Steve Bannon pressed John Case for answers as frustration boils over nationwide over why Tina Peters remains imprisoned despite a presidential pardon and mounting evidence tied to voting machines and election integrity.
WATCH THE CLIP BELOW:
This clip aired on WarRoom’s morning show on December 15, 2025. Transcript begins below (lightly edited for clarity; may contain minor errors).
Bannon: Frustration Peaks Over Tina Peters Detention
STEVE BANNON (HOST): I want to go to John Case. John is at the tip of the spear in the Tina Peters situation. The President has pardoned her. We had you on the other day. Any update? People are more frustrated on this situation than just about everything.
And trust me, they’re frustrated on a lot of stuff where not enough action is taken in a bunch of different areas. But Tina Peters galls them. The situation galls them because of all the information that’s coming out now about the machines.
President Trump said yesterday at the Christmas party, maybe I’ll play that clip later if we can pull it, that there’s tons, boatloads of information now, specifically about the machines and mail in ballots that they’re collecting. I think he’s got Kurt Olson as a special assistant in the White House collecting that, and they’re prepared to start putting it forward.
That only makes the situation with Tina Peters, who’s a political prisoner, basically held in captivity by the Colorado state government, even worse.
Any update, John Case?
JOHN CASE (GUEST): Yes. Since President Trump issued the pardon, Tina has been kept in a new solitary confinement portion of the prison. She has a detail of four special Department of Corrections officers that accompany her everywhere.
She’s grateful because she has a new four inch mattress instead of the two inch mattress she had before, in her cell, and she has a microwave. But she still has four corrections officers accompanying her everywhere she goes.
She still has her cough, and she has not had the necessary PET CT scan that’s recommended for people like her with a cough and a history of lung cancer.
Tina wanted me to mention that she’s very grateful to your listeners, Steve, for their prayers and for their financial support at tinapeters.us. People can get the latest information and support Tina at tinapeters.us.
Colorado officials are saying that Attorney General Phil Weiser and Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold are saying that Trump doesn’t have the authority to pardon Tina Peters, so they’re going to keep her in a state prison.
Now, I was wondering, Steve, aren’t Griswold and Weiser the same people who claimed that Colorado had the authority to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot? Didn’t President Trump fight that all the way to the United States Supreme Court? And didn’t the Supreme Court unanimously rule that Colorado didn’t have the authority under the Constitution to remove Trump from the ballot?
So who should people trust, Jenna Griswold or Donald Trump? He pardoned her because she was performing a federal duty to preserve election records.
The Venezuelan whistleblower who examined the election forensic image Tina preserved found the same fourteen vulnerabilities present in the Smartmatic software used to rig elections in Venezuela and around the world. Colorado uses a variation of that same Smartmatic software. Venezuelan whistleblowers have testified to this under oath.
The people who allowed this to happen want Tina kept in state prison where she can’t testify or speak in public.
Tina performed her duty under federal law to preserve election records on the Mesa County computers. This is why Trump was right to pardon her, and she will prevail when justice is finally done.
STEVE BANNON (HOST): So, what are we going to do about it, John?
JOHN CASE (GUEST): Well, Steve, as you know, on November 12 the Federal Bureau of Prisons offered to take Tina into their custody as a state prisoner, without charge to the state of Colorado. With their own personal detail of four guards, it’s got to be costing Colorado taxpayers much more than the sixty four thousand dollars a year per prisoner that they budget.
So why don’t they transfer Tina to federal custody while the pardon issue is litigated? Why? Because Tina’s mission is to return Colorado to the voting system that worked here for one hundred twenty five years. Voting in person, with ID, in your precinct, on Election Day, using paper ballots, and hand counting the ballots in the precincts. If there’s ever a question, the entire process is repeatable.
But in Colorado, we use a variation of the Smartmatic system used in Venezuela. The people in power say, well, the computer says the Democrats won, so they won. We’re not going to have audits. We’re just going to do what the computer says.
That’s right. We need transparent elections. That’s what Tina stands for. That’s our mission, to return to that voting system. And we appreciate the support of your listeners at tinapeters.us. Thank you, Steve, for having me on.
STEVE BANNON (HOST): John, you’re a patriot. Heroes all. The team, just people looking out every day to make contact with the prison. I just want to give a shout out to all the volunteers that work for Tina Peters, that have been fighting the good cause.
Think about it. For a country that had a revolution, then fought a civil war, then kicked out all the imperial powers, France, Britain, Spain, all of it. North America, World War II, then took down the Soviet Union in the Cold War. This time, we’re talking about political prisoners.
We have a political prisoner. That’s not right.
We’ve got military hardware and the most troops in jeopardy the United States has had since the Gulf War, maybe bigger than the Gulf War, everything since Vietnam. What we’ve got there and what we’re prepared to deploy is on the same issue Tina Peters fought against and warned us about.
John Case, you have social media, sir? I know you’re old school, but anything people can do to get to you?
JOHN CASE (GUEST): No, Steve. Just go to tinapeters.us.
Read more on Tina Peters.
Follow: WarRoom — Home of ultraMAGA on GETTR – Profile and Posts on GETTR
Colorado Election Systems Password Leaks and the Tina Peters Case and Space Force: An Economic, Legal and Constitutional Analysis
Introduction
In October 2024, former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison after her conviction for alleged election-system-related offenses tied to her whistleblower activities. Only days later, the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office and Colorado Government Officials disclosed that election system passwords for voting equipment keys had been leaked, mishandled and exposed online—affecting nearly half of Colorado’s counties and most of the votes. Was this a hack? Was somebody selling election passwords? Was a foreign country attacking Colorado? Was somebody bribed or corrupt? Nobody KNOWS!
The collision of these two events raises not only questions of election security but also fundamental concerns of due process, selective prosecution, and proportionality in sentencing. Critically, under the constitutional standard of justice, the judge and prosecutor must be able to determine whether any fair and impartial jury of twelve citizens could have feasibly convicted Peters if any jury had known of the state’s leaks of passwords and the state’s own simultaneous election security failures. The answer appears to be no. Further, nobody really knows if the last few Colorado elections were not rigged, for sale, or hacked by foreign enemies based on these facts and confessions of leaked passwords.
Factual Background
The Conviction of Tina Peters
Peters was prosecuted for her role in investigating vulnerabilities in Colorado’s election systems following a 2021 Mesa County breach. She argued that she acted as a whistleblower, raising alarms over potential election hacking and fraud of the election systems. In October 2024, Judge Matthew Barrett sentenced her to nine years in prison, citing her "lack of remorse.” At that time, neither the jury, nor the defense, nor the judge knew that the Colorado Government and Secretary of State’s Office had discovered that the passwords were: mishandled, leaked and somebody had been corrupted or negligent with sensitive voting system passwords creating a potential criminal "election passwords for sale” situation.
The State’s Password Leak
Incredibly, just within a few days of Peters’ sentencing, the State Government and Secretary of State admitted that the secret election passwords for voting equipment had been publicly leaked and posted online either accidently or nefariously. This exposure necessitated statewide resets and federal cybersecurity intervention. Independent reviews labeled the mishandling "possibly accidental” but never ruled out criminal or espionage-related activity. This situation is still potentially subject to a widespread federal investigation as per voting rights plausible crimes.
The Timing Problem
The state’s disclosure occurred only after Peters was sentenced. This timing created an appearance that critical exculpatory information was withheld from the court, jury, judge, and prosecutors. Such nondisclosure undermines confidence not only in Peters’ trial but also in the broader administration of justice. In theory, the victim, lawyers, judge, jury and prosecutors were all defrauded.
Legal and Constitutional Issues
Due Process and Fair Trial Standards
Under Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83, 1963), the prosecution must disclose exculpatory or mitigating evidence. If the state knew, or should have known, about its own password leak, failure to timely disclose these facts, negligence or criminal leaks constitutes a Brady violation.
Moreover, the constitutional measure of due process requires that the court ask: Could a reasonable jury of twelve have convicted Peters if they had known of the simultaneous leak? The answer is self-evident. A jury aware that state officials themselves compromised election security would almost certainly have seen Peters’ actions as vindicated rather than criminal.
Equal Protection and Selective Prosecution
Peters was punished severely for exposing vulnerabilities, while state officials responsible for an even more damaging breach were never prosecuted. This double standard highlights unequal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
First Amendment and Whistleblower Protections
Peters’ efforts to expose vulnerabilities fell squarely within matters of public concern. Punishing her while later validating her concerns through official admissions appears to constitute retaliation against protected speech. Federal whistleblower principles and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide further grounds for legal challenge if her prosecution amounted to retaliation for exposing government misconduct.
Proportionality and Excessive Sentencing
A nine-year sentence for conduct later confirmed as grounded in truth raises proportionality concerns under the Eighth Amendment. The punishment appears grossly excessive given the context.
The Jury Question: Could Twelve Have Convicted?
Central to constitutional justice is the question: Would any jury of twelve impartial citizens, having full knowledge of the Secretary of State’s own election security breaches, have unanimously convicted Tina Peters?
The evidence suggests not. Once the state admitted to exposing passwords on its own, Peters’ claim that election systems were insecure was not only plausible but proven. A jury confronted with this fact could hardly convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. For a conviction to stand, the judge and prosecutor must be able to affirm that conviction was possible under fully informed circumstances. Here, they cannot.
Broader Implications
The state’s failure to disclose its own negligence before Peters’ sentencing undermines both the legitimacy of her conviction and public trust in electoral integrity. The unresolved possibility that Colorado’s leaked passwords were exploited—whether by criminals, foreign actors, or domestic insiders—only amplifies these concerns.
From a legal perspective, Peters’ conviction now resembles the "fruit of the poisonous tree”: a prosecution tainted by the simultaneous concealment of exculpatory evidence. From a constitutional perspective, the erosion of due process, equal protection, and free speech rights casts the case as a miscarriage of justice.
Beyond constitutional protections, federal statutory law provides a pathway for nullifying prosecutions obtained under circumstances like those surrounding Tina Peters. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes relief when state actors, under color of law, deprive an individual of rights secured by the Constitution. If Colorado prosecutors failed to disclose the simultaneous state-level password leak, that omission could constitute a Brady violation depriving Peters of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In such a case, a federal court reviewing a § 1983 claim or a habeas petition would have authority to invalidate the conviction, since no jury of twelve impartial citizens could have reasonably convicted her had they been aware of the state’s own election security failures. This statutory safeguard reinforces the principle that prosecutions tainted by selective disclosure, suppression of evidence, or retaliation cannot stand under federal law.
In Colorado, the legal mechanism for undoing a conviction when new evidence surfaces is a Rule 35(c) motion for post-conviction relief. This rule allows a defendant to challenge a conviction on constitutional grounds or to present newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been found at trial. The disclosure that the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office itself mishandled and leaked voting system passwords would likely qualify as such evidence, since it directly validates Peters’ core whistleblower claim and undermines the fairness of her prosecution. If Peters files a Rule 35(c) motion, the prosecutor could choose to "confess error” and support vacating or reducing the conviction, thereby signaling to the court that the state no longer stands behind the judgment. The trial judge would then have authority to vacate the conviction, order a new trial, or reduce the sentence, ensuring that the proceedings align with constitutional standards of due process and fairness.
Conclusion
The Peters case cannot be divorced from the state’s own admitted failures. Even if her actions technically violated statute, the simultaneous revelation of the state’s negligence fundamentally alters the legal calculus and gives Tina Peters immunity from prosecution. The judge, prosecutor, and governor must acknowledge that no fair jury of twelve could have convicted Peters had the password leak been disclosed at trial. To the casual observer, it looks like something went wrong, somebody got hacked or bribed, and there was a big cover up of the password leaks and they waited for Peters to be convicted to save face and cover up the crimes or negligence by dirty or just negligent governmental actors.
If the Colorado injustice continues, most experts suspect that all persons involved in this prosecutorial tragedy and election systems leaks may be federally investigated by the FBI, DOJ and IRS for collusion, obstruction, bribery, corruption, or even worse. If nobody did anything wrong, then that is great, but if somebody did, then justice will be served.
Overall, it appears that Colorado lost Space Force this month due to the government’s inability to protect election integrity and civil rights of women and whistleblowers. If the prosecutors, judges, or governor had taken some basic "equal rights” action on the Peters Case on Election Security and the 8th Amendment, this defunding of Colorado may have never happened. The estimated annual economic impact of Space Command leaving Colorado includes approximately 1,400–1,700 direct jobs, around $1 billion in annual economic output, risks to over 2,000 aerospace ecosystem businesses, and statewide federal contracts in 2024 valued between $38–48 billion. If the Colorado Senators, Governor, judges or prosecutors don’t fix this Civil Rights failure in Colorado, it’s citizens will take action and many politicians will lose their jobs and reputations.
The Password Leaks Especially Coincide with Strange Election Results in 2020
Anyone who is good with basic math can tell you that Colorado State elections from 2016 to 2024 created some virtually impossible results. In Colorado’s 2020 election, turnout rose by about 435,000 ballots compared to 2016, and while Trump’s increase of roughly 162,000 votes came almost entirely from reclaiming "rogue” Republicans and third-party voters, Biden’s gain of about 465,000 votes in 2020 accounted for 95–100% of all the new ballots cast, indicating that nearly all fresh voter participation went to Biden rather than Trump. To expose other improbable facts in Colorado, Joe Biden received 1,804,196 votes in 2020— beating Barack Obama’s 1,323,101 votes in 2012 by approximately 481,095, and crushing Hillary Clinton’s 1,338,870 votes in 2016 by about 465,326 votes.”
Given that Trump consolidated Republican and independent-leaning votes in 2020, one might have expected him to receive 40–50% of Colorado’s new mail in ballots counted by election computers. However, with Biden capturing nearly all of the state’s turnout increase, this raises questions about how the leaked passwords and new digital election systems functioned and underscores the importance of continued transparency and oversight and civil rights concerns.
Personally, I have supported good common sense Populists, Conservative Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans most of my life, and even support some of Colorado’s leadership in many ways. However, putting a Gold Star Mother of a Navy Seal in jail for correctly and rightfully being an election integrity whistleblower has deeply upset a lot of people including veterans, those who stand up for justice, civil rights oriented democrats, and women voters.
The leaked Colorado election passwords, the statistical irregularities with votes, and the conviction of whistleblowers represent not only an election integrity issue but also a profound civil rights concern. Without robust security, transparency, and accountability in elections, these scandals—ranging from government failures to questionable convictions and password leaks—stand as symbols of selective, authoritarian-style justice, obstruction of justice, and the dangerous erosion of public trust.
*This is just my private analysis and if any facts are right, then justice is served, and if anything is a bit wrong, do you own research and get back to me. Thanks, GM
I hope she sues the sht out of colorado
Free Tina Peters!