- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/14/25 at 7:15 am to JimEverett
quote:
Have I missed something? I haven't seen Trump's team arguing anything.
This was my primary reason in posting this.
It's a bizzare situation. First, the timing is suspicious. The pardon document itself is signed by Trump with a date of December 5. On December 7, one of the lawyers for Peters sends a letter to Trump requesting a pardon. On December 11, Trump announces through Truth Social that "TODAY, I am pardoning Tina Peters."
At about 2:00 on December 12 the pardon document, WITH the December 5 date is posted on the official DOJ website. The other pardons I examined (I didn't look at all of them) were posted the same day that they were signed. Also on December 12, another attorney for Peters sends a pardon request.
Second, there doesn't appear to be any co-ordination with the White House regarding execution of the pardon.
I would really appreciate hearing anybody else's thoughts on this. Of course, the White House knows that President Trump’s pardon is meaningless re Peters's incarceration for state crimes. My guess is that President Trump just signed the pardon as a kind gesture. Those who dabble in the law must have advised him of how meaningless his pardon is in this situation. They let him sign the pardon, but didn't plan on publishing it...until the President mentioned it on Thursday evening. Then they published it during the media black hole of Friday afternoon.
I predict this is the last we hear from the White House about this pardon, other than responding to questions. MAYBE they will try other means of springing Peters...who knows.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 7:55 am to IvoryBillMatt
Back on May 5, 2025, President Trump posted this on Truth Social:
"I am hereby directing the Department of Justice to take all necessary action to help secure the release of this "hostage" being held in a Colorado prison by the Democrats, for political reasons. FREE TINA PETERS, NOW!"
Why didn't he pardon Peters back in May? Obviously, he knew that he didn't have the power to pardon her. I think this ceremonial pardon was just President Trump trying to be kind.
"I am hereby directing the Department of Justice to take all necessary action to help secure the release of this "hostage" being held in a Colorado prison by the Democrats, for political reasons. FREE TINA PETERS, NOW!"
Why didn't he pardon Peters back in May? Obviously, he knew that he didn't have the power to pardon her. I think this ceremonial pardon was just President Trump trying to be kind.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Specifically what were her state conviction(s)?
For any of her state conviction(s).
I suppose you know why I'm asking, as I do why you answered the way that you did. I don't know that I buy Ticktin's argument. But it is of interest. Why not just put it out there, and address it, rather than ignoring it and ducking questions with cute responses?
Posted on 12/14/25 at 9:02 am to Lou the Jew from LSU
quote:
Dumbass, I didn’t say I thought of this, that it had any merit, that it would work etc. but you buttholes have no reading comprehension. I said I BELIEVE, that this is the admin.’s argument. That’s all.
I wouldn’t post someone else’s belief that the earth is flat because I’m not a dumbass. However…
This post was edited on 12/14/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 12/14/25 at 9:20 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:A year ago, one might have said the same about language associated with Roe v Wade, or even natural birth citizenship. One needn't buy into a particular argument in order to admit that a novel argument may exist.
I wouldn’t post someone else’s belief that the earth is flat because I’m not a dumbass. However…
Posted on 12/14/25 at 9:39 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
My guess is that President Trump just signed the pardon as a kind gesture.
This is what it is.
Her lawyers are going to do what they can, but I think, like you, this is it from the WH.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 9:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Specifically what were her state conviction(s)?
First Trial
quote:
Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters was found guilty Friday of obstruction of government operations, but acquitted on a charge that she obstructed a peace officer.
She is to be sentenced on April 10. The maximum penalty for the conviction, which is the lesser of the two charges, is up to 6 months in jail and a $750 fine.
The two misdemeanor charges stem from an incident that occurred at Main Street Bagels on Feb. 8, 2022, when investigators with the District Attorney’s Office tried to execute a search warrant to seize Peters’ iPad.
When Peters obstructed that attempt, the investigators called the Grand Junction Police Department, who ended up arresting Peters.
Second trial
quote:
Peters was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.
She was found not guilty of identity theft, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and one count of criminal impersonation, rejecting that in those instances Peters had used the identity of the security badge’s owner, a local man named Gerald Wood, without his permission.
No charges with a nexus of elections. All completely state-based charges related to her conduct violating non-election law of Colorado.
The Supreme Court also had the opportunity to stop at least one of these trials and said, "naw, fam" (Gorsuch, specifically)
Posted on 12/14/25 at 9:51 am to JimEverett
quote:
This is what it is.
Her lawyers are going to do what they can, but I think, like you, this is it from the WH.
Thx, Jim.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 9:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A year ago, one might have said the same about language associated with Roe v Wade, or even natural birth citizenship.
Those have rational arguments.
The Tina Peters silliness does not. It requires ignoring the facts, inventing other facts, and creating an association to federal law that simply doesn't exist.
You would really have to shite on the Constitution, specifically its plain text, to expand Presidential powers to include state pardons.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 10:19 am to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 12/14/25 at 10:23 am to cajunangelle
Can’t wait to see the look on their faces when Trump rolls in with tanks and demands the release of Peters.
Remember folks, Trump is here to help us stay safe from enemies both foreign and domestic. If Colorado doesn’t comply, Trump will give them a little extra motivation to do the right thing.
Remember folks, Trump is here to help us stay safe from enemies both foreign and domestic. If Colorado doesn’t comply, Trump will give them a little extra motivation to do the right thing.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 10:27 am to BarnHater
quote:
Can’t wait to see the look on their faces when Trump rolls in with tanks and demands the release of Peters.
quote:
Remember folks, Trump is here to help us stay safe from enemies both foreign and domestic.
First on the list? State's rights
Posted on 12/14/25 at 10:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:We there charges here separate from those involving a Federal Election?
You would really have to shite on the Constitution, specifically its plain text, to expand Presidential powers to include state pardons.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/14/25 at 11:52 am to BarnHater
quote:
Remember folks, Trump is here to help us stay safe from enemies both foreign and domestic. If Colorado doesn’t comply, Trump will give them a little extra motivation to do the right thing.
What's he waiting for? In May, he said he was directing the DOJ to do everything possible to get her released. In August, he demanded her "immediate release" or there would serious consequences.
Why didn't he pardon her in May if he had the power?
What is different NOW?
Posted on 12/14/25 at 11:53 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
What is different NOW?
You don’t go thermo nuclear without trying less dramatic ways first. Art of the deal.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 11:55 am to cajunangelle
No doubt, it was an egregious sentence...unfortunately, that doesn't confer to Trump pardon powers over state convictions.
Posted on 12/14/25 at 11:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
We there charges here separate from those involving a Federal Election?
As my post with her specific convictions stated
quote:
No charges with a nexus of elections. All completely state-based charges related to her conduct violating non-election law of Colorado.
Article 2 references "The United States". That is a term for the federal government and has always meant that.
Just put yourself in the historical context of the time of our Constitution. Why would the President have the authority to pardon state crimes?
Posted on 12/14/25 at 11:58 am to IvoryBillMatt
Best idea so far is to declare her a material witness and whistle blower of the federal investigation of Colorado voting fraud.
The very fact that the dem officials threw so much at her for attempting to investigate Colorado voting fraud, indicates that they were seriously afraid of what she knew.
The very fact that the dem officials threw so much at her for attempting to investigate Colorado voting fraud, indicates that they were seriously afraid of what she knew.
Page 11 of 18
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News