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:
Supremacy Clause and Federal Actions related to Tina’s case
In regard to the Supremacy Clause, Tina Peters has argued that she was doing her job as Mesa County Clerk overseeing state and federal elections when she made an effort to ensure that her county’s records had not changed after the “trusted build” took place.
There is ample evidence that the federal government under Biden was involved in the Tina Peters case, which supports the argument that, because the federal government led the effort, directed it, or was a large part of the effort to indict and imprison Tina Peters, went against the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
The Biden Regime’s involvement in the Tina Peters Case
The FBI issued a statement almost immediately after Peters came forward, stating that they would investigate her for potential violations of federal laws. The Biden regime never formally prosecuted Tina, but it appears that Biden’s Department of Justice was working closely with local Colorado officials who sought to put Peters in jail. (https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/17/tina-peters-replaced/)
The Mesa County District Attorney, Dan Rubinstein, included Matthew Kirsh, the United States Attorney for Colorado, in a May 17, 2022, email to multiple District Attorneys across Colorado. The email is titled “Rule 3.8 Meeting” which appears to reference the rules of professional conduct for prosecutors. (https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/meet-us-attorney, https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/12.1.22/Rule%203.8%20-%20Special%20Responsibilities%20of%20a%20Prosecutor.pdf?ver=h4k_BG_0T1kn7Rdgo8sLiQ%3D%3D )
Email from Dan Rubinstein to DOJ attorney and Colorado District Attorneys, apparently brainstorming how to appear legitimate and ethical while prosecuting Tina Peters
The email suggests that Rubinstein was having some trouble reconciling the prosecution of Tina Peters with prosecutors’ rules of professional conduct and had to call in the cavalry to help him brainstorm ways to avoid being “accused of wrongdoing.”
Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein
First, Rubinstein appears to recognize that there is no precedent for the prosecution he wants to undertake, as he expresses a desire that this group of legal minds start writing opinions and issuing guidance documents in the vein of the Colorado Bar Association (CBA) and the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council (CDAC). Without a coherent legal pathway for prosecution, it appears Rubinstein encouraged this course of action to give prosecutors cover.
Second, Rubinstein notes that it is problematic that they have no formal appointments from a government body to lay the groundwork to prosecute Peters.
Third, Rubinstein informs the group of their need to anticipate defending themselves as to why they didn’t seek an opinion on Peter’s case from the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Commission. Rubinstein and his cronies appear to have succeeded in giving their efforts the veneer of legitimacy because three months after this email was sent, Peters was indicted by a grand jury. (https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/tina-peters-arraigned-on-10-felony-misdemeanor-charges-in-case-alleging-election-equipment-breach/article_7ad92362-14ff-11ed-8571-7fe4f678dc82.html)
Another glaring piece of evidence that the Tina Peters case was led by the federal government is that if this was ‘only a Colorado issue’, why were US Attorney General Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray participating in initial Mesa County discussions via Webex regarding the findings of Clerk Peters and her actions related to those findings?
We also know that the full force of the federal government was directly applied to those associated with Tina’s situation, in that the FBI raided Tina’s home.
In addition, Tina’s associate, Sherronna Bishop, ’s home also raided by the FBI.
Also, ‘My Pillow’ CEO Mike Lindell was also targeted by the FBI, and they confiscated his phone while he was traveling in Minnesota. These were federal actions. He was communicating with Tina Peters and offered her his support.
Peters was convicted of first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and identity theft.
The official statement behind Tina Peters’ indictment included mention of the federal government,
“ The Mesa County District Attorney’s Office and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office assisted the FBI in the operation, which was described by Mesa County spokesperson Stephanie Reecy as “federally-authorized law enforcement actions into potential criminal activity by employees of the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s Office and others associated with those employees.” Read all about it HERE.
It’s easy to see that the federal government was involved in this case and that the federal actions noted above like the raids (that they conveniently ignore now), indicate that this was much more than a Colorado issue. (See Tina Peters story and watch “Selection Code” at https://tinapeters.us/ (links from dropdown menu)).
Here is what the court says, in its own words and analysis (from the opinion’s Section II.B, ¶¶ 53–64):
The Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2) provides absolute immunity from state prosecution, but only to federal officers (and those acting as their agents or under direct federal court orders) for “reasonable and necessary actions in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.” (Citing In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890); Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899); and modern federal cases.)
Peters does not claim to be a federal employee or federal agent. Instead, she argues the immunity extends more broadly to “any individual acting pursuant to a statutory duty imposed by federal law” (e.g., her claimed duty under federal election-record statutes like 52 U.S.C. § 20701 to preserve records for 22 months).
Rather than remove a potentially innocent person or a pardoned person from prison, Colorado keeps Tina Peters in prison while the courts grapple with her case. Unreal… This is not America!
Here is the court’s decision.
2026-0402_Opinionj CO Tina Peters by Joe Ho