By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump announced his intention to pardon Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk serving a state sentence for election-related crimes. Peters, convicted of state charges including attempting to influence a public servant, was prosecuted in a Republican county, which has led to significant criticism. Despite the president’s claim that the pardon is related to alleged election fraud, Colorado officials, including Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Attorney General Phil Weiser, assert that the president lacks the constitutional authority to pardon state crimes. While Peters’ attorney argues that the president may have the power to pardon in this case, legal experts widely disagree, citing that the presidential pardon power is limited to federal offenses.
Read the original article here
So, here’s the deal: Trump, in his usual flamboyant style, has “pardoned” Tina Peters, the ex-Colorado election official who’s currently behind bars. But here’s the catch – and it’s a big one – she’s been charged in state court. The implications here are pretty significant, and it’s important to break them down.
The fundamental issue is the scope of presidential pardons. The Constitution grants the President the power to pardon “Offences against the United States,” which has traditionally been understood to mean federal crimes. State crimes, those violations of state laws, fall under the jurisdiction of state courts and, consequently, state governors when it comes to pardons. Tina Peters’ legal troubles stem from Colorado’s state court system, not the federal system. Trump’s “pardon” is, legally speaking, a gesture that carries no weight.
Now, the fact that Trump issued this “pardon” suggests a deeper game at play. Some people believe that Trump is attempting to test the boundaries of presidential power. By potentially challenging the established understanding of the pardon power, he could try to extend it to state crimes. This could open the door for pardons in other cases, including potential state-level charges against himself or his allies. The aim could be to set a precedent for future legal maneuvers.
It’s clear that this move is primarily performative. It’s about rallying his base, showing loyalty to those who have supported him, and perhaps laying the groundwork for future legal battles. The fact that Peters remains incarcerated underscores the limitations of his action. The state of Colorado isn’t bound by Trump’s pardon, and she remains subject to its laws.
The response to Trump’s actions has been fairly predictable. Many see it as an abuse of power, a blatant disregard for the rule of law. Some see this as an attempt to undermine the authority of state governments and to consolidate power at the federal level, something that, ironically, is contradictory to the Republican party platform. Others view it as a cynical attempt to shield his allies and test the waters.
There’s also a significant amount of skepticism about the long-term impact of this. Given the current legal landscape, it’s highly unlikely that Trump’s pardon will have any effect on Peters’ state conviction. The fact is, he can’t magically erase her state sentence. Some people believe Peters will use this as a shield, to try and leverage her situation to get out of jail. If Peters were to be charged with a federal crime, the pardon would then come into play.
The core of the issue is about accountability and the integrity of the electoral process. If a person commits election fraud, they should be held accountable, regardless of who supports them. This incident raises questions about the ethical implications of using the pardon power to reward loyalty and undermine the justice system. The legal questions are clear, and the political implications are equally as complex.
It is worth noting that some observers believe Trump’s motivations are purely political. The fact that the pardon has no legal standing underscores this point. He is generating headlines and angering his opponents to get a reaction. In this view, he is more focused on the optics of the situation than on the actual consequences.
In conclusion, Trump’s “pardon” of Tina Peters is a symbolic gesture. It highlights the complexities of presidential power, the importance of the rule of law, and the ongoing political divisions in the United States. It’s a reminder of the need for an accountable and transparent political system where actions have consequences.