Tina Peters Trial Day 2 — The former Mesa County Clerk heard blasting the Secretary of State’s Office in recording

CPR is covering each day of the Peters' trial. You can read our explainer of the case here, and catch up on past days here.

The first two prosecution witnesses took the stand Thursday in the trial of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. 

First up was James Cannon, the chief investigator for the local District Attorney’s Office. 

Cannon’s involvement in the case started in August of 2021, after passwords and images of the county’s voting machines leaked online. They were rapidly identified as having been taken during a secure software update earlier in the year.

In the courtroom, Cannon played a recording from his first phone interview with Peters about the security breach, in which she accused  Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold of targeting her office for political reasons.

“The Secretary of State's been trying to get me out of that office for a long time just with bogus stuff,” Peters told Cannon. 

She later added. “If they're trying to frame me here, I take really offense to that.” 

Peters’ deputy Belinda Knisley was sitting next to Cannon listening to the call and Peters asked her to film what was happening in the office while she was out of town, and the investigation was underway.

“What are they going to do there? I don't trust them,” she told Knisley. Knisley later struck a plea deal over her role in the security breach and has been cooperating with prosecutors. 

Peters told Cannon the situation with the leaked passwords was disturbing and sounded preposterous but she was about to board a flight and couldn’t talk.

“Let me check into it,” she said. “and then I'll call you back.”

The week of that conversation, Peters traveled to South Dakota as a featured speaker at a symposium of election skeptics convened by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Despite her flight, Peters stayed on the phone a bit longer. She asked if it was illegal to take a video of the security update, and Cannon told her it is against the law to take passwords that can affect the cyber vulnerability of any type of system. 

Peters seemed to downplay the concern that Mesa County’s passwords were circulating online, noting they’re only one element of the machines’ security.

“They cannot access my machines unless they're physically there (in the election office) and they have both passwords,” said Peters. “They would have to have our county passwords and then they would have to have the Secretary of State passwords - just having one or the other to do anything.”

In his cross examination, defense attorney Daniel Hartman reiterated that none of the charges against Peters are based specifically on the leaked passwords or images. 

The question of who could attend the update

The second prosecution witness was Jessi Romero, a voting systems manager in the elections division of the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. His team works with county election offices to certify their equipment and make sure they're using it correctly.

Romero said he received an unusual request from Mesa County prior to the software update in April of 2021, asking for members of the public to be allowed to observe the process. Romero said security protocols put in place since 2020 limited attendance to a small team of vetted officials, both out of COVID concerns and because of threats to election officials, so he denied that request.

“The trusted build, in the time I've been at the state, has never been a public process,” Romero testified. “We've never had members of the public attend. We've never had counties asked to have members of the public attend.”

During the trusted build process, technicians from the company that makes the machines, Dominion Voting Systems, overwrite their software with an updated copy in preparation for the next election. Romero said it’s about securing the system, which is not public information, and not appropriate for members of the public to be there physically.

Romero said he suggested an alternative: allowing concerned members of the public to come into the office to watch a video of the process after the update had already been completed. But he said he hear back from the clerk’s office. 

“It was well known that Mesa County had the cameras on all the time, every day,” he said, even though at the time it wasn’t required by law.

The investigation later revealed that the county’s internal cameras were turned off during the update. 

Ahead of the trusted build, Peters’ office told the state that an employee named Gerald Wood would be attending the update and asserted that he’d passed the required background check. However, investigators have found evidence that Wood’s identity was used to create a badge used by someone else, 'Stop the Steal' proponent Conan Hayes.

For the defense, Hartman tried to establish that Peters had the power to bring in Hayes.

“Who has the authority under the rules to decide who gets to come into or out of the facility at any point during the county election processes? Who's responsible for the security?” he asked.

Romero acknowledged that “in most respects, it is the county, although there are rules around certain areas and things of that nature that they have to abide by.” 

“So there are rules that they must comply with, but they are the final authority as to access to the facility. True or false?” 

“True,” said Romero. 

Hartman reiterated that Romero was only issuing guidelines to counties when he told them the updated were restricted to just a few staff members.

“That's not binding then, right? You can issue all kinds of interpretive statements, but they don't have the effect until they become rules. True or false?” 

“I'm not a lawyer, I can't speak to that,” said Romero. 

Before the day’s proceedings ended, a few jurors submitted their own questions for Romero, including asking why the Secretary of State’s office didn’t check the IDs of people at the trusted build. They also verified that everyone attending the update in 2021 was required to wear a mask during the process. 

“Who are you relying upon to give you the truthful, accurate information as to who those authorized individuals were?” one juror asked.

Romero said the state was relying on the Mesa County Clerk. 

Judge’s ruling quashes talk of alleged informant

Before things got started on Thursday, 21st Judicial District judge Matthew Barrett ruled that attorneys should stay away from any claim that Hayes might have been working for the federal government. 

No evidence has been presented that Hayes, an active member of the national effort to cast doubt on the 2020 election, was an informant. And District Attorney Dan Rubinstein told Barrett the FBI has confirmed he never was one. 

But Hartman countered that, regardless of the reality, what was important was Peters’ belief Hayes was working with law enforcement; that understanding spoke to her actions, and that she felt she was assisting a legitimate investigation. He drew comparisons to law enforcement operations in which police officers are allowed to lie about their identity to work undercover. 

“This is what she believed. It is relevant to her state of mind,” Hartman said. 

For his part, Barrett noted the motions had changed somewhat. The defense initially conceded that Hayes was not an informant, but argued the jury should get to hear what Peters believed. Later on, Barrett said, the defense withdrew that concession. 

“I’m extremely concerned about the nature of this evidence,” Barrett said, adding later that the defense appeared to be preparing to claim Peters’ subterfuge was all because she thought she was protecting the identity of a confidential informant. 

“That’s the plain implication of this evidence,” Barrett said, adding later. “This argument doesn’t make any sense — it’s highly confusing.” 

The issue was discussed without jurors in the room and Barrett’s ruling precludes that conversation from reaching their ears. Hartman said he did plan to present evidence that would suggest Hayes had worked for the government at some point.