Colorado Court Affirms Tina Peters’ Convictions But Reverses Sentencing Back to Trial Court, Ignores Trump’s Pardon and Supremacy Clause of Constitution
Another sad day for justice in America.
A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirms Tina Peters’ convictions but reverses her sentencing back to the trial court.
The overall point today is that the courts in Colorado have systematically covered up Tina Peters’ evidence that the election numbers in her county changed after an action was taken on her county’s computers labeled a “trusted build” which was mandated by the state.
The Colorado courts ignored that the records had been changed, covered it up, and went after Tina Peters for sharing what she found. She was sentenced to 9 years in prison and is still in prison today.
In addition, today the court ruled that President Trump (or any President) does not have the power to pardon Tina Peters for her state crimes, and that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution does not apply to Tina Peters.
The ruling looks like it was written by Norm Eisen – Obama’s Ethics Czar.
Sentenced for Felony but Convicted of Misdeamor
During a recent hearing in front of a Colorado court, we learned that, amongst all the wrongdoing by Colorado politicians and courts who targeted Tina Peters, the court sentenced Tina to a felony for a misdemeanor she was convicted of, which led to an additional year in prison.
Tina Peters Appeals Clip:
One of the charges was COMPLETELY misrepresented to the jury as a FELONY when it was actually the verbiage of a MISDEMEANOR!
This could potentially lead to a mistrial of the whole case! pic.twitter.com/ZxpOMJQFUq
— CannCon (@canncon) January 15, 2026
In today’s ruling, this wrongdoing has been returned to the trial court for resolution.
Colorado Ignores Presidential Pardon
In regard to President Trump’s pardon, the court claims that President Trump does not have the power to pardon Tina Peters of state crimes because of its interpretation of the US Constitution, while the court’s ruling reads like Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of what the definition of “is” is…
Had the Founders wanted to extend the presidential pardon power to state offenses, they could have used language identical or similar to “the several States” later in the sentence. But they did not. Instead, they used only “the United States,” which must mean something different than “the several States.”
Let’s hope the President and his team are quickly on this and readying an appeal of this ridiculous ruling today.
Here is one analysis of this matter shared previously: