Trump’s ILLEGAL Pardon Attempt Sparks Constitutional Crisis

The word pardon highlighted in a dictionary.

When a sitting president attempts to pardon someone for crimes completely outside his constitutional authority, it reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding of presidential power or a calculated assault on the federal system itself.

Story Overview

Trump issued a “full pardon” to former Colorado clerk Tina Peters for her state election interference convictions
Legal experts unanimously agree the pardon has zero legal effect since presidential clemency only covers federal crimes
Colorado officials immediately rejected Trump’s authority, setting up a constitutional showdown over federalism
The move appears to be pure political theater designed to reinforce Trump’s 2020 election fraud narrative

A Pardon Without Power

Trump announced that he was granting a “full pardon” to Tina Peters, the former Mesa County, Colorado clerk convicted in state court for breaching election systems. Trump framed Peters as a whistleblower who tried to “expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election.” The problem? Presidential pardons only apply to federal offenses, not state crimes.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants presidents power to pardon “offences against the United States.” The Constitution Annotated explicitly states that state criminal offenses fall outside this authority. Peters remains in Colorado state prison, where Trump’s symbolic gesture carries no weight whatsoever.

Colorado Fights Back

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called Trump’s attempt an “outrageous departure” from constitutional requirements. Secretary of State Jena Griswold was even more direct, stating Trump has “no constitutional authority” to pardon Peters and framing the move as an attack on democracy and states’ rights.

The swift pushback from Colorado officials demonstrates how seriously states take their sovereignty over criminal justice. Peters’ case involves state election law violations and computer system breaches prosecuted entirely under Colorado statutes. Only Colorado’s governor holds the power to grant clemency for these offenses.

The Broader Pattern of Pardon Abuse

This incident fits Trump’s established pattern of weaponizing presidential clemency for political messaging rather than justice. The Marshall Project documented how Trump’s pardons consistently violate Justice Department standards, showing little regard for remorse, rehabilitation, or traditional clemency criteria.

Trump’s legitimate federal pardons included January 6 defendants and various political allies convicted of federal crimes. Those actions, while controversial, fell within presidential authority. The Peters pardon crosses a constitutional line that even Trump’s most aggressive previous clemency decisions respected.

Constitutional Crisis or Political Theater

Legal scholars worry that symbolic presidential actions can erode respect for constitutional constraints even when formally powerless. Trump’s move could prompt legislative efforts to clarify pardon limitations or judicial intervention if similar boundary-crossing continues.

The incident also highlights the dangerous intersection of election integrity debates with constitutional law. By positioning himself as Peters’ protector, Trump reinforces narratives that legitimate election officials are persecuted whistleblowers. This undermines public confidence in both electoral systems and the rule of law itself.