Peters

Dec. 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Thursday said he granted “a full Pardon” to election denier Tina Peters who was convicted for helping outsiders illegally breach voting machine security, though Colorado officials say he has no power to do so for state crimes.

Peters, a 70-year-old former Mesa County, Colo., clerk, is serving a nine-year prison sentence. She was convicted in August 2024 of attempting to influence a public servant and criminal impersonation for aiding an unauthorized person in copying voting-machine hard-drive data during a 2021 software update.

That data, including sensitive election-system information, was later leaked online by election-fraud conspiracy theorists who claimed it proved Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him.

While maintaining the unfounded claim that the 2020 election was stolen, Trump has been a vocal supporter of the effort to secure Peters’ release, describing Peters as a pro-democracy activist.

“Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” Trump said Thursday evening in a post to his Truth Social account.

“Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”

Colorado state officials have been adamant amid Trump’s demands for Peters’ release that he does not have the authority to pardon her, as she was convicted on state charges.

“Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers, prosecuted by a Republican District Attorney and found guilty of violating Colorado state laws, including criminal impersonation,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in a statement Thursday in response to Trump’s announcement.

“No President has jurisdiction over state law nor the power to pardon a person for state convictions,” Polis continued. “This is a matter for the courts to decide, and we will abide by court orders.”

Trump has feuded with Polis, a Democrat, over Peters’ incarceration, calling the governor a “SLEAZEBAG” earlier this month on Truth Social for refusing “to allow an elderly woman, Tina Peters, who was unfairly convicted of what the Democrats do, cheating on Elections, out of jail!”

Trump’s declaration of Peters’ pardon came hours after her lawyer, Peter Ticktin, announced he had formally asked Trump to pardon his client, whom he called “a necessary witness in exposing election misconduct.”

“Tina Peters is rightfully in Colorado state prison,” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said in a statement on X on Thursday.

“Trump’s corrupt and political attempts at a pardon won’t work here. Once again, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has used his powers to issue pardons to many of those connected to the effort to overturn the 2020 election who were convicted on federal charges, including the more than 1,500 people who stormed Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Dec. 9 (UPI) — Former Colorado clerk Tina Peters seeks a pardon from President Donald Trump after her request to be released via a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Peters, 70, was the Mason County (Colo.) clerk and kept a copy of Colorado’s 2020 election results as reported by Dominion Voting Systems, according to her attorney.

Attorney Peter Ticktin wrote the president on Saturday while seeking Peters’ pardon and said other inmates have threatened and attacked her several times, The Hill reported.

“About 6 months ago, Mrs. Peters was threatened with harm … by a group of inmates” who said they would “stab and kill her,” Ticktin wrote.

“This was reported to the FBI and DOJ, which had agents interview her,” he said, adding that she was moved to a different unit.

“In the new unit, she was attacked by other prisoners three times in different locations where guards had to pull inmates off of her,” Ticktin said.

Peters has sought a transfer to a safer unit six times, but was denied each time, Axios Denver reported.

‘They stole our whole country’

Peters is serving a nine-year sentence after being convicted in 2024 of attempting to influence a public official, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with Colorado Secretary of State requirements.

Ticktin called her trial a “travesty” and said she was not allowed to raise her defenses.

“Tina Peters is a critical and necessary witness to the most serious crime perpetrated against the United States in history,” he wrote. “They stole our whole country for four years.”

He accused Dominion officials of carrying out an “illegal operation on our soil, which was supported and controlled by foreign actors.”

Ticktin said Dominion officials told Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold to help delete all data collected by Dominion voting machines and demanded criminal charges be filed against Peters when they learned she had a lawful copy of the state’s 2020 election data.

He told the president that Peters’ copy of that data is “essential” and that she is a “necessary and material witness” who can testify regarding chain of custody and other evidence regarding alleged misconduct during the 2020 election in Colorado.

Release petition denied

The pardon request preceded U.S. District Court of Colorado Chief Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak on Monday denying Peters’ request to be given a bond and released from prison pending the outcome of an active appeal of her conviction that is active in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Varholak said three conditions must exist for a federal court to intervene in a state-level case and grant a writ of habeas corpus in the matter.

One is that there is an ongoing case, which her appeal satisfied, while another is that there be an important state interest, which Varholak agreed exists in the matter.

The third condition is that there be an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state court proceeding, and the judge ruled her bond request satisfies that requirement.

When the three conditions are met, the federal court then must determine if one of three exceptions apply for it to intervene in a state case.

The exceptions are that the prosecution was done in bad faith or to harass the petitioner, is unconstitutional or related to any other extraordinary circumstances that create a “‘threat of irreparable injury, both great and immediate,'” Varholak explained.

He said Peters did not establish grounds for the federal court to determine one or more of the exceptions apply in her case and dismissed without prejudice her writ of habeas corpus petition.