New motion seeks former Colorado Clerk Tina Peters' release, challenging state after Trump's pardon

Fox News ^ | 12/26/25 | Preston Mizell

[Libloather]

Attorneys representing Tina Peters filed a motion seeking to have the former Colorado county clerk released from jail and for an appellate court to recognize a pardon recently issued by President Donald Trump.

Tina Peters, who was pardoned by President Donald Trump earlier this month, spent her Christmas in a Colorado prison after being convicted in October 2024 as the state resists the pressure from Trump.

The motion, obtained by Fox News Digital, was filed Dec. 23 and outlined why Peters should be released.

"There is no question that the Pardon forgave federal offenses," the motion states. "However, the Pardon also forgave Colorado state court convictions for actions Clerk Peters ‘may have committed or taken part in related to election integrity and security’ during the applicable time period."

Peters was a Republican law clerk who was convicted of official misconduct, conspiracy and influencing a public servant, according to Colorado state law, after she allowed unauthorized access to voting equipment on suspicions that the 2020 election may have been stolen from Trump.

She was sentenced by a Colorado judge to nine years in prison in October 2024.

Trump issued a pardon in early December 2025, stating on Truth Social that Peters is "a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest."

"Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find that wanted Safe and Secure Elections," Trump posted. "Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

All of the discussion of the King's pardon power is relevant to determining the scope of the pardon power for "offenses against the United States". But it is completely irrelevant when it comes to the specific issue of federalism because England did not have a federal system, and we do.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the pardon's expansiveness: In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380 (1866), the Court described it as "unlimited" (except impeachment), extending "to every offence known to the law"

I don't know from where you've pulled all that analysis, but I already quoted the language from Ex parte Garland addressing the specific issue of whether or not the President's pardon power extends to state crimes. And that Court pretty clearly said it does not. General quotations regarding the expansiveness of that power aside the context of the state v. Federal issue are irrelevant.

So if you are now arguing that Ex parte Garland actually did opine that the pardon power extends to state crimes, then we are going in circles, and this is pointless.