By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters is petitioning the state appeals court to recognize Donald Trump’s pardon of her state convictions as valid, citing a precedent from the Whiskey Rebellion. Peters’ lawyers argue the pardon removes the court’s jurisdiction and requests her release from prison. The Colorado Attorney General’s office, defending the conviction, has been given until January 8 to respond. The court previously denied Peters’ federal court bid for release.
Read the original article here
Tina Peters asks Colorado appeals court to recognize Trump’s pardon, release her from prison, but it seems pretty unlikely this will work. This legal maneuver feels like a desperate attempt, and the core argument appears shaky, resting on a misunderstanding of the limits of presidential pardons. The essence of the situation is that Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, was convicted of state-level crimes for her role in a data breach scheme related to the 2020 election, driven by unfounded claims of fraud. Her legal team is now claiming that a pardon from Donald Trump should override the state’s jurisdiction, essentially demanding her release from prison.
The crux of the problem is that presidential pardons apply only to federal offenses, not state-level convictions. The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the president the power to pardon “Offences against the United States,” not against individual states. This is a fundamental aspect of federalism, a concept that Republicans have championed for decades, and yet, here we are. The Supreme Court has also clarified this point in no uncertain terms. Lawyers are going to have a hard time trying to argue around such an easy fact.
The court filing is a very obvious attempt to have the issue kicked up to the Supreme Court. The legal strategy is transparent and, frankly, insulting to the rule of law. If successful, it would have far-reaching and dangerous implications, potentially emboldening others convicted of state crimes. Any state court is within its rights to ignore a pardon like this. It’s like the legal equivalent of saying “I declare bankruptcy” when you haven’t actually filed.
It’s clear that the presiding judge in Peters’ case wasn’t impressed, stating at sentencing, “You abused your position – and you’re a charlatan who used, and is still using your prior position to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.” The judge also added, “I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen.” The comments from the judge are a very clear indication of the gravity of Peters’ actions and the court’s view of her defiance.
This entire situation is a perfect illustration of the MAGA movement’s penchant for ignoring established legal principles. The irony is especially thick, given the repeated calls for “states’ rights” from the same political party. Now, when it suits them, they want to bypass state authority. Peters’ actions were a clear violation of public trust, and the consequences should be upheld, especially when she has showed no remorse. What Peters did was harmful to the integrity of the voting process.
There’s a strong sentiment that Peters should serve her full sentence. Her behavior, including her role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, warrants the legal repercussions. The fact that she opened the doors to fake electors and seemingly fled the county only reinforces the perception that she acted against the interests of the people. This is not about political gamesmanship. This is about accountability for breaking the law.
The arguments made by Peters’ legal team, including the reference to the Whiskey Rebellion, are a longshot at best. It’s a waste of the court’s time and resources. Presidential pardons do not extend to state convictions. They cannot.
This is a case of fundamental legal principles colliding with political maneuvering. The response from the court should be clear and unequivocal: Tina Peters is in prison for violating state law, and Donald Trump’s pardon is irrelevant. The idea that a president can pardon state-level crimes would undermine the foundation of our legal system, and state rights. It would also set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for future abuses of power. The sentiment is widespread: let her serve her sentence. She earned it.