What specific files or data were found on Tina Peters' devices or cloud accounts?

1. What prosecutors and reviewers say was found

Federal and state reporting consistently states that Peters “kept a copy” of Colorado’s 2020 election results as reported by Dominion Voting Systems and that images and data from Mesa County’s voting systems were posted online after unauthorized access; prosecutors tied her to giving sensitive election information to an unauthorized individual ^{[2] [3] [1]}. News coverage also reports that investigators seized computer equipment worth an estimated $12,000–$15,000 from the home of a person linked to the case ^[4].

2. What Peters’ legal team and allies claim

Peters and her attorneys describe her possession of the Dominion-reported files as a lawful preservation of election records and say the copy is “essential” and makes her a material witness to alleged wrongdoing; her lawyer asked for clemency and framed the files as evidence that could show tampering ^{[2] [5]}. The Department of Justice review and some allied commentary have reopened debate over how those records should be interpreted ^{[6] [5]}.

3. What the court record and indictments emphasize

Indictments and trial reporting focus less on granular file-names and more on actions: fraudulent background checks, misuse of an access badge to enter a secure room, photographs taken of machines and associated data, and the posting of those images and data online, which exposed machines to potential hackers and forced equipment replacement ^{[3] [1]}. The legal narrative centers on unauthorized disclosure and operational risk rather than listing specific files or cloud directories ^{[3] [1]}.

4. What the media explicitly does not report (limitations)

Available sources do not publish a detailed inventory of the specific files, filenames, metadata, or cloud-account contents seized from Peters’ devices or associated cloud services; reporting references “a copy” of election data and images but not a forensic catalogue of every file ^{[2] [1] [3]}. If you are seeking a precise forensic list—file hashes, export logs, or cloud-folder names—those specifics are not included in the cited coverage ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Why granular file detail matters and who would have it

Forensic teams and prosecutors ordinarily produce detailed inventories during investigation and discovery; those documents would contain the file-level evidence you’re asking about, but that material is typically part of court filings, discovery packets, or forensic reports that have not been appended to the news stories cited here ^{[1] [3]}. Defense teams and federal reviewers might also reference such inventories in motions or appeals, but the publicly cited articles do not reproduce them ^{[2] [6]}.

6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas

Prosecutors and mainstream outlets frame the evidence as a breach that jeopardized election security and required machine replacement ^{[1] [3]}. Peters’ defenders and some conservative outlets portray her possession of data as preservation or whistleblowing and call for clemency or federal review ^{[2] [5]}. Each side benefits rhetorically: prosecutors emphasize public safety and law enforcement; allies emphasize transparency and political persecution ^{[1] [2]}.

7. What to read or request next if you want file-level proof

To move beyond summaries in these news reports, request — or search court dockets for — the discovery exhibits, forensic reports, or the charging documents in the state case and any federal review materials; those sources are where file inventories, screenshots, or logs would appear if released. The stories cited do not include those technical exhibits ^{[1] [6]}.

Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided reporting and therefore cannot confirm or deny the existence of any file lists, cloud backups, or forensic images beyond what those articles describe; the sources cited do not publish a file-level inventory ^{[2] [1] [3]}.