What election-related files were recovered from Tina Peters' home computer and external drives?

2. What was actually recovered: court and reporting records say examiners found digital “images” (forensic copies) of the election system’s hard drive and photographs showing the contents of that drive and the trusted-build process; prosecutors said copies captured the machine’s system files and proprietary Dominion Voting Systems software and that partially redacted security passwords from the update later appeared online ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Multiple news accounts describe both a pre‑update copy and a post‑update copy of the main computer hard drive — i.e., images taken before and after the software upgrade — and photos from inside the secure update event ^{[1] [5] [6]}.

3. Chain of custody and who touched the files: reporting and trial testimony tie the files to a May 2021 secure update observed by outsiders after Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters allowed an unauthorized person into the secure area; prosecutors say that person (identified in reporting as Conan Hayes, an associate of Mike Lindell) used a colleague’s badge to attend, made images of the hard drive, and that those images and passwords subsequently surfaced online and were shown at events and conferences ^{[5] [6] [3]}. Trial testimony also said county staff later found photos from the trusted build on Peters’ phone, which helped link the materials to Peters’ office ^[2].

4. How the recovered files were used in public narratives: copies or screenshots of the extracted files — including parts of the trusted-build photos and at least some redacted passwords — were later presented publicly by conspiracy figures and at seminars promoting claims that the 2020 results were invalid; Ron Watkins publicly livestreamed computer files he said had come from Mesa County, and Mike Lindell’s circles amplified the materials, which fed both public exposure of the files and the criminal investigation ^{[7] [8] [5]}.

5. Legal and technical stakes tied to the recovered material: prosecutors argued the images contained proprietary Dominion software and sensitive security information, and that removing and publishing such material breached election‑security protocols and led to decertification and replacement of the county’s equipment; those facts were central to criminal charges and to Peters’ conviction for orchestrating the breach ^{[3] [1] [9]}. Appeals judges later questioned aspects of sentencing, but the underlying finding that the breach involved copied hard drives and exposed passwords is reflected across reporting ^{[4] [10]}.

6. Competing claims, remaining gaps, and what reporting does not prove: supporters and some sympathetic outlets have asserted the copied files prove vote manipulation or that Peters preserved exculpatory backups, but those assertions are disputed and not substantiated by mainstream reporting; fringe sources make sweeping claims about “proof” of stolen elections that are not established in the cited coverage ^{[11] [12] [8]}. The public record in the supplied reporting documents what files were copied and that sensitive system files and partial passwords were exposed ^{[1] [3] [2]}, but those sources do not support technical claims that the recovered images demonstrate actual vote-tally alteration — reporting instead ties the materials to protocol breaches, exposure of proprietary software and credentials, and subsequent criminal prosecution ^{[3] [9]}.

7. Bottom line: investigators recovered forensic images of Mesa County election hard drives (both pre‑ and post‑update copies), photographs from the trusted‑build/update process, and files containing system data and at least partially redacted passwords; prosecutors say those materials included proprietary Dominion software and were circulated publicly, which formed the factual core of the state’s case against Tina Peters ^{[1] [5] [3] [6]}.