When Tina Peters became aware of an investigation into a Mesa County elections security breach in Aug. 2021, then-clerk Peters had a plan: She instructed two senior elections employees, Belinda Knisely and Sandra Brown, to secure “burner phones” for covert communications.

“We were told our calls were probably being monitored,” Brown testified. “Don’t say anything, we’ll take care of it,” Peters instructed.

Both Brown’s and Knisely’s testimony confirmed a pivotal point in a trial with far-reaching implications. Originally, they were individually charged as Peters’ accomplices in 2022 but reached plea deals for their crucial testimony.

Peters’ burner phone directive was one of many shocking orders from Peters and her associate, Sherronna Bishop, who had no official role in the clerk’s office.

During cross-examination, Knisely confirmed she’d arranged a background check and entry badge for Gerald Wood, which was later used without Wood’s knowledge by 1990s pro-surfer Conan Hayes and computer hacker to infiltrate the election office, impersonating Wood.

Hayes made copies of the election hard drive in May 2021 which were leaked online prior to an Aug. 2021 election conspiracy conference held by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Days before Hayes attended Mesa County Elections’ critical “trusted build” software upgrade, Knisely ordered surveillance cameras turned off at Peters’ behest — a first in many years, according to witnesses.

Bishop, Peters’ ally and advisor, played an outsized role. Knisely testified Bishop directed her to remove evidence from the election room. She didn’t.

Brown recounted a phone call with Peters, Bishop and Peters’ attorney, where Bishop instructed Knisely and Brown to illegally remove the server.

Brown refused “because that would be stupid,” she testified. “I muted the phone and told (Knisely), you’re not touching that stuff. If you do, you’re going to catch a felony.”

On Wednesday, the defense claimed DA Investigator James Cannon was probing whether screenshots from a thread on the encrypted messaging app Signal, purportedly featuring Jerry Wood, was “a fake.”

Under cross-examination Friday, a visibly perplexed Wood insisted he didn’t recognize them.

The judge asked Wood if he could identify the communication. “I don’t recall this conversation,” Wood confirmed.

When shown supposed Signal screenshots and transcripts, Brown looked equally baffled. Regarding an alleged May 18, 2021, chat with Wood, she retorted, “I didn’t even get Signal until August.”

Brown said she only used Signal because Bishop and Peters “told” her to “because it was encrypted.”

Let’s be honest: Not even Hollywood could script this legal drama — or the tangled web of players involved and their true objectives.

On Monday, defense attorney Dan Hartman took Judge Matthew Barrett on a bonkers 40-minute detour, throwing every election conspiracy theory at the wall.

Hartman revealed a defense hinging on “ends justify the means” — an “evils defense” suggesting Peters had no choice but to save files critical that would be deleted in the trusted build software upgrade. (Fact check: Nothing deleted violates federal or state laws.)

Barrett ruled this defense couldn’t be used, calling it “jury nullification” strategy. Yet they’re still pushing it.

Sued by Dominion Voting Systems in Feb. 2021 for making baseless claims, Lindell sought to back his defamation defense by recruiting people like Peters to “discover” evidence.

“The circus surrounding Peters’ trial is essentially being financed by Lindell, who is using it to gather material for his billion-dollar defamation case with Dominion,” said legal journalist Luke Johnson, who’s been covering the trial on X, formerly Twitter, and other major election-related cases.

Here’s the thing: This isn’t just about Lindell paying for Peters’ defense, which he is — it’s about covering for him, too.

“But it was for the purposes of his defamation case?” Barrett asked.

“Absolutely,” Hartman admitted. “I can assure you, following the trusted build, that the effect… was the deletion of the records he needed to defend his lawsuit.”

Defense attorney John Case questioned witnesses about internet connectivity, software features, wiping information off the server and Dominion’s office address. The prosecution objected each time. Without fail, Barrett sustained the objections because they weren’t “relevant to the issues.”

Peters’ team siphoned an hour to compel Dominion general counsel Mike Frontera to testify, accusing Frontera of colluding with the secretary of state and district attorney and claiming “plenty of evidence” that was disallowed.

Barrett quashed the subpoena, ruling Frontera “can’t offer anything relevant to this case.”

Let’s be clear: This defense resembles a Dominion fishing expedition — a curious strategy given the charges have nothing to do with voting equipment.

“Lindell is pulling the strings across the country, funding legal fees and flying officials on his jet, as Peters’ defense attorney Hartman acknowledged to Barrett — all in pursuit of defending Lindell’s defamation lawsuit,” Johnson said.

Peters’ legal team is entangled in a web of out-of-state cases, revealing troubling coordination. Last month, in a defamation lawsuit against former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, Dominion accused Byrne’s attorneys of colluding to undermine the legal process.

Byrne reportedly paid over $200,000 to Conan Hayes, central to the Mesa County breach.

Case admitted to reviewing emails from discovery in Byrne’s lawsuit and working with Byrne’s attorney, Stephanie Lambert. Hartman is also Lambert’s defense lawyer in her own election criminal cases — underscoring incestuous connections that that expose the underlying strategy.

If your head is spinning, you’re not alone. This case is a convoluted, tangled mess.

But it begs the question: Is Tina Peters really being defended here?

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.