Key Takeaways
- Former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters is asking the state appeals court to recognize President Donald Trump’s pardon of her state convictions as valid.
- Peters’ lawyers argue that President George Washington issued pardons to people convicted of both state and federal crimes in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795, setting a precedent for Trump’s pardon.
- The Colorado appeals court has ruled that lawyers from the state attorney general’s office can respond to Peters’ arguments by January 8.
- If the appeals court rules the pardon isn’t valid, Peters could appeal that issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Peters is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence for orchestrating a data breach scheme driven by false claims about voting machine fraud in the 2020 presidential race.
Introduction to the Case
The case of former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters has taken a dramatic turn, with her lawyers asking the state appeals court to recognize President Donald Trump’s pardon of her state convictions as valid. In a motion filed on Tuesday, Peters’ lawyers argued that the Colorado appeals court no longer has jurisdiction over her case due to the December 5 pardon issued by Trump. They also requested that the court release her from prison as a result of the pardon. This development has significant implications for the ongoing appeal of Peters’ conviction, which is set to be heard by the court on January 14.
The Pardon Power Debate
At the heart of this case is the question of whether President Trump’s pardon power extends to state crimes. Peters’ lawyers point to the example of President George Washington, who issued pardons to individuals convicted of both state and federal crimes during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795. They argue that this sets a precedent for Trump’s pardon, which they claim should be recognized by the state appeals court. However, this argument is not without controversy, and the Colorado Attorney General’s office has already expressed skepticism about the validity of the pardon. In a statement, Attorney General Phil Weiser dismissed the idea that a president could pardon someone tried and convicted in state court, calling it an "outrageous departure from what our constitution requires."
The Appeals Court’s Response
The appeals court has responded to Peters’ motion by granting the state attorney general’s office until January 8 to respond to her arguments. This means that the court will consider the state’s position on the validity of the pardon before making a ruling. If the court ultimately decides that the pardon is not valid, Peters’ lawyers have indicated that they will appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. This could potentially delay the consideration of Peters’ appeal of her conviction, which is currently set to be heard on January 14.
Peters’ Conviction and Sentencing
Peters was convicted of orchestrating a data breach scheme driven by false claims about voting machine fraud in the 2020 presidential race. She was sentenced to nine years in prison by Judge Matthew Barrett, who called her a "charlatan" and said she posed a danger to the community for spreading lies about voting and undermining the democratic process. Peters has been unapologetic about her actions, claiming that she was trying to uncover what she believed was fraud. Her lawyers have also argued that the state judge who sentenced her violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her for making allegations about election fraud.
The Broader Implications
The case of Tina Peters has significant implications for the ongoing debate about election integrity and the role of state and federal authorities in regulating elections. Peters’ claims about voting machine fraud have been widely debunked, but they have also been promoted by prominent figures such as MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell. The fact that Peters was able to orchestrate a data breach scheme using a security card and deceptive tactics has raised concerns about the vulnerability of election systems to interference. As the appeals court considers Peters’ appeal, it will also be weighing the broader implications of her actions and the validity of her claims about election fraud.
Conclusion
The case of Tina Peters is a complex and contentious one, with significant implications for the ongoing debate about election integrity and the role of state and federal authorities in regulating elections. As the appeals court considers Peters’ motion to recognize President Trump’s pardon, it will be weighing the validity of her arguments and the broader implications of her actions. Regardless of the outcome, this case is likely to have significant repercussions for the ongoing debate about election integrity and the role of state and federal authorities in regulating elections.
