Mitch Blood Green said:
Election denying ex-county clerk sentenced to 9 years for tampering with election equipment
She's the person who let My Pillow people have access to security key and the guts of the Dominion voting machines.
and yet we are seeing that they are junk with the same pass key and all kinds of other garbage in GA..Mitch Blood Green said:
Election denying ex-county clerk sentenced to 9 years for tampering with election equipment
She's the person who let My Pillow people have access to security key and the guts of the Dominion voting machines.
KaiBear said:
NINE YEARS for a non violent first offense ?
I’m so glad someone recorded it because they took the live stream down.
— Renee 🪷 (@PettyLupone) October 3, 2024
Listen.
This judge did not come to play. You simply MUST listen to how he read Tina Peters and her election crimes for filth.pic.twitter.com/WO1mDS1Ne6
Like KaiBear said, the sentence is intended to send a message.Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
100%.Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
sounds like an 8th amendment violation..Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
Mitch Blood Green said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
My read is that she remained defiant and during her arrest she assaulted law enforcement and repeatedly defied court orders.
She went all Cristpus Attucks and Mike Lindell is on to the next one.
which is ok as long as it is within acceptable standardsLIB,MR BEARS said:Like KaiBear said, the sentence is intended to send a message.Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
according to this article, she was found guilty of 7 different charges, so i assume it was a series of smaller sentences that added up to 9 years? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr75mpkm7nro4th and Inches said:which is ok as long as it is within acceptable standardsLIB,MR BEARS said:Like KaiBear said, the sentence is intended to send a message.Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
The law typically has a min and max that is acceptable. I dont know what that standard is for this charge but it seems unusual for this type of case
Quote:
She pleaded not guilty to all counts in 2022. A jury convicted her on seven of the 10 counts in which she was charged.
Those include three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.
That My Pillow guy is a bad, bad man! Hope the Dems' Department of Justice finds a way to put him in prison and throw away the key! I am sure ole Merrick Garland and Jack Smith can come up with something.Mitch Blood Green said:
Election denying ex-county clerk sentenced to 9 years for tampering with election equipment
She's the person who let My Pillow people have access to security key and the guts of the Dominion voting machines.
I am old enough to remember after the 2016 election with 60 Minutes and T'EXPERTS told us how vulnerable our voting machines were to Russian hackers.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Maybe the real lesson is that the last election wasn't the most secure and legit election in history.
Maybe the voting machines are easily tampered with. Maybe foreign operated Dominion is able to alter votes.
The Judge walked himself right into reversal.
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) October 4, 2024
He says he’s sentencing Tina Peters to jail because prison is where people who are a danger to all of us by “the pen, the sword, or the word of the mouth” should go.
Sorry “Judge” Barrett. It violates the First Amendment to… https://t.co/5VrVF7j9IC
Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
Yep. The regime has weaponized virtually every institution to punish anyone that dares challenge the regime. If roles were reversed, the left-wing media would be doing 24-hour histrionics.ShooterTX said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
Especially considering it was AFTER the election and after the recounts.
She wasn't trying to tamper with the election. She was trying to preserve the data before it was erased.
This is the kind of punishments we used to see the Soviets do during the Cold War. Totalitarianism at its best!
Harrison Bergeron said:Yep. The regime has weaponized virtually every institution to punish anyone that dares challenge the regime. If roles were reversed, the left-wing media would be doing 24-hour histrionics.ShooterTX said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
Especially considering it was AFTER the election and after the recounts.
She wasn't trying to tamper with the election. She was trying to preserve the data before it was erased.
This is the kind of punishments we used to see the Soviets do during the Cold War. Totalitarianism at its best!
Mitch Blood Green said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
My read is that she remained defiant and during her arrest she assaulted law enforcement and repeatedly defied court orders.
She went all Cristpus Attucks and Mike Lindell is on to the next one.
Wow, this guy is a completely biased total dip***** How do these type of people become Judges, it is supposed to be fairly balanced scales.Mitch Blood Green said:I’m so glad someone recorded it because they took the live stream down.
— Renee 🪷 (@PettyLupone) October 3, 2024
Listen.
This judge did not come to play. You simply MUST listen to how he read Tina Peters and her election crimes for filth.pic.twitter.com/WO1mDS1Ne6
ShooterTX said:Mitch Blood Green said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
My read is that she remained defiant and during her arrest she assaulted law enforcement and repeatedly defied court orders.
She went all Cristpus Attucks and Mike Lindell is on to the next one.
You actually want us to believe that a 70 year old woman was a violent threat to police?
And give us the details on "defiant". If I was innocent and believed the government was acting in a corrupt manner and followed that up with a corrupt prosecution to cover their tracks... I would also be defiant.
In this case, "defiant" probably means that she fight hard to prove her innocence and she never admitted any guilt. How dare she do such a thing!
Mitch Blood Green said:ShooterTX said:Mitch Blood Green said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
My read is that she remained defiant and during her arrest she assaulted law enforcement and repeatedly defied court orders.
She went all Cristpus Attucks and Mike Lindell is on to the next one.
You actually want us to believe that a 70 year old woman was a violent threat to police?
And give us the details on "defiant". If I was innocent and believed the government was acting in a corrupt manner and followed that up with a corrupt prosecution to cover their tracks... I would also be defiant.
In this case, "defiant" probably means that she fight hard to prove her innocence and she never admitted any guilt. How dare she do such a thing!
Why are you giving her the benefit of the doubt?
What I am saying is the judge made his ruling based on what he saw. He was unimpressed.
KaiBear said:Mitch Blood Green said:ShooterTX said:Mitch Blood Green said:Porteroso said:
She did something illegal. You cannot allow access to election machines to the first bozo who says they think they were tampered with. 9 years does seem see excessive. But what is democracy worth?
Still, if I'm the judge I give her probation and bar her from working near elections. I'm not sure 9 years sends any desirable message. And her intent seems to not have been to cause any harm.
My read is that she remained defiant and during her arrest she assaulted law enforcement and repeatedly defied court orders.
She went all Cristpus Attucks and Mike Lindell is on to the next one.
You actually want us to believe that a 70 year old woman was a violent threat to police?
And give us the details on "defiant". If I was innocent and believed the government was acting in a corrupt manner and followed that up with a corrupt prosecution to cover their tracks... I would also be defiant.
In this case, "defiant" probably means that she fight hard to prove her innocence and she never admitted any guilt. How dare she do such a thing!
Why are you giving her the benefit of the doubt?
What I am saying is the judge made his ruling based on what he saw. He was unimpressed.
And if he had given her the death penalty you would have posted something similar.
