Sherronna Bishop, a vocal advocate in Colorado’s election integrity circles, has persistently claimed that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray participated in a specific call. However, the reality undermines her assertion: this was a public call, accessible to anyone, where participants could freely set their display names to anything they desired. Someone could easily have labeled themselves “Merrick Garland,” “Chris Wray,” or even a fictional character, with no verification required. This open nature of the call casts significant doubt on Bishop’s claim, suggesting that any supposed presence of these officials could simply be a fabrication by an anonymous participant.
Despite this, Bishop continues to promote her narrative. In a January interview, she doubled down on her assertion that Garland and Wray were involved, yet she provided no tangible evidence to support it—just her word. Her refusal to back off from this claim, even in the face of its questionable foundation, raises eyebrows. Without recordings, logs, or any verifiable proof, her statements remain little more than provocative allegations, fueling skepticism about her motives and reliability.
This persistence seems less about truth and more about staying relevant. Interestingly, Bishop didn’t loudly champion this claim during the high-profile trial of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk convicted of election-related offenses. Peters’ case drew widespread attention, offering Bishop a perfect stage to amplify her story if she truly believed it held weight. Her silence then, contrasted with her vocal stance now, suggests a strategic choice—perhaps waiting for a moment when her influence might wane to reignite public interest. This selective timing undermines her credibility and hints at a ploy to keep her name in the conversation.
Meanwhile, a recent development adds a twist: Colorado’s Attorney General acknowledged the Department of Justice’s significant involvement in state affairs in a response to federal actions. While this admission stirs debate about federal overreach, it doesn’t directly corroborate Bishop’s specific claim about the call. It’s a separate issue, highlighting broader tensions, but Bishop might seize it to bolster her narrative. Still, without evidence tying it to her story, the AG’s statement stands apart.
