>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“For years, Democrats ignored Violent and Vicious Crime of all shapes, sizes, colors, and types. Violent Criminals who should have been locked up were allowed to attack again. Democrats were also far too happy to let in the worst from the worst countries so they could rip off American Taxpayers,” Trump wrote.
“Democrats only think there is one crime – Not voting for them! Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find that wanted Safe and Secure Elections. Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest. Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the “crime” of demanding Honest Elections,” he added.
Rather than acknowledge the extraordinary nature of the pardon or Peters’ personal circumstances, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser immediately lashed out, appearing on local media to denounce Trump in language more fitting of a campaign rally than a legal analysis. Weiser, a Democrat who is also reportedly eyeing a run for governor, dismissed the pardon outright.
“No. This is a lawless act. It’s an act of intimidation. It has no basis in American law,” Weiser declared.
During a tense exchange with local journalist Kyle Clark, Weiser insisted that Trump has no authority to intervene because Peters was convicted on state charges. He repeatedly accused Trump of undermining the rule of law, even boasting about his long history of suing the former president.
“This president doesn’t respect the rule of law, but he doesn’t have the authority to undermine how we operate our judicial system here in Colorado,” Weiser claimed.
When pressed on whether Trump’s move represented a novel legal argument or something more aggressive, Weiser escalated his rhetoric, framing the pardon as an act of political bullying rather than a constitutional power.
“This president apparently thinks he can pressure and bully people to his will. That’s not going to work in Colorado,” Weiser said. “We’re not going to give in.”
Weiser went further, attacking Peters’ legal team directly and labeling their argument for federal intervention as beyond the bounds of legitimate debate.
“This is an off-the-wall theory. It’s total garbage. Any lawyer who argues in favor of this should be embarrassed and ashamed,” he said.
He also claimed Trump’s action was historically unprecedented and unsupported by the Constitution, despite the pardon power being one of the broadest authorities granted to the presidency since the nation’s founding.
“This is unprecedented. There’s no basis in the text of the Constitution or in its history,” Weiser insisted.
Clark then asked a practical question many Americans are wondering about. What would happen if Peters’ representatives or federal officials attempted to secure her release directly from state custody?
WATCH:
“No,” Weiser responded flatly. “There’s no legal authority for any federal government action to take a prisoner who is in state custody after being lawfully tried, convicted, and sentenced.”
The clash comes months after Trump publicly condemned Weiser for what he described as selective justice in Colorado. In May, Trump accused the attorney general of ignoring violent crimes committed by illegal aliens while aggressively pursuing a peaceful grandmother.
“Radical Left Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser ignores Illegals committing Violent Crimes like Rape and Murder in his State and, instead, jailed Tina Peters, a 69-year-old Gold Star mother who worked to expose and document Democrat Election Fraud,” Trump wrote.
“Tina is an innocent Political Prisoner being horribly and unjustly punished in the form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. This is a Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020,” he added.
As the legal battle continues, Peters remains behind bars while Colorado Democrats vow to resist Trump at every turn. To supporters, the case is no longer just about one woman but about whether questioning elections has become a crime in modern America.
