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

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.

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.

Can you cite any case law that supports that conclusion?

Well, there is first the Constitution itself:

"...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,

Without language such as "and the several States", that seems pretty clearly limited to federal crimes because the Constitution is pretty specific when referring to the individual states v. the federal government.

One case confirming this would be Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 at 113 (1924).:

"We have given the history of the clause to show that the words "for offences against the United States" were inserted by a Committee on Style, presumably to make clear that the pardon of the President was to operate upon offenses against the United States as distinguished from offenses against the States.

Well sir, I do have to tip my hat to you. Your argument was well reasoned. Much better than I am accustomed to here. Thank you for taking some time to put forth a compelling argument.

In response, if we dive deeper into Grossman, we find that the court stated “Hence, when the words to grant pardons were used in the Constitution, they conveyed to the mind the authority as exercised by the English crown, or by its representatives in the colonies. At that time both Englishmen and Americans attached the same meaning to the word pardon. In the Convention which framed the Constitution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment.’ “The king of England before our Revolution, in the exercise of his prerogative, had always exercised the power to pardon contempts of court” In Grossman the case was actually about a pardon of a contempt charge which resulted in committing Grossman to the Chicago House of Correction.

Let’s go on.

The Court wrote: “We have given the history of the clause to show that the words ‘for offenses against the United States’ were inserted by a Committee on Style, presumably to make clear that the pardon of the President was to operate upon offenses against the United States as distinguished from offenses against the states. It cannot be supposed that the Committee on Revision by adding these words, or the Convention by accepting them, intended sub silentio to narrow the scope of a pardon from one at common law or to confer any different power in this regard on our executive from that which the members of the Convention had seen exercised before the Revolution.”

“So it is clear to us that the language of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and of other cited parts of the Constitution are not of significance in determining the scope of pardons of ‘offenses against the United States’ in article 2, § 2, cl. 1, of the enumerated powers of the President. We think the arguments drawn from the common law, from the power of the king under the British Constitution, which plainly was the prototype of this clause, from the legislative history of the clause in the Convention, and from the ordinary meaning of its words, are much more relevant and convincing.”

Grossman while discussing pardon powers also touches on the interesting requirement that the President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. I think that plays heavily into Tina Peters case. Also, her case is well steeped in federal election law and questions. It would be a very interesting case for SCOTUS to hear. I would love to hear John Sauer argue for the good guys on that one.

Grossman was granted his Petition for Habitus Corpus and the court clearly recognized an “enhanced” pardon power by the Executive. This case also dabbled with some interesting questions and seemed to find that Presidential pardon power came directly from the power vested in the King and that it could drift into State Court issues. This question needs to be further litigated but there is little question that Grossman leaves the door wide open for the Roberts Court to more clearly explain the pardon power held by the Executive. There is certainly precedent in Grossman to take it to the same level that the King of England enjoyed at common law.

I believe that liberals will cry over the outcome of this case if it is taken up by SCOTUS.

Thank you for your courteous reply.

This case also dabbled with some interesting questions and seemed to find that Presidential pardon power came directly from the power vested in the King and that it could drift into State Court issues

I don't see anything in that opinion supporting the bolded claim at all. Literally the only time state law was referred to at all was in the language I quoted saying that the phrase "offenses against the United States" was intended to limit the President's power only in terms of state/federal law, not in any other way such as excluding contempt.

But while I think that particular Court clearly stands on the side of "the President can only pardon for federal crimes", that language is technically only dicta, and not part of the holding. So, the current Supreme Court could more easily pick a different option if it so chooses.

But I do think that based on the Constitutional language, the Grossman Court was right about what the "offenses against the United States" means, and I think the current Supreme Court would agree.

Please do note that I qualified my statement by saying that the Court seemed to find. It was solely my opinion that the breadth of the Kings power of pardon would appear to support the President pardoning in matters decided by the courts of the several States within the jurisdiction of the United States. I should have been more clear on that matter. I suppose that we will just have to wait and see. I do hope that Tina Peters can benefit from Trump's pardon but only time will tell. It will be an interesting one to watch.

Once again my FRiend, I appreciate your approach to disagreement in the forum and I also appreciate your obvious intellect. I would love to dig deeper into this discussion but the depth of your argument would require me to do some actual work to overcome and I have much too much to do in the real world right now. Perhaps, if this question makes it to the Thomas Court, er, I meant to say the Roberts Court, we may resume our FR amicus joust. I would hope to have more time to address a worthy adversary such as yourself.

I wish for you a very happy New Year!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.