August 9, 2024 • 16 mins
JIMMY SENGENBERGER HAS BEEN WATCHING THE TINA PETERS TRIAL So we don't have to and HOOBOY has it been a doozy. He joins me at 2:30 with all the juicy details so pop some popcorn and get ready. Tina was right when she said, "I'm f*cked". Jimmy wrote about it in today's Denver Gazette here.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Yes, they were the ghost of tones of Jimmy Segenberger
playing the harmonica, which I might add he did not
bring with him today, so luckily a rod had captured
this is your harmonica.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Play, a rare moment where I didn't bring my harps.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
You feel megid, don't you? You feel naked right now.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
It's uncomfortable, not as uncomfortable as folks at Tina Peters trial.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Oh my goodness. And Jimmy, I just want to say this.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
I am so grateful that you are watching this whole thing, just.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Elbow, just just wall to wall, elbow to elbow. You're
watching the whole thing, so the rest of us don't
have to.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
I've probably missed only about ten percent, if even probably
five percent of this.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
You know, when you started, were you expecting something boring
or were you expecting the insane dumpster.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Fire that has happened this week?
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Somewhere in between.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
It has been really bombs in ways that I never anticipated.
And it's gone on a lot longer than anyone really anticipated,
because there was an expectation that the prosecution would have
finished up by Wednesday most likely, and then you just
have a couple more days for the defense to make
their case if they wanted to, which, astonishingly they actually
(01:19):
are making a case, although I can't determine what the
case is at this point. And then you'd probably have
the jury deliberate on Monday and be done if that,
If even that, now we're probably looking at testimony into Monday,
maybe even Tuesday. Wow. Because the defense and I write
about this in the Denver Gazette today, I believe to
thank you, the defense kept asking questions that were irrelevant,
(01:42):
oftentimes trying to bring the conversation into election conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Territory or other areas where.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
The judge would sustain objections on relevance ground.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And in fact, last night and then.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Reiterated today, the judge told, with the jury out of
the room, told the attorneys for Tana Peters that they
could be subject to sanctions like contempt if.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
They keep bringing it up.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Now that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Yeah, had the judge decided before the trial to not
admit any of this because the defense that the defense
seemed to have been trying to launch is a defense
of we were on the side of God right, we
were doing the right thing, literally, even though what they
alleged they were trying to prevent has never been proven
exactly right.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
So the ends justify the means? Does it work if
the means do not actually exist.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
That's precisely right, except they want to try and make
it seem like right. The ends actually exist, that they
achieved something, exposed something. But there were pre trial orders
from the judge saying you can't bring this stuff in,
and they have continually pushed the envelope, and the judge
gave them a lot of latitude. In fact, on Monday,
(02:51):
he allowed forty minutes for one of the attorneys, a
guy named Dan Hartman. And all these guys are attorneys
for other election conspiracy theorists and so forth around the country.
And this guy, Dan Hartman, spent almost forty minutes throwing
everything he could up against the wall to see what
would stick when it comes to election conspiracies and all
kinds of things. The judge has given them tremendous, extraordinary latitude.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
There was an hour and a half they get it
in front of the jury.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Are they getting that? And they're asking those questions outside
because in all honesty, if you get one person who
believes that the election was stolen, and you can get
enough of these little accusations in there. You could conceivably
hang the jury just from that alone.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Well, I think that's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
So all the q and a's with the witnesses have
been in front of the jury, right, But there are
these times where the jury's out so that arguments can
be made about what kinds of things can be allowed,
whether or not witnesses should come in, and even just
a little bit ago, whether or not Tina Peters herself
might in fact testify, which we don't know yet.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
You but you said she was giving her conditions to
the judge about whether or not she would testify.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Walk me through that process.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
So suddenly, wait before we do that.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
A lot of people do not follow this case.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So let's give the overarching case Monday to Friday. The prosecution,
what are they prosecuting? And give us that in is
from Neil sketchy away as you can.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Prosecuting seven felonies and three misdemeanors for an alleged election
security breach. We know a lot of these things are true.
A guy named Gerald Wood went in and did a
background check, got a badge to allow him access to
a secure election room.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Gave that badge back.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
It was then used, he says, without his knowledge, by
a guy named Conan Hayes, who's a cyber hacker, computer hacker,
and a former surfer in the nineteen nineties. He is,
and he used the badge for Gerald Wood, literally impersonating
Gerald Wood. Staff thought that he was in fact Gerald
would and Secretary of State office employee did Dominion employee did.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
So was that when Tina Peters had the cameras turned
off in the room. So not to think that this
somehow is just a chain of unfortunate coincidences. There's evidence
that has come out now that Tina Peters underlings who
have now flipped on her and testified against her, were
asked to have the security cameras turned off for a
conveniently coincidental same period of time that all this hacking
(05:17):
took place.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
May twenty third, Conan Hayes goes in and makes a
copy and image of the hard drive as Gerald would.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
That was a before image, so to speak, right, and
then he.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Went back in after this process called the trusted build,
which is really a software update for the election equipment,
and made a second image so that they could do
a before and after comparison, and it was like for
a week beforehand and then for a couple months after.
The cameras were often something that one person testified an
employee that it hadn't been done I think in ten.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Years, right, ever, shut up. I've never been asked to
turn the hands.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
In one instance, and I begin my column today by
talking about this that either it was Tina Peters, might
have been her lawyer, but either way, Tina was on
the call instructing the two senior employees who flipped on her,
who were charged and flipped, to get burner phones and
use burner phones for communications.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
This is like the.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Worst episode of the Sopranos ever. Okay, this is like
bumbling believe. Oh you got to say what Tina was
upset about today?
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Well, but before that, let me just say, Hollywood couldn't
script this and Scooby Doo wouldn't even do an episode
of it for twenty minutes because they would figure out
right away that it wasn't Gerald would that something was
going on, take off the mask and say you're not Jerry,
You're Conan Hayes.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Yeah exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
But so Tina Peters.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
You know, normally when you are charged of course you
have a Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, so that
means you don't have to testify. Well, she talked about
and I'm semi quoting here, I want to be sure
that cross examination is limited if I can't tell the
jury and this is a wacky thing that Conan Hayes
was a government informant.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
If this is not.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Allowed, I would directly affect my assisie which to testify.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
So she wants to testify that the hacker, that Mike
Lindell's people. That's the other thing that's come out of
this trial is that Mike Lindell is the driving force
behind all of this.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
He's the one paying our bills.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
He is the one hiring these attorneys who are representing
other election deniers around the country.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
And why would Mike Lindell be doing that, Jimmy.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Because in actually March, February and March of twenty twenty one,
he was sued by Dominion for one point three billion
dollars and lo and behold, if you make claims you
can't back up, you need to figure out a way
to back up those claims. And so literally this is
one revelation. It's a little side tour from Tina whether
or not she will testify, but literally we now know
(07:41):
that an attorney named Kurt Olson is Mike Lindell's attorney.
He also was Carry Lake's attorney in Arizona, and he
is the guy who was the attorney that they communicated
with in some messages that they went back and forth
with during twenty twenty one. Tina Peters or associate Sharona Bush,
who's a major player and just testified as well. And
(08:03):
what we learned is that this guy, Kurt Olsen is
the one who connected Sharona Bishop with Conan Hayes, and
then Conan became the guy.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
He shouldn't be working the case, he should be a part.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Of the case.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Well, so he's not one of the attorneys that's in
there for Tana Natal, but he was an attorney earlier
and actually Coroona Bishop in her testimony, she actually in
testimony for him. Because the defenses so out in looney Land,
they actually brought back the investigator who did the investigation,
very very bright guy for testimony today for their defense.
(08:41):
And we learned that in the core course of all
this testimony that there was a there was a voicemail
that investigator Cannon had left for Sharona Bishop about her
possibly testifying, and she passed it on to her lawyers. Well,
when asked who are your lawyers, she said John Case,
(09:01):
who's one.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Of Tina's lawyers arguing this case.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
And Kurt Olsen, who is again Mike Lindell's lawyer who
connected them with Conan Hayes. And she passed the voicemail
message about her testifying from the prosecution on to those lawyers.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Yeah, that's crazy, I mean, this is just this is
absolutely nuts.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
One of the things that I've heard in the testimony
this week is that at some point Tina did tell
the truth when she said to her assistant Brenda, I'm blanked.
That is the only truthful thing that has come out
of Tina's mouth this entire time.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
She said that to both Belinda and Iisley, who was
the deputy clerk, and to Sandra Brown, who was the
back office manager for the elections, who were both charged
and then ended up flipping.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Basically, did they did the two women who flipped on
Tina were they asked if they regretted their role as
they were, They asked it all about their role other
than just testifying. I'm curious, do you, I.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Mean, do you think they feel stupid? Wouldn't you hope
they feel stupid?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (10:02):
Absolutely, And in fact, there was one point where Sarona Bishop,
who seems to be sort of throughout this trial, you
learn more that she seems to be more the ringleader
than anybody else in terms of the direct steps of
what happened. Sharona, in a phone call with both of
those women while they're at the office and all this
stuff is going down with the Secretary of State Investigation,
(10:24):
directs them to remove the election server that had been
copied in May. This is August of twenty twenty one
that this happened. And she literally said, she being Sandra
Brown to Blenda nicely, you don't want to do that
or you'll catch a felony, right, And they.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Knew, they knew what they were doing was against the law.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I mean some of these things, all right.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
So if Tina's found guilty of all this, what does
she face?
Speaker 4 (10:52):
You know, I haven't seen the specifics because there are
so many. It really depends on what the charges are,
but there is prison time that is definitely posps as
a result of these felon Ajar One.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Would think that the judge having to listen to all
this clap trap of trying to bring in this defense
when he has explicitly said no, that's not going to
make him amenable to a lower sentence.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
He has gotten frustrated in a very measured way.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
I have to say this about this judge.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
I don't like some of the things that he allowed,
in the sense that they are distractions, that they allowed,
some rabbit holes, they waste the time. But he did
so in fairness to the other side, because you know
that they're already saying from the start this is rigged
against him, yes, that this is not going to.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Go her way.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
But he has been extraordinarily fair in giving all this
latitude to Tina Peters and to her defense team, beyond
anything that I would have anticipated. And you could tell
that he's gotten irritated in part because, like I'll give
you an example, yesterday, they bring Sharona Bishop up to
testify as the first defense witness at four point thirty.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
It'll be forty five minutes, your honor.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
They end up having to take a break during that
time to be able to discuss some possible evidence, and
it was an hour and a half later, I think
about six o'clock that they broke and still had to
finish up direct testimony, let alone cross examination.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
It's absurd.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Sharona Bishop, from what I can tell, is just a
friend of Tina Peters. How does she is she the
machiavellian mind behind this? How does she come into play?
And why hasn't she been charged? Yeah, that is actually
a big question. Although here's the thing.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Before she testified yesterday with the jury out of the room,
the judge gave her an advisement. There was a discussion
about whether or not she wanted to testify because the
prosecution wanted to make sure she was aware that she's
still under federal investigation as a suspect. I suspect that
maybe they're looking out for what the FEDS may be
doing next and right now just focusing on Tina Peters
(12:46):
and allow the Feds maybe to do something regarding Sharona
Bishop because it could be something much bigger and they
don't feel the need to go forward in their case
right now. But she decided to testify Sharona Bishop, and
I really think and a lot of folks who've been
watching this, very savvy journalists and so forth, we're saying
this is not helping the defense, very little helped at all.
(13:08):
It was really dragging them down in a lot of ways.
Having searn A Bishop testify, But her role, I don't
know how. She sort of got the ball rolling. But
she's the one who recruited Gerald Wood to be able
to use his badge. She's the one who brought in
Conan Hayes on behalf of Mike Lindell to pretend to
be Gerald Wood. She's the one who is really the
(13:31):
folk frum connecting all of these different individuals. And she's
the one, in fact that got the hotel room for
Conan Hayes to stay.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
She spent the money on that.
Speaker 4 (13:41):
And I just have to say this one thing that's
very important. I view what they've been asking about dominion, elections,
a lot of these things that the judge has determined
to be irrelevant as a fishing expedition about dominion over
Mike Lindell's lawsuit. And I don't just view it that way.
Here is what the judge asked Attorney Dan Hartman. It
(14:02):
was for the purposes of his defamation case. And he goes, absolutely,
I can assure you, following the trusted build that the
effect was the deletion of the records he needed to
defend his lawsuit. And then John Case is an attorney
who's representing others, so is Dan Hartman.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
They've been sharing a dominion in their.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
One of their lawsuits accuses these lawyers of sharing information
from Tina Peters case for their case.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Of course, I mean, of course.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
It's I I say this all underscores the incestuous connections
that expose this underlying strategy, because that's the word to use.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Wow, it's wild, holy cow.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So we have to wait until next week to find
Tina guilty.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Probably is my guess. But you never know.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
I mean, there are some things, so there are Jerry Wood.
There is the signal threat. There's been a big question
from this app signal that the prosect susan and their
investigator says, we never saw this thread. But it purports
to cast doubt at least on whether or not Jerry
Wood knew that his badge was going to be used,
because remember he says I had no idea and testified
(15:14):
to that effect. But this one thread that mysteriously is
missing the fifteen second audio message that Sharona Bishop had
as context for whatever it purports to cast out on
that who knows the investigator and the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Seemed to be dubious as to the legitimacy.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Yes, and I'll say that I've interviewed Jerry Woods several
times over the past two and a half years or
so two years, and I found his explanations and his
stories to consistently be extraordinarily credible, which is why they
no longer viewed him as a suspect at the time
of Tina Peter's indictment.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Okay, so somebody just said, Manny, I'm so lost, and
we understand because this is the most convoluted, like after
school special kind of insest you.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
We're doing God's work. We have to ruin.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Democracy to save democracy kind of thing. And it's just
it's the whole thing is steeped in absurdity.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
And I will say I literally to Listener's point and
my columns saying, if your.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Head is spinning, you're not alone.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
This case is a convoluted, tangled mess. But it begs
the question, Mandy, is Tina Peters really being defended here?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
That is an excellent question.
Yes, they were the ghost of tones of Jimmy Segenberger
playing the harmonica, which I might add he did not
bring with him today, so luckily a rod had captured
this is your harmonica.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Play, a rare moment where I didn't bring my harps.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
You feel megid, don't you? You feel naked right now.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
It's uncomfortable, not as uncomfortable as folks at Tina Peters trial.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Oh my goodness. And Jimmy, I just want to say this.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
I am so grateful that you are watching this whole thing, just.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Elbow, just just wall to wall, elbow to elbow. You're
watching the whole thing, so the rest of us don't
have to.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
I've probably missed only about ten percent, if even probably
five percent of this.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
You know, when you started, were you expecting something boring
or were you expecting the insane dumpster.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Fire that has happened this week?
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Somewhere in between.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
It has been really bombs in ways that I never anticipated.
And it's gone on a lot longer than anyone really anticipated,
because there was an expectation that the prosecution would have
finished up by Wednesday most likely, and then you just
have a couple more days for the defense to make
their case if they wanted to, which, astonishingly they actually
(01:19):
are making a case, although I can't determine what the
case is at this point. And then you'd probably have
the jury deliberate on Monday and be done if that,
If even that, now we're probably looking at testimony into Monday,
maybe even Tuesday. Wow. Because the defense and I write
about this in the Denver Gazette today, I believe to
thank you, the defense kept asking questions that were irrelevant,
(01:42):
oftentimes trying to bring the conversation into election conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Territory or other areas where.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
The judge would sustain objections on relevance ground.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And in fact, last night and then.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Reiterated today, the judge told, with the jury out of
the room, told the attorneys for Tana Peters that they
could be subject to sanctions like contempt if.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
They keep bringing it up.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Now that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Yeah, had the judge decided before the trial to not
admit any of this because the defense that the defense
seemed to have been trying to launch is a defense
of we were on the side of God right, we
were doing the right thing, literally, even though what they
alleged they were trying to prevent has never been proven
exactly right.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
So the ends justify the means? Does it work if
the means do not actually exist.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
That's precisely right, except they want to try and make
it seem like right. The ends actually exist, that they
achieved something, exposed something. But there were pre trial orders
from the judge saying you can't bring this stuff in,
and they have continually pushed the envelope, and the judge
gave them a lot of latitude. In fact, on Monday,
(02:51):
he allowed forty minutes for one of the attorneys, a
guy named Dan Hartman. And all these guys are attorneys
for other election conspiracy theorists and so forth around the country.
And this guy, Dan Hartman, spent almost forty minutes throwing
everything he could up against the wall to see what
would stick when it comes to election conspiracies and all
kinds of things. The judge has given them tremendous, extraordinary latitude.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
There was an hour and a half they get it
in front of the jury.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Are they getting that? And they're asking those questions outside
because in all honesty, if you get one person who
believes that the election was stolen, and you can get
enough of these little accusations in there. You could conceivably
hang the jury just from that alone.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Well, I think that's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
So all the q and a's with the witnesses have
been in front of the jury, right, But there are
these times where the jury's out so that arguments can
be made about what kinds of things can be allowed,
whether or not witnesses should come in, and even just
a little bit ago, whether or not Tina Peters herself
might in fact testify, which we don't know yet.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
You but you said she was giving her conditions to
the judge about whether or not she would testify.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Walk me through that process.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
So suddenly, wait before we do that.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
A lot of people do not follow this case.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So let's give the overarching case Monday to Friday. The prosecution,
what are they prosecuting? And give us that in is
from Neil sketchy away as you can.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Prosecuting seven felonies and three misdemeanors for an alleged election
security breach. We know a lot of these things are true.
A guy named Gerald Wood went in and did a
background check, got a badge to allow him access to
a secure election room.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Gave that badge back.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
It was then used, he says, without his knowledge, by
a guy named Conan Hayes, who's a cyber hacker, computer hacker,
and a former surfer in the nineteen nineties. He is,
and he used the badge for Gerald Wood, literally impersonating
Gerald Wood. Staff thought that he was in fact Gerald
would and Secretary of State office employee did Dominion employee did.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
So was that when Tina Peters had the cameras turned
off in the room. So not to think that this
somehow is just a chain of unfortunate coincidences. There's evidence
that has come out now that Tina Peters underlings who
have now flipped on her and testified against her, were
asked to have the security cameras turned off for a
conveniently coincidental same period of time that all this hacking
(05:17):
took place.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
May twenty third, Conan Hayes goes in and makes a
copy and image of the hard drive as Gerald would.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
That was a before image, so to speak, right, and
then he.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Went back in after this process called the trusted build,
which is really a software update for the election equipment,
and made a second image so that they could do
a before and after comparison, and it was like for
a week beforehand and then for a couple months after.
The cameras were often something that one person testified an
employee that it hadn't been done I think in ten.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Years, right, ever, shut up. I've never been asked to
turn the hands.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
In one instance, and I begin my column today by
talking about this that either it was Tina Peters, might
have been her lawyer, but either way, Tina was on
the call instructing the two senior employees who flipped on her,
who were charged and flipped, to get burner phones and
use burner phones for communications.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
This is like the.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Worst episode of the Sopranos ever. Okay, this is like
bumbling believe. Oh you got to say what Tina was
upset about today?
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Well, but before that, let me just say, Hollywood couldn't
script this and Scooby Doo wouldn't even do an episode
of it for twenty minutes because they would figure out
right away that it wasn't Gerald would that something was
going on, take off the mask and say you're not Jerry,
You're Conan Hayes.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Yeah exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
But so Tina Peters.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
You know, normally when you are charged of course you
have a Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, so that
means you don't have to testify. Well, she talked about
and I'm semi quoting here, I want to be sure
that cross examination is limited if I can't tell the
jury and this is a wacky thing that Conan Hayes
was a government informant.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
If this is not.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Allowed, I would directly affect my assisie which to testify.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
So she wants to testify that the hacker, that Mike
Lindell's people. That's the other thing that's come out of
this trial is that Mike Lindell is the driving force
behind all of this.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
He's the one paying our bills.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
He is the one hiring these attorneys who are representing
other election deniers around the country.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
And why would Mike Lindell be doing that, Jimmy.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Because in actually March, February and March of twenty twenty one,
he was sued by Dominion for one point three billion
dollars and lo and behold, if you make claims you
can't back up, you need to figure out a way
to back up those claims. And so literally this is
one revelation. It's a little side tour from Tina whether
or not she will testify, but literally we now know
(07:41):
that an attorney named Kurt Olson is Mike Lindell's attorney.
He also was Carry Lake's attorney in Arizona, and he
is the guy who was the attorney that they communicated
with in some messages that they went back and forth
with during twenty twenty one. Tina Peters or associate Sharona Bush,
who's a major player and just testified as well. And
(08:03):
what we learned is that this guy, Kurt Olsen is
the one who connected Sharona Bishop with Conan Hayes, and
then Conan became the guy.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
He shouldn't be working the case, he should be a part.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Of the case.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Well, so he's not one of the attorneys that's in
there for Tana Natal, but he was an attorney earlier
and actually Coroona Bishop in her testimony, she actually in
testimony for him. Because the defenses so out in looney Land,
they actually brought back the investigator who did the investigation,
very very bright guy for testimony today for their defense.
(08:41):
And we learned that in the core course of all
this testimony that there was a there was a voicemail
that investigator Cannon had left for Sharona Bishop about her
possibly testifying, and she passed it on to her lawyers. Well,
when asked who are your lawyers, she said John Case,
(09:01):
who's one.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Of Tina's lawyers arguing this case.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
And Kurt Olsen, who is again Mike Lindell's lawyer who
connected them with Conan Hayes. And she passed the voicemail
message about her testifying from the prosecution on to those lawyers.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Yeah, that's crazy, I mean, this is just this is
absolutely nuts.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
One of the things that I've heard in the testimony
this week is that at some point Tina did tell
the truth when she said to her assistant Brenda, I'm blanked.
That is the only truthful thing that has come out
of Tina's mouth this entire time.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
She said that to both Belinda and Iisley, who was
the deputy clerk, and to Sandra Brown, who was the
back office manager for the elections, who were both charged
and then ended up flipping.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Basically, did they did the two women who flipped on
Tina were they asked if they regretted their role as
they were, They asked it all about their role other
than just testifying. I'm curious, do you, I.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Mean, do you think they feel stupid? Wouldn't you hope
they feel stupid?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (10:02):
Absolutely, And in fact, there was one point where Sarona Bishop,
who seems to be sort of throughout this trial, you
learn more that she seems to be more the ringleader
than anybody else in terms of the direct steps of
what happened. Sharona, in a phone call with both of
those women while they're at the office and all this
stuff is going down with the Secretary of State Investigation,
(10:24):
directs them to remove the election server that had been
copied in May. This is August of twenty twenty one
that this happened. And she literally said, she being Sandra
Brown to Blenda nicely, you don't want to do that
or you'll catch a felony, right, And they.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Knew, they knew what they were doing was against the law.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I mean some of these things, all right.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
So if Tina's found guilty of all this, what does
she face?
Speaker 4 (10:52):
You know, I haven't seen the specifics because there are
so many. It really depends on what the charges are,
but there is prison time that is definitely posps as
a result of these felon Ajar One.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Would think that the judge having to listen to all
this clap trap of trying to bring in this defense
when he has explicitly said no, that's not going to
make him amenable to a lower sentence.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
He has gotten frustrated in a very measured way.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
I have to say this about this judge.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
I don't like some of the things that he allowed,
in the sense that they are distractions, that they allowed,
some rabbit holes, they waste the time. But he did
so in fairness to the other side, because you know
that they're already saying from the start this is rigged
against him, yes, that this is not going to.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Go her way.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
But he has been extraordinarily fair in giving all this
latitude to Tina Peters and to her defense team, beyond
anything that I would have anticipated. And you could tell
that he's gotten irritated in part because, like I'll give
you an example, yesterday, they bring Sharona Bishop up to
testify as the first defense witness at four point thirty.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
It'll be forty five minutes, your honor.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
They end up having to take a break during that
time to be able to discuss some possible evidence, and
it was an hour and a half later, I think
about six o'clock that they broke and still had to
finish up direct testimony, let alone cross examination.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
It's absurd.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Sharona Bishop, from what I can tell, is just a
friend of Tina Peters. How does she is she the
machiavellian mind behind this? How does she come into play?
And why hasn't she been charged? Yeah, that is actually
a big question. Although here's the thing.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Before she testified yesterday with the jury out of the room,
the judge gave her an advisement. There was a discussion
about whether or not she wanted to testify because the
prosecution wanted to make sure she was aware that she's
still under federal investigation as a suspect. I suspect that
maybe they're looking out for what the FEDS may be
doing next and right now just focusing on Tina Peters
(12:46):
and allow the Feds maybe to do something regarding Sharona
Bishop because it could be something much bigger and they
don't feel the need to go forward in their case
right now. But she decided to testify Sharona Bishop, and
I really think and a lot of folks who've been
watching this, very savvy journalists and so forth, we're saying
this is not helping the defense, very little helped at all.
(13:08):
It was really dragging them down in a lot of ways.
Having searn A Bishop testify, But her role, I don't
know how. She sort of got the ball rolling. But
she's the one who recruited Gerald Wood to be able
to use his badge. She's the one who brought in
Conan Hayes on behalf of Mike Lindell to pretend to
be Gerald Wood. She's the one who is really the
(13:31):
folk frum connecting all of these different individuals. And she's
the one, in fact that got the hotel room for
Conan Hayes to stay.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
She spent the money on that.
Speaker 4 (13:41):
And I just have to say this one thing that's
very important. I view what they've been asking about dominion, elections,
a lot of these things that the judge has determined
to be irrelevant as a fishing expedition about dominion over
Mike Lindell's lawsuit. And I don't just view it that way.
Here is what the judge asked Attorney Dan Hartman. It
(14:02):
was for the purposes of his defamation case. And he goes, absolutely,
I can assure you, following the trusted build that the
effect was the deletion of the records he needed to
defend his lawsuit. And then John Case is an attorney
who's representing others, so is Dan Hartman.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
They've been sharing a dominion in their.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
One of their lawsuits accuses these lawyers of sharing information
from Tina Peters case for their case.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Of course, I mean, of course.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
It's I I say this all underscores the incestuous connections
that expose this underlying strategy, because that's the word to use.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Wow, it's wild, holy cow.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So we have to wait until next week to find
Tina guilty.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Probably is my guess. But you never know.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
I mean, there are some things, so there are Jerry Wood.
There is the signal threat. There's been a big question
from this app signal that the prosect susan and their
investigator says, we never saw this thread. But it purports
to cast doubt at least on whether or not Jerry
Wood knew that his badge was going to be used,
because remember he says I had no idea and testified
(15:14):
to that effect. But this one thread that mysteriously is
missing the fifteen second audio message that Sharona Bishop had
as context for whatever it purports to cast out on
that who knows the investigator and the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Seemed to be dubious as to the legitimacy.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Yes, and I'll say that I've interviewed Jerry Woods several
times over the past two and a half years or
so two years, and I found his explanations and his
stories to consistently be extraordinarily credible, which is why they
no longer viewed him as a suspect at the time
of Tina Peter's indictment.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Okay, so somebody just said, Manny, I'm so lost, and
we understand because this is the most convoluted, like after
school special kind of insest you.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
We're doing God's work. We have to ruin.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Democracy to save democracy kind of thing. And it's just
it's the whole thing is steeped in absurdity.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
And I will say I literally to Listener's point and
my columns saying, if your.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Head is spinning, you're not alone.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
This case is a convoluted, tangled mess. But it begs
the question, Mandy, is Tina Peters really being defended here?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
That is an excellent question.
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.