He'd have to commit them in that state or have a connection there of some sort.
But, that's a damn good question, there are four states that could charge him, all four currently have conservative AGs and could do it at any moment if they had the evidence to convince a grand jury to issue charges.
My guess is they don't want to take a chance on blowing the case if it doesn't move forward, they could cost themselves some political points they might need down the road.
The real issue is the violation of Tina Peter's First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendment Rights by the State of Colorado! The rest of this is absolutely right, in that they are violating this at the state level, and they are likely violating the state constitution as well.
doug1956 is right as well about this as well, it IS a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! The DOJ should also be leading the fight. Cut Federal funding to CO until she is released.
But the president cannot override state sovereignty.
Bottom line
Can the president pardon state charges?
❌ No—only federal crimes.
Can the federal government intervene for cruel and unusual punishment?
✅ Yes, but:
Through courts, not pardons
After exhausting state remedies
With very high legal hurdles
/////////
Grok:
The U.S. President cannot pardon a person arrested or convicted on state charges, as the pardon power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is limited to federal offenses. State-level pardons are typically handled by the governor or a state pardon board, depending on the jurisdiction. There are no workarounds for this separation of powers; even if a state case has federal implications or overlaps, the President lacks authority over the state conviction itself.
The federal government can intervene in state convictions or punishments it deems cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment (which applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment), primarily through the judicial system or executive enforcement actions. Key mechanisms include:
Federal habeas corpus petitions: A state prisoner can petition a federal court to review their conviction or sentence for constitutional violations, including cruel and unusual punishment (e.g., excessive sentences or inhumane prison conditions). If granted, this could lead to release, resentencing, or other relief.
Civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Individuals can sue state officials in federal court for Eighth Amendment violations, seeking injunctions, damages, or changes to conditions.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) actions: The DOJ can investigate and sue states under laws like the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) to address systemic issues in prisons, such as overcrowding or inadequate medical care deemed cruel and unusual. For example, federal courts have ordered states like California to reduce prison populations due to such violations.
Intervention isn't automatic and requires evidence of a constitutional breach, often litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal government cannot directly override a state conviction without this legal process.
The corruption of the case and those prosecuting it may be the one thing that makes a federal pardon possible. Fraud vitiates everything, if that's the case, there should be a work around. I don't believe Grok knows every in and out of our legal/Constitutional system.
And I looked it up myself-it's a very limited scope for a presidential pardon when the conviction is state level. Proving cruel and unusual punishment is incredibly difficult and limited as well.
It appears Trump is applying pressure for a potential Supreme Court angle
I believe what Trump is doing is classifying Tina Peters as a witness in a federal investigation into the stolen 2020 election, and demanding that she be released into federal custody so that they can use her as a witness in their investigation and possible legal actions. Colorado is, of course, refusing to do so because virtually their entire state government was cheated into their current positions during that 2020 election and they cannot let proof of that cheating come out or they will end up in prison themselves. Thus the current showdown.
Me:
If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok:
No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
You're ignoring the very basic fact that Trump’s pardon isn't legal. Presidential pardons only apply to federal convictions.
Peters is in prison over state convictions.
The President simply does not have the authority to pardon state crimes.
So Trump can not legally deploy forces because a US State refuses to comply with a court order that is not legal to begin with.
Go check that out with Grok. Make sure you let Grok know that you're talking about someone imprisoned on state crimes, not federal. That's important, you know.
What the President does, and should have the authority to do, is to ensure Tina Peters' rights under the Bill of Rights are upheld! The state of Colorado's governor is violating her 1st, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights, and the courts should expedite this because of the dire straits Tina Peters is in.
Then the correct response is to address the state of Colorado violating those amendments, NOT trying to give someone who has been convicted of a state crime a federal pardon.
This isn't just whacko bizarro world where you can just ignore our laws as a response of a state violating our laws.
It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, reasoning that gasoline is a liquid type substance and some liquids are capable of putting out fires, so you can swap out gasoline with water or any other liquid capable of putting out fires, because to you, all liquids are the same. It doesn't work in the real world.
(Liquids being a euphemism for laws here, if you didn't catch that...)
Not through trying to give a Presidential pardon to a state crime conviction. He could well have other avenues to explore, but the rules are extremely clear. A president can not pardon someone for anything other than an federal crime.
It’s all about optics. Trumps supporters expect him to do everything he can to get her out of jail and to prosecute election fraud. Most people won’t pick up on the nuance of the state/federal charges. By doing this he’s done as much as he can publicly for her, and put Colorado in the spotlight, but I don't think it will accomplish anything legally.
Optics doesn't mean something is legally capable of being done. If the objective is appearing to accomplish things rather than actually accomplishing them, then sure, he can pardon her each and every day. Not going to get her out of prison, but I guess it supplies the optics so many people are concerned with.
That’s what I was getting at. This does nothing other than signal the Trump is aware of the situation and is “trying”. The sad fact is that she’s going to be in prison until either 1) the FBI tries and convicts the election fraud, or 2) there is a change in governor.
This isn't something that you have to take someone's word for.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1- US Constitution
“Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Against the United States- which is federal. State laws =/= federal. Remember that whole states rights vs. Federal rights thing? They're not the same.
Here are the Supreme Court cases supporting that:
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866)
– Defines pardon power as applying to “offenses against the United States”
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871)
– Confirms limits of pardon power within federal jurisdiction
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
– Assumes and applies federal-only scope of presidential pardons
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)
– Reaffirms constitutional source and limits of pardon authority
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
– Discusses clemency power and constitutional constraints (federal context)
Here's where the DOJ supports it
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS
DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA)
U.S. Department of Justice – Clemency Process
Key language used by DOJ:
“The President’s pardon power extends only to federal offenses.”
“The President cannot pardon state criminal offenses.”
Office of the Pardon Attorney – Frequently Asked Questions
– DOJ states presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes
Justice Manual (formerly U.S. Attorneys’ Manual)
– Clemency and pardon authority defined as federal-only
DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions
– Consistently interpret Article II pardon power as limited to federal offenses
So it's not something you have to guess about.
As to something being true just because President Trump said it....I'm not stupid enough to try to prove that wrong here, because it's a sure way to catch a ban. 🤷♀️
But here's something you can do. Don't memory hole this. Don't just forget all about it tomorrow. Keep your eye on what happens.
Defines pardon power as applying to “offenses against the United States”
So her Colorado isn't part of the United States? States have a right to secede from the union? That would make a certain war "illegal murder" then, right?
Dude, that's just nonsensical.
It's like you don't even understand what states rights are or why they're important.
I'll remind you that just a few years ago the Suprene Court put abortion rights into the hands of the states. If you tried to hand wave away the powers of the state in favor of the power of the federal government (exactly like is being done here), then there would be about 99% fewer laws against abortions. Women would be able to get abortions at 24+ weeks for whatever reason they feel like because there's no federal law against that.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if some of you even bother to think about what you're saying before you say it. (Or type it).
I disagree, the attitude is 100% necessary. Because people don't change bad habits when everyone enables those habits.
Yeah, the whole "wait and see what happens" gambit. Where I am 100% convinced you'll forget all about this in less than a week. Which is what typically happens with this type of thing.
So let's make a deal. Every Friday we check in with each other to see if there has been any movement on this Presidental Pardon. It very rarely takes more than 2 months for someone to be released once a Presidential pardon has been given (if the pardon was legal, anyway). I think it typically takes about 2 weeks in most cases though for many it can be within 24 hours.
So how long do you want to give this "wait and see" (aka "wait and forget all about it") before you give up on it? 3 months? 6? A year? Until the end of President Trump's term in office?
I'm infinitely patient and have no problem doing weekly check ins to prove my point here.
So Trump does not have the power to pardon her in the first place.
So here is the problem everyone is getting wrong.
Yes - Trump can pardon anyone for anything - except impeachment. That doesn't mean pardoning someone for state crimes will work. It won't. But he can pardon them every day and it is not illegal. He doesn't even legally have to write it down or sign it as long as there is evidence that he did it, and not some furry staffer. It just isn't valid for a state crime.
Now - if Tina's CO charges are for breaking a CO law, but there is a Federal law that directed her to do XYZ then the state law should be nullified because it can't take precedence over the Federal law. Just like Trump could send the DEA into CO and arrest all dealers and users (with possession) if he so desired. CO Govt would freak, Boasburg would file an injunction, and Trump would take it directly to SCOTUS - who would have no choice but to rule for Trump since pot is illegal at the Federal level.
I'm sure his team of lawyers are looking at every aspect of this case and will be ready. He didn't just pardon Tina for no reason - something is coming.
You're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment on this. You can't wish your way into a President being able to pardon anyone for anything other than a federal crime. No matter how much you try to shoehorn things into place, it's not going to work.
Its a weird situation, because they are legally detaining her… if you ignore the fact that state leaders rigged the election, tried to destroy evidence, and maliciously prosecuted whistleblowers.
Unfortunately, the onus falls on Trump to prove all of that before he can legally take action.
First, I think you're trying to say what Colorado is doing is illegal. Because otherwise, your objection makes no sense.
Second, Presidential powers aren't suddenly going to magically be able to grant powers to pardon state convictions simply because that state has done something illegal.
They'd have to go in and deal with the state legally, not through a Presidential pardon that only works for federal crimes.
Laws aren't just vibes that people can just twist and turn any way they want to get the results they desire. If they were, then we would all be even worse off, because the Democrats would certainly exploit loosey goosey nonsense like that to the best of their capabilities.
But if you're being sarcastic and implying that the President should somehow stoop to the level of states that are committing crimes...that's even worse. Not a very moral stance. Also directly ignores Q's stance that everything needs to be done legally.
First of all, of course I was sarcastically implying that what Colorado did was illegal. They broke so many laws and rules of judicial and prosecutorial conduct in order to railroad Tina that it's insane. Virtually every aspect of what went on for them to obtain that guilty verdict was illegal. What they did to delete all of the 2020 election data was illegal as well, and Tina legally maintained all of the proof of their guilt, that's why they chose her to railroad and use as a public example to scare everyone else who might come forward with proof of their crimes.
Secondly, you seem to be so hyper-focused on the fact that POTUS can't pardon people convicted of state crimes that you are completely ignoring the other things that people are posting here. Did you even bother to watch the interview above? Steve and Peter both talk repeatedly about the fact that it is standard protocol that prisoners from all 50 states are routinely transferred into federal custody every single day. If the state prisoner is going to be indicted for federal crimes as well, or is a witness to federal crimes and is needed by the federal government in order to prosecute those crimes in federal court, it is standard practice for the state to transfer the prisoner into federal custody. I have read in several places over the last few weeks that this is one of the main tactics the DoJ is planning, to use Tina Peters as a witness to the 2020 election fraud when they begin prosecuting those criminals in Colorado and all other 49 states who were involved in stealing the election.
And as far as POTUS being unable to pardon someone convicted under state laws when that person is also critical to federal prosecutions in some way, I am not sure that there is legal precedence on the issue, at least not from SCOTUS. I am not a lawfag, but in my personal opinion, I believe POTUS issued the presidential pardon not necessarily because he expected it to work in freeing Tina directly, but to lay the groundwork for an appeal to SCOTUS in order to test the legal aspects of this issue.
Why are the criminals running the Colorado government refusing to transfer Tina to federal custody under the Trump administration? I think everyone on these boards knows the answer to that question.
Then there are plenty of other valid, legal avenues to have her released. Why are you hyper focused on the one that has literally ZERO chances of having her released?
There's no reason to use a Presidential Pardon as some intro into pursuing other charges. All it does it muddy the water, make POTUS (along with those that support him in this) look ignorant about basic Presidential powers or appearing to just ignore our own laws, and then when nothing ever comes from it (because, legally nothing can come from it) people get angry and disillusioned and lose faith in the entire thing.
Think I'm wrong? Take a hard look around here at how few people are posting now. This isn't just a holiday slump in board interaction. You can go look at how many people were active here by looking through old posts, where it was common to get hundreds of responses on dozens of posts, each day. These days, we're lucky to get 100 responses on one or two posts a week.
And it's not just GAW. It's every Q board I'm on. You can go to any analytics site you want and order reports of how participation has changed over time.
I've constantly told people that you can't keep getting people's hopes up (by easy fixes like a Presidential pardon that has no legal standing), having people crash when reality meets up with their pipedreams, and then getting tired of having their emotions constantly fucked with over things that had ZERO chance of succeeding from DAY ONE without them just abandoning the entire thing.
This is a pattern that I see here CONSTANTLY, try to warn people away from spreading it and reading too much into it, watch when reality rudely intrudes on fantasies and then see the fallout, with the people responsible for baselessly getting everyone's hopes up in the first place just act like they had no idea that what they were telling people was nothing other than Bullshit. Like this isn't an elite research board and people aren't responsible for doing some basic, kindergarten level research before going balls deep into whatever nonsense they're peddling.
You're actively undermining the integrity of this board and Q when you peddle this type of copium based nonsense to people. It's irresponsible and actively killing this board and others like it.
That's why I spend my time fixing everyone reality sandwiches from time to time and try forcefeeding it to them.
Well, wasn't it Q that said it was important to do things legally?
Isn't this a Q board?
Sinking to the depths of the democrats isn't exactly a prestigious position.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
IMHO there should have been Feds (pick your flavor) there, on-site when he issued that pardon. She should have been taken into Federal protective custody as a key witness in the coming Election Fraud case(s)!
She's a witness in the investigation of the 2020 election fraud. She should be under federal protection. Instead she is receiving state level cruel and unusual punishment, which is illegal.
It is a civil rights issue and the DOJ should be leading the way on this. President Trumo should delay or cut all federal funding he is able to until she is released.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
Since you copy/pasted your reply here, I'll do the same.
You're ignoring the very basic fact that Trump’s pardon isn't legal. Presidential pardons only apply to federal convictions.
Peters is in prison over state convictions.
The President simply does not have the authority to pardon state crimes.
So Trump can not legally deploy forces because a US State refuses to comply with a court order that is not legal to begin with.
Go check that out with Grok. Make sure you let Grok know that you're talking about someone imprisoned on state crimes, not federal. That's important, you know.
Why is it democrats can ignore or not uphold federal law & they do not get punished about it. These are the same criminals that were forcing Americans to get vaccinated or lose your job!!! Enough of this double standard!!!
Federal Crimes
Federal authorities, such as the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), investigate and prosecute election crimes when a federal interest is involved. An offense is generally considered a federal crime if any of the following conditions apply:
What if. The imprisonment was meant to cover up a federal election crime?
Free Tina Peters, or break her out. Take a pick but do it now.
Send in the feds to get her out. I would love to see this communist governor attempt to stop them.
Its more than enough time to send in the feds on corrupt Colorado. Holding a political prisoner like this is unconstitutional.
Get the popcorn folks, this should be interesting.
This was about the federal election, why was a state allowed to prosecute a federal crime?
Because while it was a federal election, she actually violated state laws. What she violated were Colorado statutes for elections.
Which is also why he can't pardon her. A president can't pardon state charges.
Why don't a bunch of states charge Hunter Biden with his crimes?
He'd have to commit them in that state or have a connection there of some sort.
But, that's a damn good question, there are four states that could charge him, all four currently have conservative AGs and could do it at any moment if they had the evidence to convince a grand jury to issue charges.
My guess is they don't want to take a chance on blowing the case if it doesn't move forward, they could cost themselves some political points they might need down the road.
not allowed to point out the cheating...
You can point our the cheating as much as you want. You just can't give a Presidential pardon for a state crime.
Thanks!
The real issue is the violation of Tina Peter's First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendment Rights by the State of Colorado! The rest of this is absolutely right, in that they are violating this at the state level, and they are likely violating the state constitution as well.
doug1956 is right as well about this as well, it IS a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! The DOJ should also be leading the fight. Cut Federal funding to CO until she is released.
Chatgpt
Indirectly, yes—but politically, not legally.
A president can:
Publicly call for clemency
Pressure a governor
Encourage DOJ review
Support legislation
File amicus briefs via DOJ
But the president cannot override state sovereignty.
Can the president pardon state charges? ❌ No—only federal crimes.
Can the federal government intervene for cruel and unusual punishment? ✅ Yes, but:
Through courts, not pardons
After exhausting state remedies
With very high legal hurdles
/////////
Grok:
The U.S. President cannot pardon a person arrested or convicted on state charges, as the pardon power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is limited to federal offenses. State-level pardons are typically handled by the governor or a state pardon board, depending on the jurisdiction. There are no workarounds for this separation of powers; even if a state case has federal implications or overlaps, the President lacks authority over the state conviction itself. The federal government can intervene in state convictions or punishments it deems cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment (which applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment), primarily through the judicial system or executive enforcement actions. Key mechanisms include:
Federal habeas corpus petitions: A state prisoner can petition a federal court to review their conviction or sentence for constitutional violations, including cruel and unusual punishment (e.g., excessive sentences or inhumane prison conditions). If granted, this could lead to release, resentencing, or other relief. Civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Individuals can sue state officials in federal court for Eighth Amendment violations, seeking injunctions, damages, or changes to conditions.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) actions: The DOJ can investigate and sue states under laws like the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) to address systemic issues in prisons, such as overcrowding or inadequate medical care deemed cruel and unusual. For example, federal courts have ordered states like California to reduce prison populations due to such violations.
Intervention isn't automatic and requires evidence of a constitutional breach, often litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal government cannot directly override a state conviction without this legal process.
The corruption of the case and those prosecuting it may be the one thing that makes a federal pardon possible. Fraud vitiates everything, if that's the case, there should be a work around. I don't believe Grok knows every in and out of our legal/Constitutional system.
I utilized both chat gpt and grok
And I looked it up myself-it's a very limited scope for a presidential pardon when the conviction is state level. Proving cruel and unusual punishment is incredibly difficult and limited as well.
It appears Trump is applying pressure for a potential Supreme Court angle
I believe what Trump is doing is classifying Tina Peters as a witness in a federal investigation into the stolen 2020 election, and demanding that she be released into federal custody so that they can use her as a witness in their investigation and possible legal actions. Colorado is, of course, refusing to do so because virtually their entire state government was cheated into their current positions during that 2020 election and they cannot let proof of that cheating come out or they will end up in prison themselves. Thus the current showdown.
You got it. Everyone else here is missing that.
Ok I am reading this and it occurs to me that the Feds could charge her with something and go take custody of her.
You failed to ask the pertinent question:
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
U S Marshalls seem to have broad powers, I would love to see a rescue with them working things out. How many Amendments have been broken??
But what's the federal court order?
This is one I don't understand.
Presidents can only pardon federal crimes.
Peters is imprisoned for state convictions.
So Trump does not have the power to pardon her in the first place.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
You're ignoring the very basic fact that Trump’s pardon isn't legal. Presidential pardons only apply to federal convictions.
Peters is in prison over state convictions.
The President simply does not have the authority to pardon state crimes.
So Trump can not legally deploy forces because a US State refuses to comply with a court order that is not legal to begin with.
Go check that out with Grok. Make sure you let Grok know that you're talking about someone imprisoned on state crimes, not federal. That's important, you know.
What the President does, and should have the authority to do, is to ensure Tina Peters' rights under the Bill of Rights are upheld! The state of Colorado's governor is violating her 1st, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights, and the courts should expedite this because of the dire straits Tina Peters is in.
Also federal PREA law is being violated from what i hear about her treatment.
Then the correct response is to address the state of Colorado violating those amendments, NOT trying to give someone who has been convicted of a state crime a federal pardon.
This isn't just whacko bizarro world where you can just ignore our laws as a response of a state violating our laws.
It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, reasoning that gasoline is a liquid type substance and some liquids are capable of putting out fires, so you can swap out gasoline with water or any other liquid capable of putting out fires, because to you, all liquids are the same. It doesn't work in the real world.
(Liquids being a euphemism for laws here, if you didn't catch that...)
Agreed. This is why an expedited appeal should be made to SCOTUS or the applicable circuit court, not disregarding the separation of powers,
Not through trying to give a Presidential pardon to a state crime conviction. He could well have other avenues to explore, but the rules are extremely clear. A president can not pardon someone for anything other than an federal crime.
It’s all about optics. Trumps supporters expect him to do everything he can to get her out of jail and to prosecute election fraud. Most people won’t pick up on the nuance of the state/federal charges. By doing this he’s done as much as he can publicly for her, and put Colorado in the spotlight, but I don't think it will accomplish anything legally.
Optics doesn't mean something is legally capable of being done. If the objective is appearing to accomplish things rather than actually accomplishing them, then sure, he can pardon her each and every day. Not going to get her out of prison, but I guess it supplies the optics so many people are concerned with.
That’s what I was getting at. This does nothing other than signal the Trump is aware of the situation and is “trying”. The sad fact is that she’s going to be in prison until either 1) the FBI tries and convicts the election fraud, or 2) there is a change in governor.
President Trump says he does have the power to pardon her; and others say he doesn't.
Given Trump's track record of winning...
...we'll just call it a tie.
This isn't something that you have to take someone's word for.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1- US Constitution “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Against the United States- which is federal. State laws =/= federal. Remember that whole states rights vs. Federal rights thing? They're not the same.
Here are the Supreme Court cases supporting that:
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866) – Defines pardon power as applying to “offenses against the United States”
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871) – Confirms limits of pardon power within federal jurisdiction
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) – Assumes and applies federal-only scope of presidential pardons
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) – Reaffirms constitutional source and limits of pardon authority
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) – Discusses clemency power and constitutional constraints (federal context)
Here's where the DOJ supports it
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS
DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA)
U.S. Department of Justice – Clemency Process
Key language used by DOJ:
“The President’s pardon power extends only to federal offenses.”
“The President cannot pardon state criminal offenses.”
Office of the Pardon Attorney – Frequently Asked Questions – DOJ states presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes
Justice Manual (formerly U.S. Attorneys’ Manual) – Clemency and pardon authority defined as federal-only
DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions – Consistently interpret Article II pardon power as limited to federal offenses
So it's not something you have to guess about.
As to something being true just because President Trump said it....I'm not stupid enough to try to prove that wrong here, because it's a sure way to catch a ban. 🤷♀️
But here's something you can do. Don't memory hole this. Don't just forget all about it tomorrow. Keep your eye on what happens.
So her Colorado isn't part of the United States? States have a right to secede from the union? That would make a certain war "illegal murder" then, right?
Dude, that's just nonsensical. It's like you don't even understand what states rights are or why they're important.
I'll remind you that just a few years ago the Suprene Court put abortion rights into the hands of the states. If you tried to hand wave away the powers of the state in favor of the power of the federal government (exactly like is being done here), then there would be about 99% fewer laws against abortions. Women would be able to get abortions at 24+ weeks for whatever reason they feel like because there's no federal law against that.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if some of you even bother to think about what you're saying before you say it. (Or type it).
I didn't downvote, but incidentally the attitude is unnecessary; and my money's still on Trump being proven right in the end regardless.
We'll have to see what happens
I disagree, the attitude is 100% necessary. Because people don't change bad habits when everyone enables those habits.
Yeah, the whole "wait and see what happens" gambit. Where I am 100% convinced you'll forget all about this in less than a week. Which is what typically happens with this type of thing.
So let's make a deal. Every Friday we check in with each other to see if there has been any movement on this Presidental Pardon. It very rarely takes more than 2 months for someone to be released once a Presidential pardon has been given (if the pardon was legal, anyway). I think it typically takes about 2 weeks in most cases though for many it can be within 24 hours.
So how long do you want to give this "wait and see" (aka "wait and forget all about it") before you give up on it? 3 months? 6? A year? Until the end of President Trump's term in office?
I'm infinitely patient and have no problem doing weekly check ins to prove my point here.
You game?
LOL sorry, there's still no need for attitude or games
just wait and see if Trump ends up being right again
So here is the problem everyone is getting wrong.
Yes - Trump can pardon anyone for anything - except impeachment. That doesn't mean pardoning someone for state crimes will work. It won't. But he can pardon them every day and it is not illegal. He doesn't even legally have to write it down or sign it as long as there is evidence that he did it, and not some furry staffer. It just isn't valid for a state crime.
Now - if Tina's CO charges are for breaking a CO law, but there is a Federal law that directed her to do XYZ then the state law should be nullified because it can't take precedence over the Federal law. Just like Trump could send the DEA into CO and arrest all dealers and users (with possession) if he so desired. CO Govt would freak, Boasburg would file an injunction, and Trump would take it directly to SCOTUS - who would have no choice but to rule for Trump since pot is illegal at the Federal level.
I'm sure his team of lawyers are looking at every aspect of this case and will be ready. He didn't just pardon Tina for no reason - something is coming.
You're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment on this. You can't wish your way into a President being able to pardon anyone for anything other than a federal crime. No matter how much you try to shoehorn things into place, it's not going to work.
Reading comprehension problems?
Good. Glad we agree
BTW - the down-vote wasn't me.
I bet a small group of Marines could roll up to the front door and have her out in about 10 minutes....DO IT DJT!!!!!
Not legally, they couldn't.
Because what Colorado is doing is legal.
Its a weird situation, because they are legally detaining her… if you ignore the fact that state leaders rigged the election, tried to destroy evidence, and maliciously prosecuted whistleblowers.
Unfortunately, the onus falls on Trump to prove all of that before he can legally take action.
First, I think you're trying to say what Colorado is doing is illegal. Because otherwise, your objection makes no sense.
Second, Presidential powers aren't suddenly going to magically be able to grant powers to pardon state convictions simply because that state has done something illegal.
They'd have to go in and deal with the state legally, not through a Presidential pardon that only works for federal crimes.
Laws aren't just vibes that people can just twist and turn any way they want to get the results they desire. If they were, then we would all be even worse off, because the Democrats would certainly exploit loosey goosey nonsense like that to the best of their capabilities.
But if you're being sarcastic and implying that the President should somehow stoop to the level of states that are committing crimes...that's even worse. Not a very moral stance. Also directly ignores Q's stance that everything needs to be done legally.
First of all, of course I was sarcastically implying that what Colorado did was illegal. They broke so many laws and rules of judicial and prosecutorial conduct in order to railroad Tina that it's insane. Virtually every aspect of what went on for them to obtain that guilty verdict was illegal. What they did to delete all of the 2020 election data was illegal as well, and Tina legally maintained all of the proof of their guilt, that's why they chose her to railroad and use as a public example to scare everyone else who might come forward with proof of their crimes.
Secondly, you seem to be so hyper-focused on the fact that POTUS can't pardon people convicted of state crimes that you are completely ignoring the other things that people are posting here. Did you even bother to watch the interview above? Steve and Peter both talk repeatedly about the fact that it is standard protocol that prisoners from all 50 states are routinely transferred into federal custody every single day. If the state prisoner is going to be indicted for federal crimes as well, or is a witness to federal crimes and is needed by the federal government in order to prosecute those crimes in federal court, it is standard practice for the state to transfer the prisoner into federal custody. I have read in several places over the last few weeks that this is one of the main tactics the DoJ is planning, to use Tina Peters as a witness to the 2020 election fraud when they begin prosecuting those criminals in Colorado and all other 49 states who were involved in stealing the election.
And as far as POTUS being unable to pardon someone convicted under state laws when that person is also critical to federal prosecutions in some way, I am not sure that there is legal precedence on the issue, at least not from SCOTUS. I am not a lawfag, but in my personal opinion, I believe POTUS issued the presidential pardon not necessarily because he expected it to work in freeing Tina directly, but to lay the groundwork for an appeal to SCOTUS in order to test the legal aspects of this issue.
Why are the criminals running the Colorado government refusing to transfer Tina to federal custody under the Trump administration? I think everyone on these boards knows the answer to that question.
Then there are plenty of other valid, legal avenues to have her released. Why are you hyper focused on the one that has literally ZERO chances of having her released?
There's no reason to use a Presidential Pardon as some intro into pursuing other charges. All it does it muddy the water, make POTUS (along with those that support him in this) look ignorant about basic Presidential powers or appearing to just ignore our own laws, and then when nothing ever comes from it (because, legally nothing can come from it) people get angry and disillusioned and lose faith in the entire thing.
Think I'm wrong? Take a hard look around here at how few people are posting now. This isn't just a holiday slump in board interaction. You can go look at how many people were active here by looking through old posts, where it was common to get hundreds of responses on dozens of posts, each day. These days, we're lucky to get 100 responses on one or two posts a week.
And it's not just GAW. It's every Q board I'm on. You can go to any analytics site you want and order reports of how participation has changed over time.
I've constantly told people that you can't keep getting people's hopes up (by easy fixes like a Presidential pardon that has no legal standing), having people crash when reality meets up with their pipedreams, and then getting tired of having their emotions constantly fucked with over things that had ZERO chance of succeeding from DAY ONE without them just abandoning the entire thing.
This is a pattern that I see here CONSTANTLY, try to warn people away from spreading it and reading too much into it, watch when reality rudely intrudes on fantasies and then see the fallout, with the people responsible for baselessly getting everyone's hopes up in the first place just act like they had no idea that what they were telling people was nothing other than Bullshit. Like this isn't an elite research board and people aren't responsible for doing some basic, kindergarten level research before going balls deep into whatever nonsense they're peddling.
You're actively undermining the integrity of this board and Q when you peddle this type of copium based nonsense to people. It's irresponsible and actively killing this board and others like it.
That's why I spend my time fixing everyone reality sandwiches from time to time and try forcefeeding it to them.
Funny we are the only ones who care about legality
Well, wasn't it Q that said it was important to do things legally? Isn't this a Q board? Sinking to the depths of the democrats isn't exactly a prestigious position.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
💥17:17 long💥🇺🇸
IMHO there should have been Feds (pick your flavor) there, on-site when he issued that pardon. She should have been taken into Federal protective custody as a key witness in the coming Election Fraud case(s)!
Stop should-ing on my president.
She's a witness in the investigation of the 2020 election fraud. She should be under federal protection. Instead she is receiving state level cruel and unusual punishment, which is illegal.
It is a civil rights issue and the DOJ should be leading the way on this. President Trumo should delay or cut all federal funding he is able to until she is released.
Why don't the Feds just roll up in there and get her out before something happens to her? I don't understand the jet lag.
Because they don't have the legal right to do so.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
Since you copy/pasted your reply here, I'll do the same.
You're ignoring the very basic fact that Trump’s pardon isn't legal. Presidential pardons only apply to federal convictions.
Peters is in prison over state convictions.
The President simply does not have the authority to pardon state crimes.
So Trump can not legally deploy forces because a US State refuses to comply with a court order that is not legal to begin with.
Go check that out with Grok. Make sure you let Grok know that you're talking about someone imprisoned on state crimes, not federal. That's important, you know.
Why is it democrats can ignore or not uphold federal law & they do not get punished about it. These are the same criminals that were forcing Americans to get vaccinated or lose your job!!! Enough of this double standard!!!
Nice video length ;)
They should classify her a material witness and take her to federal custody.
Federal Crimes Federal authorities, such as the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), investigate and prosecute election crimes when a federal interest is involved. An offense is generally considered a federal crime if any of the following conditions apply:
What if. The imprisonment was meant to cover up a federal election crime?