President Trump Must Pardon Tina Peters Immediately:

A Constitutional and Moral Imperative

The Crisis in a Colorado Prison Cell

Tina Peters, a 70-year-old Gold Star mother and former Mesa County Clerk, now sits in solitary confinement at La Vista State Prison in Pueblo, Colorado. Her crime? Filing a grievance against an inmate who harassed her. The punishment: a strip search, forced mental-health evaluations, and up to 17 days of isolation. She is denied internet access to contact attorneys or family as her 97-year-old mother approaches another birthday without her daughter. This is not rehabilitation; it is retaliation against a whistleblower who dared expose potential vulnerabilities in voting machines used in a federal election.



The Constitutional Source of Unlimited Pardon Power

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution declares that the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Nothing in the text confines this authority to federal statutes or federal courts. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 74, described the power as broad and necessary to temper “unfortunate guilt” and prevent excessive severity in criminal justice.

Supreme Court Precedent: The Power Is “Unlimited”

• Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866): The pardon power is “unlimited” except for impeachment and “may be exercised at any time after [the offense’s] commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” A pardon makes the offender “as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.”

• Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925): Presidential pardons reach offenses that attack the authority and dignity of the United States, even when prosecuted in non-federal forums.

• Ex parte Wells, 59 U.S. 307 (1856): The Court upheld a presidential commutation of a death sentence imposed by a District of Columbia court at a time when no federal common-law crimes existed, proving the power is not limited to federal statutory offenses.

• Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) and Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915): Courts may not “fetter or embarrass” the pardon prerogative.

Historical Practice: Presidents Have Long Pardoned State-Level Conduct

• Whiskey Rebellion (1795): President Washington pardoned leaders for acts that violated Pennsylvania law; the state never attempted separate prosecution.

• Civil War Amnesties: Presidents Lincoln and Johnson issued sweeping pardons and amnesties covering Confederate treason, murder, and property destruction—crimes prosecutable under state law. No Southern state defied the pardons.

• Susan B. Anthony and Election Officials (1872–1873): President Grant pardoned New York election officials for violating state voting laws in a presidential election. In 2020, President Trump pardoned Anthony herself for the same underlying state offense.

• Nixon, Ford, and Watergate (1974): President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon for “all offenses against the United States” was universally understood to bar any future state prosecution for the same conduct.

Modern Trump-Era Precedent: “Fruit of the Poison Tree” Pardons

On November 15, 2025, Politico reported that President Trump re-issued a pardon to January 6 defendant Dan Wilson, erasing a five-year federal firearms sentence discovered only because of an FBI search tied to January 6. The Justice Department initially resisted but reversed course, declaring the gun conviction “fruit of the poison tree” from an illegitimate investigation. The same logic applies with even greater force to Tina Peters: her state convictions arose solely from her efforts to secure evidence in a federal election.

Why Election Cases Are Uniquely National

Voting machines in Mesa County tabulated ballots for President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House races—offices created and regulated by the federal Constitution (Art. I, § 4; Art. II, § 1). Conduct that implicates the integrity of federal elections is, by definition, an “Offence against the United States.” The Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, cl. 2) ensures that a presidential pardon in such cases overrides state prosecution.

Colorado’s District Attorney Is Simply Wrong

21st Judicial District DA Dan Rubinstein recently declared: “The answer is [the President] does not [have authority]. … Only Governor Polis has the authority to pardon Ms. Peters.” This cramped reading has been rejected by every branch of the federal government for over two centuries. It cannot withstand Ex parte Garland, the Whiskey Rebellion pardons, the Civil War amnesties, or the Susan B. Anthony precedent.

The Path Forward: Pardon Now, Litigate Later

President Trump should issue an immediate, full, and unconditional pardon to Tina Peters for all offenses arising from her preservation of 2020 election records. If Colorado refuses to release her, the ensuing legal battle will reach the Supreme Court quickly and force a definitive ruling on the outer bounds of Article II pardon power. Historical practice and existing precedent strongly favor the President.

A Direct Appeal to Colorado’s Elected Officials

Governor Jared Polis, Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, Representative Lauren Boebert, and every member of the Colorado legislature: set partisanship aside and petition President Trump today to pardon Tina Peters. Affirm that no American should rot in solitary confinement for trying to protect the integrity of federal elections.

Tina Peters is not a criminal; she is a political prisoner. President Trump holds the constitutional authority, and the moral duty, to set her free immediately. The republic’s credibility demands nothing less.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of five, grandfather of three, United States Air Force veteran, international recording artist, and Editor-in-Chief of the Colorado DOGE Report. He is passionate about the United States of America and the founders’