overview is essential:

•  2018: Tina Peters is elected as Mesa County Clerk and Recorder in Colorado, a Republican stronghold.

•  November 2020: The presidential election occurs, with widespread claims of irregularities in electronic voting systems, including those from Dominion Voting Systems used in Mesa County and elsewhere.

•  Early 2021: Peters, concerned about potential vulnerabilities and following reports of issues in the 2020 election, begins investigating her county’s systems.

•  May 2021: During a scheduled software update to Dominion equipment, Peters allegedly facilitates access for an unauthorized individual (associated with election integrity researchers) to copy hard drive data. Prosecutors claim this involved identity misrepresentation and turning off security cameras. Images and passwords from the system later appear online, linked to conspiracy theorists.

•  August 2021: Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold launches an investigation, calling it a “serious breach.” Peters is temporarily suspended from overseeing elections.

•  2022: Peters runs for Colorado Secretary of State but loses in the Republican primary. Indictments follow on charges, including attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, official misconduct, and more.

•  August 2024: After a trial in Mesa County, a jury convicts Peters on seven counts (four felonies, three misdemeanors), acquitting her on others. The judge bars references to her as a “whistleblower” during proceedings.

•  October 2024: Peters is sentenced to nine years in prison by Judge Matthew Barrett, who cites her “lack of remorse,” defiance, and damage to election trust. She begins serving time at La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo.

•  2025: Multiple appeals and efforts for release ensue, including a federal habeas petition (denied) and symbolic actions like a presidential pardon from Donald Trump (ineffective for state crimes). The U.S. Department of Justice reviews the case amid political pressure.

•  December 2025: Trump announces a “pardon,” but Colorado officials reject it as inapplicable. Threats of federal retaliation against the state follow.

•  January 2026: Oral arguments in the Colorado Court of Appeals. Judges question the sentence’s severity and a procedural issue in one felony charge, but appear skeptical of overturning convictions entirely. Peters remains incarcerated, with potential parole eligibility around 2028 (earlier with good behavior credits).

This timeline illustrates a pattern: initial concerns about system integrity escalate into criminal charges, a conviction in a conservative county, and ongoing appeals amid national attention.

The Charges, Conviction, and Sentence: Technical and Legal Details

Peters was convicted under Colorado law for actions during the 2021 breach. Key charges included:

•  Three felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant.

•  One felony count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation.

•  Misdemeanors for official misconduct, violation of duty in elections, and failure to comply with the Secretary of State.

Prosecutors argued Peters allowed unauthorized access to Dominion machines, copied proprietary software and data, and compromised security—potentially creating risks for future elections. The defense maintained that she acted to preserve records during a software update, fulfilling her duty as a clerk.

At sentencing, Judge Barrett emphasized “immeasurable damage” to trust in elections and Peters’ continued promotion of fraud claims. He imposed a nine-year sentence, far exceeding typical sentences for similar nonviolent offenses. In my view, this reflects bias: punishing speech and skepticism about electronic systems rather than solely the breach.

Appeals focus on First Amendment issues (punishment for political views), procedural errors, and sentence excessiveness. As of early 2026, no final resolution has overturned the conviction, but appellate judges have probed the fairness of using Peters’ election fraud statements against her.

Vulnerabilities in Electronic Voting Machines:

Electronic voting machines, like those from Dominion used in Colorado, raise legitimate concerns about transparency and auditability. These systems often lack full paper-trail verification in real time, rely on proprietary software, and are susceptible to insider access or errors. Peters’ actions—copying hard drives—exposed passwords and configurations, highlighting how “air-gapped” claims may not hold if physical access occurs.

In my experience discussing this, such vulnerabilities enable manipulation without detection, similar to concerns in the pharmaceutical and insurance sectors, where profit motives intersect with policy. Companies sell these machines to governments, creating incentives to downplay flaws. Colorado’s certification process and lack of mandatory independent audits exacerbate risks. Peters flagged these issues; instead of investigation, she faced prosecution.

Parallels exist elsewhere: Arizona’s 2022 gubernatorial race claims, Georgia’s issues. In Ohio, where I live, paper receipts provide some verification, but reliance on digital systems persists. Without robust audits, discrepancies go unnoticed—exactly what Peters sought to prevent.

Broader Implications: Whistleblower Suppression and Power Structures

This case exemplifies how governments silence whistleblowers. Peters, an elected official doing her job, uncovered potential flaws in the systems that certify elections. Rather than transparency, authorities prioritized containment.

Governor Jared Polis and Secretary Griswold have resisted efforts to release, even amid pressure. In my view, this protects implicated parties. Similar tactics appear locally: my friend Darbi Boddy’s removal from the Lakota school board via contrived legal maneuvers shows how technicalities remove opposition.

Nationally, ties to Big Pharma (legal immunity deals) and corporate lobbying mirror the influence of voting machine companies. Politicians benefit from manipulable systems, staying in power like in authoritarian regimes.

We cannot tolerate jailing those who expose flaws, especially during the pre-2024/2026 elections—Peters’ imprisonment chills free speech on election integrity.

Conclusion: A Call for Justice and Reform

Tina Peters’ case is a crime against transparency. She deserves freedom, exoneration, and recognition as a whistleblower. Those prosecuting her—knowingly certifying flawed systems—bear responsibility.

We need paper ballots, hand counts where possible, full audits, and bans on proprietary opaque machines. President Trump’s attention helps, but state issues require local pressure.

The wheels are coming off the control mechanisms.  This injustice must end. Tina Peters should not rot in prison for doing the right thing.

Footnotes

1.  Colorado Newsline, “Tina Peters sentenced to 9 years,” October 3, 2024.

2.  Associated Press, “Tina Peters convicted,” August 12, 2024.

3.  Wikipedia entry on Tina Peters (as of 2026 updates).

4.  PBS NewsHour, “Tina Peters appeal hearing,” January 14, 2026.

5.  Colorado Politics, “Appeals court questions sentence,” January 2026.

6.  Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Map, Case ID on Tina Peters.

7.  Various reports on Dominion systems and the 2021 breach.

Bibliography

•  Colorado Sun articles on Peters trial and appeals (2024-2026).

•  Associated Press coverage of conviction and sentencing.

•  Denver Post and CPR News on appeals and political context.

•  Official court documents referenced in news (e.g., sentencing remarks).

•  Election integrity reports and analyses from sources like VoteBeat and Heritage Foundation.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Free Tina Peters: The Battle for Honest Elections in America

You know, here’s the thing: if President Trump doesn’t get Tina Peters out of that Colorado prison, then everything we’ve fought for on election integrity is just theater. It’s all optics without substance. Because if you don’t control your election systems, you don’t control your government. And that’s the bottom line. People say, “There’s no evidence of fraud.” Really? Then why is Tina Peters sitting in a cell for nine years? She was the Mesa County Clerk, the one person in Colorado who had the guts to blow the whistle during the heaviest part of the 2020 election scandal. She saw irregularities, she reported them, and for that, they threw her in prison.

Let’s get the facts straight. Tina Peters was convicted in October 2024 on seven counts—four felonies and three misdemeanors—for allegedly breaching election systems during a 2021 update.¹ They said she conspired to commit criminal impersonation, attempted to influence a public servant, and violated her official duties. Nine years in state prison for trying to preserve election records? That’s not justice; that’s retaliation. And where is she now? La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, locked away like a political prisoner.²

And don’t forget, she wasn’t alone in this fight. Mike Lindell—the MyPillow guy—stood shoulder to shoulder with her, pouring millions into exposing voting machine companies.³ Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro? They got four months each for contempt of Congress because they wouldn’t play ball with the January 6 narrative.⁴ Rudy Giuliani? Bankrupted for daring to question election results. This is a pattern: punish the whistleblowers, destroy the evidence, and control the narrative.

Now, here’s the legal reality: Trump can’t just sign a pardon and free Tina Peters. Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to grant pardons for federal crimes, not for state convictions.⁵ Colorado prosecuted her under state law, and Governor Jared Polis isn’t about to hand Trump a win. So what do we do? Sit back and let her rot? Absolutely not. There are practical steps Trump can take, and they start with leverage—political, legal, and financial.

First, a pressure campaign. Trump needs to call out Polis and AG Phil Weiser by name, which he has been doing lately. Make it politically toxic for them to keep Peters locked up. Rallies, Truth Social posts, interviews—turn up the heat. When the public sees a grandmother rotting in prison for questioning election fraud, the optics shift fast.

Second, DOJ leverage. This is where it gets interesting. The Department of Justice can’t override a state conviction, but it can make life very uncomfortable for Colorado. How? Start with federal election law hooks. The 2020 election was a federal election. Peters’ actions were tied to preserving federal election records. File a federal habeas corpus petition arguing her imprisonment violates constitutional rights under federal election statutes like the Help America Vote Act. Force Colorado to defend its conviction in federal court.

Then there’s civil rights enforcement. Frame this as retaliation against a whistleblower exercising First Amendment rights. The DOJ Civil Rights Division can open an investigation into political persecution. Even if it doesn’t overturn her sentence immediately, it creates a legal basis for federal intervention and puts Colorado under a microscope.

Now, here’s the big one: federal funding leverage. Colorado gets millions in federal grants for election security and compliance under HAVA and EAC programs. Those funds are discretionary. Condition future funding on transparency and whistleblower protections. Announce that Colorado risks losing federal election security money because it retaliated against Peters. That’s constitutional under the Spending Clause, and it hits where it hurts—the budget.

Another angle: federal subpoenas and custody transfers. If Peters has evidence relevant to federal crimes—say, election tampering—the DOJ can subpoena her testimony. Request a temporary transfer to federal custody for questioning. That doesn’t erase her sentence, but it moves her out of state prison and into a federal process where deals can happen.

Finally, amplify public awareness. Trump should feature Peters’ case in speeches, rallies, and interviews. Get Mike Lindell, Steve Bannon, and the Warroom team hammering this story every day, give them some red meat. When people see the truth—that Peters was jailed to bury evidence of election fraud—the pressure becomes unbearable.  And Trump is naturally good at that kind of thing.  But if he’s waiting for help from other Republicans, they don’t have the guts.  It will have to come from him, and him alone.  The damage from this case will benefit other efforts around the country.  Allowing the radical left to control the discussion, as they have, will not help with the Midterms, where Democrats are planning to cheat, because it’s their only strategy.  This case could greatly frustrate those efforts. 

And let’s talk numbers because facts matter. The Heritage Foundation database lists 1,561 proven cases of election fraud over decades, with 20 cases in 2024 alone.⁶ Brookings says fraud rates are minuscule—0.0000845% in Arizona over 25 years—but those stats ignore systemic vulnerabilities in digital voting systems.⁷ Globally, we know electronic manipulation happens—Venezuela, China, Russia. You give people the illusion of choice, then flip the results. That’s the game. And it happened here in 2020.

So when they say, “There’s no evidence,” what they mean is, “We buried the evidence and jailed the people who had it.” Tina Peters had the proof. She tried to show it. They raided her home, seized her devices, and threw her in prison. That’s tyranny, plain and simple. And if Trump doesn’t act, it sends a message: whistleblowers will be crushed, and election integrity will remain a myth.

Here’s the bottom line: Trump has tools. He can’t wave a magic wand, but he can apply pressure—legal, financial, and political—until Colorado cracks. And he must. Because if we don’t fight for Peters, we don’t fight for honest elections. And without honest elections, we don’t have a republic.

Summary of Key Actions for President Trump

1. Launch a Pressure Campaign

    • Publicly call out Colorado Governor Jared Polis and AG Phil Weiser.

    • Mobilize grassroots and media to demand Tina Peters’ release.

2. Leverage DOJ Authority

    • File federal habeas corpus petitions citing election law violations.

    • Open a Civil Rights investigation into political retaliation.

3. Use Federal Funding Leverage

    • Condition Colorado’s federal election security funds on transparency and whistleblower protections.

    • Publicize potential funding cuts to increase pressure.

4. Subpoena Tina Peters for Federal Testimony

    • DOJ can request a temporary transfer to federal custody for testimony related to election integrity.

5. Amplify Public Awareness

    • Feature Peters’ case in speeches, rallies, and media appearances.

    • Encourage allies like Mike Lindell, Steve Bannon, and WarRoom to keep the story alive; they need red meat to pound away at the base.

This is one of the most critical agenda items for the Trump administration because much remains unsaid.  All the horrible things going on in the world with Hamas, China, Russia, Venezuela, and our own domestic money policy that is under siege are nothing compared to the villainy that occurred against Tina Peters.  If she is allowed to be held in jail by a corrupt, leftist Democrat government in Colorado, people will lose faith in fighting for an honest election in 2026.  And without an honest election, the radical left plans to capture enough seats to impeach Trump and give the government back to the Deep State.  So this is a critical time.  We need a very vicious pressure campaign that forces this issue on the nightly news, because so far, they have been able to ignore it.  Once Trump won the last election, all the hostile forces treated it as a concession to buy a little time.  And the Midterms were their target.  If Tina Peters is not freed, then Trump will have a hard time holding power, and those who will fight for him will become discouraged.  So freeing Tina from jail is a must-do occasion.  There is no other option. Yes, there was election fraud in the 2020 election, and those who committed it, numbering in the many thousands, have to be punished for what they did.  Otherwise, we don’t have a country. 

Bibliography (Chicago Style)

1. Colorado Judicial Branch. “People v. Tina Peters: Sentencing Order.” October 2024.

2. CBS News. “Tina Peters Sentenced to Nine Years in State Prison.” October 2024.

3. Fox News. “Mike Lindell Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit Over Election Claims.” 2023.

4. ABC News. “Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro Sentenced for Contempt of Congress.” 2024.

5. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

6. Heritage Foundation. “Election Fraud Database.” 2024.

7. Brookings Institution. “Election Fraud Rates in U.S. Elections.” 2023.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707