By Matt Underwood Colorado Officials Reject Trump’s ‘Pardon’ of a Convicted Election Denier: The president’s stated intention to pardon Tina Peters, jailed for tampering with election machines in 2020, has set off a legal fight over the extent of Mr. Trump’s pardon powers.
It’s pretty clear cut, really. This whole situation involving Tina Peters and Donald Trump’s attempt to “pardon” her is straightforward. Colorado’s response to Trump’s pardon declaration is a firm rejection, and honestly, that’s where it should end. The Constitution is pretty explicit on this: he can’t. He simply doesn’t have the power to overturn a state conviction. Unless he’s planning a dramatic rescue mission, she’s staying put. It’s hard to believe this even needs to be debated.
The core of the issue is this: Tina Peters, a former county clerk in Colorado, was convicted of tampering with voting machines. Trump, in his usual fashion, declared he would pardon her. Colorado’s immediate reaction was to dismiss it as a blatant attempt to protect a political ally and a clear overreach of his authority. They know his move has no legal basis. The federal government has no business interfering in state crimes, plain and simple.
The media coverage, at least some of it, is even hesitant in the way they describe the situation. They frame it as a “legal fight,” but there really isn’t one. Serious legal minds universally agree: the President cannot pardon for state offenses. It’s a fundamental principle of federalism. To suggest otherwise is to create a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door for presidential pardons to overturn any state conviction. This is not some gray area to be debated. It’s either federalism or a complete disregard for it.
The implications are serious. Imagine a president being able to pardon anyone for any crime, regardless of whether it’s a state or federal offense. Murder, assault, whatever the crime, suddenly becomes pardonable. The potential for abuse is enormous. It’s not the job of the federal government to dictate the laws of the states. That’s why we have states, to determine their laws.
The response from Colorado officials makes sense. They are acknowledging that they have their own power to govern their state. They are rejecting this blatant attempt to bypass the law. The President can’t intervene in state matters, regardless of what he claims. If there’s any legal fight here, it’s being manufactured by those who don’t respect the Constitution.
The whole thing is ridiculous. What is the plan? Ignore the noise. It has no legal weight, and Colorado knows it. Trump is probably testing the waters, trying to find a loophole that doesn’t exist. He might be trying to make it so his own convictions go away. It’s pretty clear: he can’t do that. States’ rights, remember? That’s what the Republicans were always screaming about. How quickly things change when it suits them.
This situation also highlights the core issue. What Tina Peters did was more than just some innocent mistake. She leaked security codes and source materials for the voting machines. There are ongoing concerns that this leak was used to compromise the integrity of elections. The implications are serious, especially considering how he used all his power to spread misinformation and manipulate the masses.
Ultimately, this is a reminder that presidential power, despite Trump’s wishes, isn’t unlimited. States have their own authority, and they don’t have to comply with political pardons designed to reward loyalty. This is a simple matter of law and respecting the constitutional boundaries of power. The only question at this point is whether Trump will throw a tantrum. The reality is, what is happening in Colorado is simple. The President is out of bounds. He has no authority here. Colorado has the last word.