The trial of former Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters continued on Tuesday, featuring testimony by an employee of Dominion Voting Systems with the video camera off, who was frequently cut off as the judge sustained the prosecution’s objections based on relevance. Peters’ former chief deputy, who took a plea deal in exchange for testifying against Peters, also testified. Peters is being prosecuted for making a video of a Dominion software upgrade (the “Trusted Build”), which she did out of concern that the upgrade would break the law by overriding election files.
It was unclear why Dominion Customer Success Manager David Stahl, a self-described "former ski bum," was not allowed to appear on video camera. He admitted he knew nothing about the technical side of the company.Peters’ attorney John Case attempted to impeach Stahl several times, trying to catch him perjuring himself. He asked Stahl about Dominion’s contract with Mesa County. The contract said Mesa County was allowed to make a backup copy of the voting system database. Stahl refused to agree that was true, saying he'd have to defer to Dominion's attorneys.
Case attempted multiple times to ask Stahl about Dominion’s General Counsel David Frontera, but District Court Judge Michael Barrett, who was appointed by Democratic Colorado Governor Jared Polis, would not let him. Later on in the day, it became apparent that Frontera’s attorney had been sitting in the courtroom all day including the previous day, and that he was expecting to be called to testify. Barrett changed his mind about letting Case ask Stahl about Frontera an hour or so later.Case asked Stahl if he contacted his superiors with his concerns after watching the Trusted Build. Stahl said he didn't remember, and couldn't remember if he'd emailed someone.
Case brought out a transcript of an interview Stahl participated in with Mesa County District Attorney Chief Investigator James Cannon, where Stahl relayed how he’d reported his concerns. Cannon asked Stahl, "What did you do in response to watching that video and talking with Danny?” Stahl responded, “I immediately wrote an email to my CEO and vice president and current director or former director."Case asked Stahl if the Colorado Secretary of State (COSOS) decertified Mesa County's Dominion software after the Trusted Build incident. Stahl said he'd have to defer to the COSOS to answer that.
Case pulled out Stahl’s testimony to the grand jury. Case asked, “On Page 90 of the grand jury transcript, were you asked this question, and did you give this answer? Question: Can you tell the grand jury a little bit more about that remedial action that Dominion decided to take in collaboration with the Secretary of State's Office?”Case read Stahl’s answer he gave to the grand jury, “Yes, so the secretary decertified the elections equipment. Once the equipment was decertified, it can't be used any longer, then our sales team had proposed a deal to the county and accepted that deal and all the equipment that was not confiscated by the authorities that still remained at the county came back with us, and we brought in new equipment. The Trusted Build for that equipment was at Summit County Clerk and Recorder's office as a neutral site. Once the Trusted Build was completed there, we drove the equipment out here with Mesa County employees, and helped them unload it. We left for the evening. Myself and Anselmo Valdez and Chris Estes installed and acceptance tested the equipment with the county the following day.”
Case asked Stahl, “Did I read that correctly?” Stahl responded, “Yes.” Case added, “And that's a testimony you gave under oath to the grand jury. Stahl said, “Yes. Yes.”Case next asked Stahl whether the public is allowed to view Logic & Accuracy tests, in order to show that it wasn’t a problem for Peters to bring in a non-employee to view the Trusted Build, but the prosecution objected and the judge sustained it.
Stahl criticized election integrity efforts. “I think transparency is critical in our democracy,” he said during cross-examination. “When it comes to disinformation, I think it's very important for the individuals who are administering elections to have the facts needed so that they are able to serve their constituents. … There are a lot of misrepresentations going on in the elections history right now, and it's important that we get facts out there on how things are conducted.”Case questioned him, “We? Who is we that needs to get facts out, Dominion?” Stahl answered, “Every election administrator who operates with integrity in this country should get the facts out there about their election management system.”
Case asked him, “Can you define disinformation as you understand the term?” Stahl said, “Yeah, I would look at this as propaganda.”Case pressed him, “So Dominion's position is it works? The software is fully compliant with federal and state law, and we don't need any information to the contrary?” Before Stahl could respond, the prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
Case asked Stahl, “At that time, you're aware, aren't you, of the legal requirement for the clerk, and recorders, to maintain records — all election records for a period of 22 months under federal law and 25 months under state law?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
Case asked Stahl, “Is the Windows password the same for the golden image across the entire state?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
Case continued, “Well, certainly if you had thought it was illegal for clerk Peters to have herself taking a video during the Trusted Build, you would have spoken up, wouldn't you?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
The attorney asked Stahl, “Did you tell the grand jury that the machines are not connected to the internet?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.He next attempted to ask something differently, “Your machines have the capability to connect to the internet?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
Case asked, “Is it true that the computers you supplied to Mesa County in 2021 were manufactured overseas in China?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.Case continued, “Is it correct that the computers come with wireless chips installed?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
Eventually, Case moved on to a subject Stahl seemed quite familiar with. He asked, “What is a test desk?” Stahl answered, “It’s just premarked ballots, and you know the expected results as what they should be.”Case asked, “And then you can get the results of the vote count directly from the image cast central computer?” Stahl responded and said that feature is not in use in Colorado.
Case pushed back, “Well, it is on, it is in the software and on the scanner.” The prosecution objected as to relevancy, and Case responded, “I’ll make it relevant.” However, the judge sustained the objection.
Case next asked, “To your knowledge, sir, does it violate election law to sell software that enables the user to count votes before the election is over?” The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.Finally, Case attempted to ask Stahl about Dominion's address. Stahl provided an address that was different from their address on pleadings, Case said. The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.
Peters’ former chief deputy clerk Belinda Knisley, who served probation in exchange for testifying against Peters, admitted that she originally thought Peters was innocent. "I'd never believed at that point in time that she had done anything she wasn't required to do,” she said during direct examination.Prosecutor Janet Drake asked her, "Have you subsequently changed your mind about that?” Knisley answered, "Yes."
Drake asked, "Why?" Knisley answered, "I believe actions taken after the fact is, what has caused her to be in trouble."After Knisley responded, Drake pointed out, “You were actually charged in two separate cases related to this scheme that yes, and one was a burglary case where you were charged with burglary, computer crime, and trespass. Is that correct? And you are also the subject of the grand jury indictment that had a number of charges.” Knisley agreed.
Peters' attorney Mike Edminister conducted the cross-examination of Knisley. He asked, “You were well aware that clerk Peters was very concerned about questions being asked by her constituents?” Knisley answered, “Yes.”Edminister asked, “So you were, that was going to get things done and was going to answer her constituents’ questions, if that, if they were brought to — she was, would you call her a faithful public servant? Knisley answered, “That’s very true. Yes.” The prosecutor objected that it was character evidence and the judge sustained.
Edminister asked Knisley about “a concern of clerk Peters that she needed to, quote, protect the information that was left on the equipment.”Knisley answered, “I know that she said she was going to run the backups because it was her responsibility, per statute, to preserve that information. prior to the secretary of state, which the secretary of state did say back up your information. And then to run the same after the Trusted Build to discern if there was any missing information.”
Edminister attempted to ask Knisley about phantom voters, which was a key concern of Peters. Earlier during the trial, the prosecution questioned other witnesses extensively about the circumstances surrounding an evening event where mathematician Douglas Frank spoke about phantom voters, but did not get into the actual evidence or logistics of phantom voters. Edminister wasn’t allowed to get very far before the judge cut him off.He asked Knisley, “Was there some indication in your mind that there had been some phantom voting going on in addition to what you've described that you brought to the attention of the district attorney?” Knisley answered, “Nothing in addition.”
Edminister pressed her, “Okay, what about the 2021 municipal election results?” Four progressive candidates for Mesa City Council won their races, which Peters said she found a surprise, even to the candidates since that area is 65 percent Republican and 35 percent Democrat. The prosecution objected based on relevance and the judge sustained it.The judge ended the day of trial with his regular admonishment to the jury not to look at any outside information. However, instead of mentioning both news articles and social media, he only mentioned social media.
"Don't discuss this case amongst yourselves or with anyone else doing it,” Barrett said. “Don't do any research about this case or this kind of case. I know I’m a broken record, but there's a reason behind why I'm telling you this. Don't get on social media. If you have even the slightest concern you may come across something. Don't just avoid it. I know how difficult that may be. Don't discuss the case with anyone, even those who are not involved in this case. Of course, don't go to any location."Barrett, who frequently provided his own opinion of the case, seemingly acting as an arm of the prosecution especially when he declared the previous day that he would not be letting in defense evidence since he’d already determined that Peters had committed crimes, was reversed by an appeals court earlier this year for providing his opinion.
In a case involving a fertility doctor who impregnated his patients without their knowledge, a panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals panel ruled that Barrett was wrong to decide prior to trial that the doctor violated his professional duty at the time of the inseminations. The justices said the decision belonged to the jury, and Barrett should not have relied on his own perception of "common sense" when ruling. They ordered a new trial, reversing a multimillion-dollar jury award, and also concluded Barrett improperly allowed the plaintiffs to request additional damages mid-trial.WesternSlopeNow is live-streaming the trial, and the schedule is posted on Peters’ website. The trial is expected to finish on August 12.
In Mesa County, Colorado Clerk Trial, Prosecution’s Partisan Witness Sobs, Other Witnesses Backtrack
Prosecution’s Key Witness in Trial Against Former Mesa County Clerk Repeatedly Claims He Doesn’t Remember Much
First Two Prosecution Witnesses in Trial of Former Colorado Elections Clerk Referred Disparagingly to Conservative News Site