Did Obama Vindicate Tina Peters and President Trump Back in 2016?

Did Obama Unintentionally Validate Tina Peters and Donald Trump in 2016?

Guest post by Martel Maxim.

Reflecting on the journey since Tina Peters and President Trump first shone a light on what they allege is a convoluted web of electoral malfeasance, one can’t help but marvel at the narrative that has unfolded. This saga revolves around the idea that elections are not merely contested but are, in fact, manipulated on a national scale.

In the past quarter-century—an era dominated by computerized voting systems—the notion of a “Deep State” has taken root, suggesting a network of compromised individuals entrenched in significant political positions across the country.

Ironically, this rapid advancement in election technology has culminated in a bizarre collection of political figures whose antics, if not so serious, might be mistaken for a satirical comedy sketch. From Adam Schiff to Nancy Pelosi, and from Mitch McConnell to AOC, the landscape is populated with individuals who, one might argue, represent a theater of the absurd. And let’s not forget Chuck Schumer, whose infamous “6 Ways to Sunday” comment inadvertently pulled back the curtain on the operations of the Deep State, highlighting a legacy of political figures—JFK, RFK, MLK—who paid the ultimate price for their awareness.

Fortunately, President Trump has claimed to have disrupted the Deep State’s electoral manipulations in the 2024 election by making it “too big to rig.” Yet, while this mantra may apply to the presidential race, the same cannot be said for the ongoing House and Senate elections, where manipulation continues unabated.

As we approach the 2026 Midterms, the situation is dire; few candidates possess the “too big to rig” stature, necessitating urgent measures to prevent electoral fraud. The urgent need to eliminate voting machines and the software that enables deception is paramount, particularly for federal races. The challenge lies in implementing a viable hand-count system within the next six months—a daunting task, but one we must prioritize.

Interestingly, in a 2016 interview, President Obama appeared to open a door to the idea that the 2020 election might have been compromised. In the closing moments of a video, he stated:

“If Mr. Trump is up 10 or 15 points on election day and ends up losing, then maybe he can raise some questions.”

This statement invites a common-sense interpretation: if there is a significant deviation from historical electoral norms, questions are warranted. However, it raises another question: when exactly should these measurements be made? If Trump had been ahead early in the voting process but lost later in the day, the scenario would indeed warrant scrutiny. Yet, in the 2020 election, Trump was ahead in swing states until the fabled “3 AM ballot drops,” which dramatically altered the landscape.

These sudden spikes in vote totals were met with denials and platitudes from the Deep State, as if to say, “Ignore what you see.” Courts uniformly dismissed challenges to the 2020 results, citing a lack of standing—an approach that has mirrored the persecution faced by Tina Peters for her revelations about electoral integrity.

What is most perplexing is that this pattern of sudden voting spikes occurred simultaneously across multiple swing states. It’s as if lightning struck seven times at once—a remarkable occurrence, indeed.

So, former President Obama, what say you about these events? Do the anomalies in the 2020 election raise reasonable questions based on your earlier remarks? If you were in Trump’s position, losing by slim margins amid those spikes, would you not suspect that something was amiss?

Would you still stand by Chris Krebs, the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), who claimed that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history,” asserting that no voting system was compromised? One might wonder what reality he inhabits.

Returning to your comments, if a reasonable threshold of inquiry is met, would you concede that Trump had grounds for questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election? Would you agree that Tina Peters’s revelations merit serious consideration, especially since officials like Colorado SOS Jena Griswold seem more focused on discrediting the messenger than addressing the message?

As America awakens to these realities, it will undoubtedly demand accountability and clarity on these pressing questions. Your legacy, Mr. Obama, will be shaped by how you respond to these challenges and the expectations of those who once placed their trust in you. Those fleeting 15 seconds in your video could resonate for years to come.

We cannot unsee what we have witnessed, especially as Tina Peters remains incarcerated for her pursuit of truth.