In this all-hands on deck interview, join host Kim Monson as she delves into the controversial case of Tina Peters with her legal team, John Case and Peter Tickton. Explore the nuances of the case, from the petition challenging her imprisonment to the complexities of her defense strategies. As they navigate through the intricacies of elections law, discover the challenges faced by officials in preserving the integrity of electoral records. Engage with this compelling exploration of the legal and political factors influencing one of Colorado’s most talked-about cases.
00:00:03 Introduction and Tina Peters Case Overview
00:01:36 Discussion on Tina Peters’ Petition and Current Status
Indeed, it is Friday. Welcome back to the Kim Munson Show. And be sure and check out our website. That is Kim Munson, M-O-N-S-O-N.com. And pleased to have on the line with me two of Tina Peter’s attorneys. And that is John Case and Peter Tickton. And very excited to talk about this. There’s all kinds of developments it looks like in this case. John Case, welcome. It’s great to have you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thank you, Kim. Great to be with you again. Thanks for having us on.
SPEAKER 08 :
Absolutely. And Peter Tickton, it’s great to have you on as well. Thank you.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.
SPEAKER 08 :
So, John, as you know, you’re located here in Colorado. And you and I had talked after I had had you on about three weeks ago. And we talked about Tina Peters and the fact that she’s languishing in a maximum security prison here in Colorado. My heart was just so troubled. And I thought, well, she’s been pardoned by President Trump. Governor Polis is not honoring that pardon. And we talked with Marlee Hornick about this a little bit in our number one. But my heart was just so heavy. I thought, well, let’s try Christmastime humanitarian. We put together a petition over 4,201 people. signed that petition from all over the country and the District of Columbia, all 50 states, and I delivered that petition to Governor Polis’ office on the 22nd, asking from a humanitarian standpoint to release her. That didn’t happen, John Case.
SPEAKER 10 :
No, it didn’t. It was so kind and wonderful of you to circulate that petition, get the signatures, and have the courage to walk into Governor Polis’ office and present it. But… As you know, he commuted the sentence of a man who killed four people. He commuted 90% of that sentence. But for a gold star mother, he wouldn’t commute a single day. She had never had a prior conviction. It was the convictions that were had were nonviolent. Nobody was injured. There was no property damage. So it’s hard to see why the government wants to see Tina Peters locked up, except she’s a political scalp.
SPEAKER 08 :
So Peter Tickton, thank you, John Case. Peter Tickton, you were brought in later regarding this case. So tell us a bit how you became involved in representing Tina Peters.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, I’m not sure exactly how that materialized at the beginning, but when I was asked if I would come into the case, I was, of course, honored to be able to do that, and I didn’t know the attorneys that were already in the case. I knew Stephanie Lambert, but I didn’t know John Case, and I didn’t know the other two, Bob Sincar and Patrick McSweeney. But through the process of working with all four of the lawyers, it turns out that these are exceptional lawyers. It’s kind of like a dream team. And, you know, both of my experience, though, has been with Stephanie Lambert and with John Case. And I told John the other day, I said, you know, my only regret is that I didn’t meet you 40 years ago. because he’s just a powerhouse. I mean, his thinking is so clear. Sorry to talk about you in the third person, John. I know you’re here. But facts are facts, and that’s all I’m saying. So anyway, so I was brought in, and I think it added something to the team. And then some of my ideas came about. But most of the really clever things that we’ve been doing were in play when I came in. And it’s just that I was able to add a little bit to the way it was getting done.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so John Case, first of all, my understanding is during her trial that there was key evidence that was not allowed by you as the defense. Is that correct?
SPEAKER 10 :
That is correct, Kim. Tina’s defense was that she was executing a public duty. There’s a federal law, 52 U.S. Code 19, 20701 that requires all county clerks to preserve election records, and that includes the digital election records that are stored on the hard drives of the county computer system. So that law requires, required Tina to preserve those records. She learned that the Secretary of State was going to wipe those records from the system as part of a software upgrade. The Secretary of State calls that software upgrade a trusted build, but they should really call it the wipe of the IPV. Because before they install new software, they wipe everything off the system. They erase the software that was used in the prior election, and they erase all of the election records that were generated during the election. So Tina learned that her obligation to preserve records would be violated by this wipe that was going to be performed by the Secretary of State. So in order to perform her federal duty, she engaged a qualified cyber consultant who had security clearances from federal agencies, who had done work for federal agencies, but he would work only on one condition, and that is that his identity be kept secret because he was being hunted by the cartels for work that he had done on a major FBI case. So Tina agreed to protect his identity, and what she was convicted of was introducing this gentleman… Conan Hayes by the name Gerald Wood. Gerald Wood was a local computer consultant in Grand Junction who volunteered to get a county key card and then have it transferred to Conan Hayes. So Conan Hayes went into the room wearing Jerry Wood’s key card. And that All of the convictions stem from that identity misunderstanding. So there was no harm to the computers, and there was no injury to any person. All the records were preserved. Conan Hayes made a forensic image of the voting system before the wipe so that all the county records were preserved. And he made a second image after the wipe so that the two images could be compared. And when they were compared, experts concluded that the wipe erased all of the records of the 2020 election, which was the goal, by the way, of the Secretary of State and Dominion voting systems was to erase the records of the 2020 election.
SPEAKER 08 :
So Peter Tickton, this is clearly a problem, but she was convicted of what I consider process crimes, and the process that was put in place made it difficult for her to really do her job. But what everyday people out there that don’t really know the intricate details of this case here, and I guess this was the catalyst that I invited John Case on three weeks ago, was this letter. from the Colorado County Clerks Association, and the executive director is Matt Crane, that they basically had sent a letter to Jared Polis requesting that Tina be kept in prison. And I was just astonished when I saw that letter, Peter Tickton.
SPEAKER 11 :
Right, yes. By the way, John, you see what I’m saying about John, how concise and how succinct. What a job he did. He laid everything out beautifully chronologically. But if I could just sum up from where John left off, where now what this really means is that the person who was attempting to save the evidence, the person who was attempting to basically preserve the truth is in prison. And the one that went to 62 different counties, you know, Jenna Griswold, she is the one who’s violated the federal law. She is the true criminal. And she is the one pushing to make sure that in the first place that Tina Peters got prosecuted for these claims. And, and, uh, And they’re still pushing to make sure that Tina Peters remains in prison. But it’s backwards. The criminals are running the government. And the one who is attempting to say that the emperor has no clothes, the one who is preserving the truth, is now behind bars. That’s what’s really wrong here. But what you just said, why? You know, why did they need to prosecute Tina Peters? Peters. They needed to prosecute her because they needed to make the point, not just to every other clerk in Colorado, but to every clerk in the country, that if you want to preserve evidence that shows that Dominion machines are being used to basically manipulate the outcome of the elections, if you want to preserve that, you’re going to be like Tina Peters. So don’t you dare. You’re going to be in prison, too. And no matter how innocent you are, No matter how much good you’re trying to do, no matter how much you’re trying to follow the federal criminal guidelines here, it doesn’t make any difference. You’re going to go to prison like Tina Peters did. That’s why Tina Peters is still in prison, not because the governor thinks that she’s really guilty and for whatever kind of reasons he may say. This is why President Trump is so exasperated by this little pipsqueak of a governor that you’ve got, who thinks that he can say no to the president of the United States.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, well, we’re going to continue the discussion. We’re talking with two of Tina Peter’s attorneys, John Case and Peter Tickton, and she is still languishing in a maximum security facility in Pueblo. My understanding is the conditions are harsh. And so we’ll continue this discussion. We have these important discussions because of our sponsors for everything residential real estate. You’ll want to talk with Karen Levine.
SPEAKER 06 :
A house protects from the rain, but a home shelters from the storms of life. Additionally, home ownership has helped Americans create wealth for themselves and their families. The Colorado Metro real estate market is ever changing and is presenting new opportunities for home buyers that we have not seen in quite some time. If you are thinking of buying a new home or selling your home, RE-MAX REALTOR® Karen Levine can help you successfully navigate the complexities of real estate transactions. Call Karen Levine today at 303-877-7516. That’s 303-877-7516. You want Karen Levine on your side of the table.
SPEAKER 07 :
The Second Amendment is in our Constitution to protect your right to resist oppression and protect your right to protect yourself, your family, and your freedom from out-of-control PBIs, politicians, bureaucrats, and interested parties. Those rights are under attack. Colorado’s premier grassroots Second Amendment organization, the Second Syndicate, is fighting to preserve and protect your constitutional rights. The Second Syndicate exposes the most pressing threats to the Second Amendment by providing education, resources, and tools to help you stay informed empowered, and prepared. Join the movement. Check out thesecondsyndicate.com, where the second is first. That’s the2ndsyndicate.com.
SPEAKER 04 :
For nearly 20 years, mortgage specialist Lorne Levy with Polygon Financial Group has helped individuals realize their hopes and dreams of home ownership, fund kids’ educations through second mortgages, and access capital by utilizing reverse mortgages. Lauren Levy works with many different lenders and his goal is to provide home loans to his clients with the lowest interest rates and closing costs as possible. Lauren Levy pledges to help borrowers overcome roadblocks that can arise when securing a loan. Call Lauren Levy now at 303-880-8881 so that you are prepared for opportunity in the mortgage market. That’s 303-880-8881.
SPEAKER 02 :
All Kim’s sponsors are an inclusive partnership with Kim and are not affiliated with or in partnership with KLZ or Crawford Broadcasting. If you would like to support the work of The Kim Monson Show and grow your business, contact Kim at her website, kimmonson.com. That’s Kim Monson, M-O-N-S-O-N dot com.
SPEAKER 08 :
Indeed, it is Friday. Welcome back to the Kim Munson Show. Be sure and check out our website. That is Kim Munson, M-O-N-S-O-N dot com. As many of you know, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder, former Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters is languishing in a Colorado prison. and she’s been denied bond while she’s trying to work through the appeal. Peter Ticton, I find this, and we’re talking with John Case and Peter Ticton, two of her attorneys, I find this astonishing to me that she was denied bond on this as they’re working through the appeal. Where are you in that process for her appeal right now?
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, we’re going to have an oral argument on January 14th. And in the meantime, the Colorado Court of Appeals has been very good in terms of the fact that they realize that there is a pardon out there. They need to determine from their point of view whether or not the pardon should be in effect or not for the state of Colorado. Because they’re kind of in a position where they can either go ahead with the appeal or not go ahead with the appeal, depending on which way they see it. In other words, we’ve got a pardon. And there is a controversy as to whether or not it applies just for the state or whether it I mean, just for federal offenses or for state offenses. And We’ve got some pretty good arguments and pretty good discussion as to why it does apply to even state offenses, especially in this case. So if the Court of Appeals accepts our argument, then they’re going to have to say that they don’t have jurisdiction to go ahead with the appeal in order that Peter Peters be released. If they go forward with the argument and they accept the arguments of the state, which are going to be basically provided on January 8th or 5th, I’m sorry. Once that occurs, I guess that’s Friday. What am I saying? The 5th is on Monday. And then we have the until Thursday night to be able to respond to that. But if they do agree with the state that it doesn’t apply to these state offenses, then they’re going to go ahead with the oral argument on the 14th. And that, to John and to May, is really important. That’s really key because we know that the conviction needs to be overturned. And, I mean, it’s going to – we have very high confidence that that’s what’s going to happen. So we didn’t want this delayed and put off. And I thank the justices or the judges of the Court of Appeals, the Colorado Court of Appeals, which is a state court of appeals system, for not causing any delay, wanting to get this thing done, and keeping their date for oral arguments. So they did give us a very tight briefing schedule for this new issue so that they can keep that date. And as I said, I’m grateful to that. The big point is that we’re going to be able to then, if they find that the state crimes can’t be pardoned by the president, that they should come to that conclusion, we’re going to be able to jump right from Colorado to the Supreme Court of the United States and hope that they’ll take our case. We think that they should because it’s an important issue as to whether or not the president can pardon state offenses.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, now, Peter, she’s been convicted of a state crime. However, it surely seems like there would be federal jurisdiction over this because the election records that she was preserving affects federal elections as well. And I’m just a regular person, but gosh, that sure seems to me like the federal jurisdiction would come into play. But again, I’m just a regular person, Peter.
SPEAKER 11 :
We’re all regular people. Some of us know a little bit more about law, but we’re all regular people. Yes, it seems to me that way, too, because of the nature of exactly what’s going on here. you know, this is exactly why the president needs to have pardon power so that you can’t have a captured state. And I’m sorry to say that. I mean, you’re there in Colorado. It’s it’s it’s your state. And I’m an outsider. And I’m saying your state is captured and it may not be palatable. And people might not appreciate hearing that. But when your election system is is corrupted and the outcome that very few people are in control of causing is being caused by those people, then that’s why I call it a captured state. And in that circumstance, a president needs to be able to use pardon power to be able to help correct this kind of a situation when it goes so far afield.
SPEAKER 08 :
So, John Case, I consider this conviction a process crime that she was accused of. And processes have been in place. So, for example, I served for four years on city council. And I saw how processes could be put in place that could make it difficult to… I have this to do the right thing sometimes. And that’s technically that’s what happened because I find it kind of crazy that a duly elected county clerk would not have total access to those voting machines. and that, in essence, she had to figure out a way to get to those tabulating machines. She had to figure out a way to get to it so that she could do the before and after of the, I have it in air quotes, trusted build. Is that correct? Am I looking at that somewhat correctly?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, you are, Kim. So Tina Peters, as the elected county clerk, had these rights. She was elected. custodian of the voting system. She was responsible for maintaining it. She had control of the premises. It was Tina Peters who decided who could enter the room. And the whole dispute in this case arose because the Secretary of State sent an email, an email, not an order from the Secretary of State, not a rule, but an email saying the only people who can be present at the wipe are are two people from the county plus the clerk, plus the vendors and the secretary, plus Dominion, plus the secretary of state. So only those people can attend. And this is for, this is because of our, the secretary of state COVID policy. So what Tina did by bringing the consultant Hayes into the room was not in accordance with the COVID policy of the Secretary of State. But it wasn’t a legal violation. She had control of who could enter the room. And there was a specific rule of the Secretary of State that allowed Tina to bring anyone into the room, as long as she supervised that person. And that’s exactly what she did. Prior to that wipe taking place, Tina Peters asked the Mesa County IT Department to supply qualified computer technicians to observe the wipe. And the county IT department refused. And after they refused is when Dr. Doug Frank said to Tina at a meeting that was attended by everyone in her office, so it wasn’t you know, any secret. He said, if you want a consultant, I can get you the best in the country. And so Tina took him up on that offer, and that’s how she got in touch with Mr. Hayes, who then demanded that if he was going to observe this wipe process, that his identity be concealed. And that’s why it was concealed. But that didn’t violate any process rules of the Secretary of State or any state law. So if you make a misrepresentation to somebody, a sort of a white lie kind of a thing, and you have a higher purpose, that’s what the law allows. Her purpose was to preserve the records and to have a qualified observer see what happened during the wipe. Tina was not a computer expert. She needed somebody who was qualified to observe the wipe, and she got him. So because she was doing that as part of her duties as elected county clerk to preserve records and to investigate any destruction of those records, her actions were protected by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which is Another major federal constitutional issue. If a person obeys federal law and performs their duty under that federal law, they cannot be prosecuted in state court. There’s dozens of cases that say that. So we feel that’s going to be a prevailing argument in the Colorado Court of Appeals. And we’re confident that the Court of Appeals is going to be objective and and is going to do the right thing in this case because in an earlier appeal, Tina won in the Court of Appeals. The DA up there got her convicted of contempt of court because the whole case was made up by the DA’s office. So Tina was attending a hearing for a co-defendant, Belinda Nicely, and While the hearing was going on, all of a sudden the DA said to the judge, Your Honor, I need to call to your attention that Tina Peters appears to be recording on her iPad. So the judge said, Ms. Peters, are you recording? And she said no. So the next day, the district attorney got a warrant to seize Tina Tina Peters iPad. They seized it. They kept it for 15 months. They charged her with contempt of court because they said she had not only recorded in court, but then had lied to the judge. That was the basis of the contempt. They never examined the iPad to see if there was actually a recording on it. So at the trial of the contempt citation, which, by the way, was not to a jury, but to a judge, The defense lawyer asked the judge, hey, would you have the investigator for the DA’s office? I’d like you to order him to bring that iPad into court so that you can see, Your Honor, if there’s a recording on the iPad. The judge said, no, I won’t do that. Then he found Tina guilty of contempt. Then, after several months, they gave Tina the iPad back. They gave it to her lawyer. They had it examined by experts. There was no recording on that iPad. So the whole case was made up. And the Court of Appeals reversed that contempt conviction. It was dismissed. That contempt conviction was used as a sentencing enhancer at Tina’s sentencing hearing. The judge called her a liar because of that contempt conviction. And he used that as a reason to give her nine years in prison. So we have confidence that the Court of Appeals is going to do the right thing because they did the right thing in the contempt case.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, we’re going to continue the discussion. This is really fascinating. And this is, we’re talking with Peter Tickton and John Case, who are two of Tina Peter’s attorneys. And these discussions happen because of our sponsors. And if you need help with your own personal climate to be warm in the winter or cool in the summer, reach out to Ben’s Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling.
SPEAKER 03 :
There was a time in America when a man’s handshake cemented his word. At Ben’s Plumbing, Heating and Cooling, we are old school and believe in doing a job well. If there is ever an issue with the service that we have provided, we will make it right. Ben’s Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling is proud to partner with The Kim Munson Show to bring truth and clarity to the issues we face in Colorado, America, and our world. Call or text Ben’s Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling at 303-995-1636 for all of your plumbing, heating, and cooling needs. That number is 303-995-1636.
SPEAKER 09 :
John Bozen and the attorneys at Bozen Law believe that everyone deserves access to justice regardless of their financial situation. That’s why Bozen Law handles personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis. You don’t pay anything up front. And there are no hourly fees. Bozen Law covers the cost of building your case and they only get paid if they win for you. Every case is different and results vary depending on facts and circumstances. Contact Bozen Law today at 303-999-9999 to see how Bozen Law might help you. That number is 303-999-9999.
SPEAKER 01 :
Do you strive for excellence as you work with your clients and customers? Does it make sense for you to add a unique and focused branding opportunity to your marketing portfolio? Would you like to access a broad customer base that loves our country and wants to make life better for ourselves, our neighbors, our colleagues, our children, and our grandchildren? Then you may be a perfect fit as a sponsor slash partner of The Kim Munson Show. To learn more, reach out to Teresa at 520-631-9243. Teresa would love to talk with you. Again, that number is 520-631-9243.
SPEAKER 08 :
Indeed, it is Friday. Welcome back to The Kim Munson Show, and be sure and check out our website. That’s kimmunson.com. We’re talking with two of Tina Peter’s attorneys, Peter Tickton and John Case. And Peter, one of the narrative coming from… Actually, people on both sides of the aisle and also from Governor Jared Polis is that Tina was convicted by a jury of her peers and that there was a, I think the DA was Republican. And so they’re trying to make this look bipartisan. And again, to everyday people that are just maybe kind of just taking a look at the case,
SPEAKER 11 :
um that makes it look like i think it it tries to make it look like she had a really fair trial what’s your response to that narrative out there well yes the people who watched the trial that didn’t know what they were watching or the people that heard about it are being misled to think this was a fair trial my understanding of the the trial I wasn’t at the trial itself. John Case was one of the trial lawyers. I think every claim that he defended was actually adjudicated in our favor by the jury. But in any event, you don’t have a fair trial if you’re not allowed to present your defense. And she was not allowed to use her defenses. For instance, the supremacy defense is so important. In other words, when we talk about supremacy, it’s a word most people don’t use from day to day, so maybe it’s not being understood. What we’re talking about is there’s two governments in the United States. Wherever you are, you’re under the laws of the state of Colorado, and you’re also under the laws of the federal government. and if the federal government the law is that you need to preserve all of the evidence regarding the trial for 22 months and there’s a state law that says you don’t need to or that you’re not supposed to bring somebody into a room that you’re otherwise allowed to bring somebody into but this is kind of contrived later if if that’s the case The Supremacy Clause means that the laws of the United States are supreme over the laws of the state. So if there’s a conflict and a person doesn’t know which way to go, they need to follow the federal law. And that’s what Tina Peters did. She preserved the evidence. But very importantly, we’re talking about a man that came into the room and didn’t use his right name. Most people don’t know that you’re allowed to use any name you want. You know, there was nobody named Mark Twain. That was Samuel Clemens, and he wrote under the name of Mark Twain. As long as you’re not using a name that’s not yours for a fraudulent purpose, there’s nothing illegal about using a false name. In this case, this man was being, you know, he had busted a cartel, and there were people that were gunning for him. So for the protection of his life, He was using a pseudonym. And there was nothing wrong with that, nothing morally wrong with it, nothing ethically wrong with it, and certainly nothing criminally wrong with it. And yet he got it. Oh, yeah, we gave him a fair trial as to whether or not he was guilty of having this person come in and use a false name. Problem is that the way this Judge Barrett, this Matt Barrett, you know, he was hell-bent. to make sure that there was a conviction. And his rulings were such that that’s the way it occurred. That’s the way it went. That’s why we’re so confident that we’re going to be able to get this thing reversed because, you know, we don’t have kangaroos in nature in the United States, but this was a kangaroo court. This was a disgrace. what occurred for Tina Peters.
SPEAKER 08 :
Peter, you may not know a bunch of the stuff that’s happening in crazy Colorado, but John Case, I know that you do. And while we’re talking about this conviction was basically because somebody used a different name. John, as you know, here in Colorado with this legislature and this governor regarding our children in school, if they say that they want to have a different name because they are identifying with a different gender, then there’s laws that are being put in place that are saying that teachers and parents have to affirm that name that’s not really their name. I know that’s a little off subject, but yet I’m thinking, this is crazy. She’s in prison for nine years for somebody using a different name, but yet over here in Colorado, we’ve got state law that’s saying to parents and teachers, if you don’t use the name,
SPEAKER 10 :
different name which is not the real name of the child then you know you might the child might be taken away a variety of things i just find that a little crazy john case uh that that that is a great point kim i think i’m going to use that when i talk to the court of appeals on january 14th um yeah it’s so true um There was no harm to the equipment. There was no harm to any person. There was no adverse consequence of what Tina Peters did. And yet she got nine years because she defied the Secretary of State and preserved the records that the Secretary and Dominion voting systems wanted destroyed. And if people want the full story of this, Kim, they can go to TinaPeters.us. That’s TinaPeters.us. You can get all of the latest information on Gina’s case, and you can donate to support her.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, and so there’s going to be a lot of things, Peter Tickton, happening within the next two weeks then on all of this, yes? Whoops, did we lose Peter?
SPEAKER 10 :
We might have lost Peter, but yes. Oh, there he is. OK. Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah. Well, we got the oral argument coming up on the 14th. And John Case is the one that’s going to be leading that argument or doing the argument, you know, because only one lawyer can do that. And and because he’s the best man to do it. And so. And so that’s pretty well what we’re going to be doing then. And we will be preparing for that in advance. At the same time, we have the briefs going in regarding the pardon issue. And at the same time as all of that, we still don’t know whether any other action is going to be taken by the president of the United States. But we do know that he’s very much involved in and at least watching what’s going on in this case he’s very concerned about it he sees he knows you know he knows what what what happened here he knows how wrong it was and and how you know this this weaponization by the state government against the person to be able to basically scare people away from doing the right thing in the future i mean think about it 62 counties Jenna Griswold was responsible for wiping out. And when John says wipe, let me just make it a little bit more clear. This program, the Trusted Build, which is what they call, you know, when you are updating a program where you’re not destroying any data like you do in your cell phone. Periodically, they’re upgrading your apps. They’re upgrading different programs. as well as your computer i’m sure nobody’s on the original word program but because it’s always updated and when it’s upgraded they don’t destroy all the data that you’ve got your documents are still good but this was one that was designed to not only wipe it out but then also overwrite on top of the wiped out hard drive the new program so that what was originally in it can never be seen again. And in 62 counties, Jenna Griswold is guilty of causing this trusted bill to be installed to make sure that the evidence of the election fraud was concealed. And this conspiracy by Jenna Griswold continues to this day. And I am expecting that this is going to be dealt with in a way that Jenna Griswold is not going to be happy.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Well, Peter Tickton and John Case, we are out of time. But thank you so much for joining us today because this is so important. And I wish you both a happy new year and great success.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Kim. Happy new year to you. And God bless you, the people of Colorado, and all of us, because we’ve got to get this election stuff straightened out fast.
SPEAKER 08 :
Absolutely. And so thank you for joining us. Our quote for the end of the show is William Shakespeare said, It is not in the stars to hold our destiny, but in ourselves. We’ll talk with you on Monday.
SPEAKER 05 :
The views and opinions expressed on KLZ 560 are those of the speaker, commentators, hosts, their guests, and callers. They are not necessarily the views and opinions of Crawford Broadcasting or KLZ management, employees, associates, or advertisers. KLZ 560 is a Crawford Broadcasting God and country station.
