The Ramifications For Doing The Right Thing In A Corrupt State: What Is A Whistle Blower?
In this two-part introduction I’m covering a number of issues that have characterized Denver-Colorado-elections over the past decade. Tina Peters is featured in the intro but her very visible and vocal leadership to get to the bottom of the shenanigans came somewhat late in my series of articles written to highlight the problems.
We left off in Part A referring to “features” introduced into the nationwide election landscape that coalesced to undermine election integrity across a broad spectrum of issues. Some were new while others had been ongoing for years as part of what can’t be considered as other than a concerted effort by democrats to undermine election integrity.
Among the features that made this possible include the George Soros funded Secretary of State (SOS) initiatives undertaken in the wake of Bush V Gore in 2000 to get “friendlies” positioned in key or willing states. Another feature was to do the same for state attorney general positions across the land in key states. There was the implementation of automated tabulation machines such as were introduced in South America related to or aided by the CIA as another feature. The great expansion of mail-in ballots against all evidence and warnings of fraud and disenfranchisement rates as high as 10% or more due to administration problems was another feature. Empowering the democrat funded lawfare apparatus to conduct state by state election “fine tunings,” such as challenging voter identification laws, was another. Ballot harvesting is a key element in many states.
These topics all played out-constituted a big part-in the incremental changing of the American election landscape, but none was intrinsically central to success like the automated tabulation machines that first appeared in the wake of the 2000 election under the noble (guise) of finding a technology solution to the challenge of processing ballots in a more timely, expeditious way that would allow elections to be completed more quickly.
Which is ironic on its face, given the somewhat incongruous trend to extend election day to an election window where some states have gone to several weeks to a month of voting, while also opening up the fraud floodgates by increasing mail-in voting with goals to get to 100%-if possible-over a month-long window.
Historic data tells us that mail-in ballots-when done in compliance with legislature passed rules-laws-results in greater than a 10% rejection rate because people simply don’t follow the instructions. The only way to overcome that metric is aggressive ballot curing, or lawfare to get the courts to overturn laws intended to safeguard elections. Democrats aggressively pursued both such options and a number of others, resulting in ridiculous numbers of counted votes in the 2020 election with unmitigated and unprecedented fraud.
My approach to get to the point where this potential fraud-cheating-makes sense was to discuss each of the above features in turn-starting with a discussion of the power of automation in the 21st century to set the stage for the later analysis of the Colorado elections in terms of the resulting strange characteristics of the election.
The bottom line down the bottom is that with automatic tabulation machines such as Smartmatic and DVS, there is no need to create fake ballots (from ballot “sweat shops”) because myriad capabilities exist to produce “desired” results. I’m dwelling on this fact to disabuse dear reader from stopping at the bumper sticker about these tabulation machines that they simply provided for quicker counting of ballots and therefore election results.
Many have new and somewhat novel capabilities, but in truth the opportunity and possibilities to cheat have gone on steroids and beyond. With electronic tabulation machines came a fairly novel-unclear whether it is new-methodology providing a clever way to cheat, by creating batches of ballots earmarked for “enemy” or opposition territory that are printed-mis-typed-just enough to “catch” when being scanned into the system such that they flag into adjudication and become fodder for mischief by the “adjudicator.”
When we read about the seemingly innocuous story that Arizona ballots were purchased from China-I know, big whoop-keep in mind that a tabulation scanner set with fairly tight scan parameters can be set to reject-which means forward an image ballot to the adjudication file-because something like the candidate selection box has a default size of 3 inches and these ballots are 3.124 inches against a tolerance of 3.12: barely noticeable to the eye-if anybody was looking-but dead certain to be flagged and sent to adjudication.
A good question is who does that work to salvage that ballot in adjudication? And the answer is-the adjudicator. A better question is how is the adjudication decision backtracked to the original paper ballot? And the answer is who knows, but it is not likely an action that is tracked/documented.
You would think in tech savvy 2025 Max Dribbler could fill out a mail-in ballot and confirm down the road that-yes-indeed, my ballot was counted for Otto LGD (my dog.) With these machines becoming ever so much more capable, the SOS has the opportunity to use them to conduct the entire sequence of election related tasks, simplifying greatly odious tasks that formerly took massive amounts of time and manpower because of the heretofore compressed timelines of the typical election cycle.
Which seems arse backwards, that is, in the face of automation that has tremendously optimized-simplified-most of the related election labor intensive processes, many states have opted for extended election/voting windows that must be viewed in light of extending the cheating window opportunity more than any other description.
Think Senator Norm Coleman versus Al Franken in Minnesota 2006. And-OBTW-this was the first heard for many of Franken lead attorney Marc Elias, formerly associated with the campaign of John Kerry, later of Perkins Coie who contracted Fusion GPS, and of election lawfare fame.
These systems compile/ingest the SOS managed state Central/Consolidated Voter File (CVF,) produce the runs to get election ballots mailed out to the registered voters and ingest those returned ballots to produce “image ballots” in the system, which is the first step toward mayhem in the process. Many states have passed laws that mandate that the image ballot-not the paper ballot-is the counted record vote of an individual voter and therefore subject to the retention mandates by federal and state.
What is clear is that in most states those image ballots that result in adjudication are not tracked back to the original ballot to safeguard the intent of the voter.
Which is not complicated but in point of fact means that notwithstanding in places like Georgia-Fulton County-and other counties where image ballots went missing, with error rates as high as 113K ballots that had to be adjudicated (by the “adjudicator,”) the fact that there are paper ballots in theory backing things up, does not help perform potential audits for two main reasons: number one is almost no jurisdiction mates up the final adjudication decision with the original paper ballot, and secondarily when most states went to automatic tabulation machines (DVS) the SOS implemented provisions that mandated that audits are conducted against image ballots, only: not paper.
A circularly defeating fact. We can just re-count the paper ballots in a pinch. Well, not by law and also-how do you recreate the adjudication process and decision?
In Colorado the SOS sends out reminders for people who have not returned their mail-in ballots throughout the voting period-which is one of the features or benefits of having an election window. But that tells you all you need to know about how much election officials know about the state of the election throughout this window.
In Colorado we will see that with the SOS mailing out some 4.6M ballots or 102/3% of the eligible registered population, there is built-in “fluff” or padding of nearly one million votes to play with, given that there can’t possibly be more than 3.6M eligible voters in the state.
What would you do with this “fluff?” Well, lots, all of which would be undetectable or impervious to discovery, short of a true forensic audit.
I’m getting ahead of the story. First, let’s go through the miracle of modern-day automation with a number of examples which should convince you of the flexibility and power of these tools in modern day society. Your conclusion coming out of this discussion-played forward-is that the numbers being dealt with in the typical election with modern tabulation capability are actually trivial: child’s play.
Next, we’ll walk through somewhat of a breakdown of the Colorado numbers in terms of strange “bidness,” just straightforward results analysis providing some head scratchers and potential anomalies or thumb on the scale potential data.
Having described the computer power landscape available and the anomalous or squirrely looking results, we’ll walk through the tabulation vendors responsible for conducting the election in Colorado and somewhat expose them as the potential executors of the dirty business from a process standpoint, but not the culprits per se. Although certainly a potential Pinata for DOJ or FBI investigators to treat like Charmin (put the squeeze on.)
Following those setup actions, we will get to the point in the article series where it became obvious over time that something was rotten in Colorado elections, which is where Tina Peters went public in a big way but unfortunately found very few in her party willing to step up when it was needed.
19 December 2025
LSMBTGA: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT,) government (G) and academia (A)
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: AmericanFreeNewsNetworkSubstack
TruthSocial:@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA