Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence for crimes related to the 2020 election. She was found guilty of multiple counts including attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy, and official misconduct for her role in allowing unauthorized access to voting machine data. Despite efforts from Donald Trump, including public pressure campaigns and threats of intervention, Peters remains incarcerated. The Justice Department has initiated a review of Peters’ case, and could potentially seek her transfer or early release.
Read More
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 More
Trump has no power to undo Biden’s autopen pardons. It’s a fundamental principle of our legal system, and frankly, it seems almost too obvious to state. Once a pardon is granted, that’s it; it’s done. No president, no Congress, no court can simply revoke it. It’s a settled legal fact.
Even if we were to entertain the possibility of Trump attempting such a thing, it wouldn’t hold water. He might *want* to undo Biden’s pardons, but the authority to do so simply isn’t there. The idea that a president could arbitrarily undo another president’s pardons, especially after the fact, would create utter chaos and instability.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which concerns President Trump’s request to fire independent agency officials at will, potentially dismantling the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor. This case, driven by the “unitary executive theory,” aims to consolidate presidential power by removing protections for officials in agencies like the FTC and the Federal Reserve, impacting areas such as economic regulation and consumer safety. The outcome is expected to favor Trump, allowing the president more control and challenging the historical understanding of independent agencies. However, the court may make an exception for the Federal Reserve. This move is part of a larger conservative legal movement’s efforts to limit the power of agencies and reshape the balance of power.
Read More
The article raises concerns regarding the potential for widespread lawlessness within the Trump administration, particularly in light of allegations against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth involving potentially illegal “kill orders.” Should these allegations prove true, they would be a clear violation of federal law, but the author suggests Hegseth may be protected by a presidential pardon, due to Trump’s history of pardoning allies. The author emphasizes that without consequences, there is little incentive for those within the administration to adhere to legal and ethical standards, especially given the historical context of prior presidential pardons and a hyper-partisan climate. The author concludes that the pardon power itself should be amended or eliminated.
Read More
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing cases concerning the power of the President to remove officials from independent agencies. These cases involve disputes over firings from the Library of Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Reserve. One case revolves around a former Library of Congress official who claimed she was part of the legislative branch, making her firing unlawful. The court has allowed some removals to proceed while others remain in question as the court continues to deliberate.
Read More
Responding to a reporter’s question about pardoning a drug trafficker, the subject feigned ignorance and struggled to offer a clear justification. The subject then stated that the request came from Honduras, suggesting it was a political maneuver orchestrated by individuals associated with the current administration. The subject’s response continued with a rambling explanation, implying that the subject had been influenced by external pressures.
Read More
Trump re-pardons a Jan. 6 defendant to erase unrelated gun conviction, and it’s certainly a development that raises a lot of eyebrows. It’s hard not to notice the layers of complexity and potential implications that come with this action. We’re talking about a situation where a pardon was essentially doubled down on. The original pardon related to the defendant’s involvement in the January 6th Capitol riot. This is what you would expect. However, this re-pardon is aimed at wiping away a completely separate conviction – a firearms charge that stemmed from a different set of circumstances. It’s a bit like giving someone a “get out of jail free” card twice, even when the initial card should have been sufficient.… Continue reading
**Judge permanently blocks deployment of National Guard to Portland, saying Trump exceeded his authority**
The news that a judge permanently blocked the deployment of the National Guard to Portland is a welcome development, a clear indication that a branch of government is actively scrutinizing and attempting to curtail the overreach of presidential power. This ruling, specifically citing that Trump exceeded his authority, is important and serves as a critical check and balance. The judge’s decision, based on the fact that Trump’s deployment was “untethered from the facts” and reality, should ideally be straightforward, and the fact that it is even a victory to be celebrated points to the erosion of basic legal principles in these times.… Continue reading
In a recent ruling, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against President Trump, preventing the deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon. The judge determined the president exceeded his authority in federalizing the Guard, as the criteria for doing so, namely a danger of rebellion and obstruction of federal law enforcement, were not met. The ruling found Trump’s actions violated federal law and the 10th Amendment. The court’s decision, however, does not preclude future deployments if conditions warrant it, and the government is expected to appeal the decision.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood