Donald Trump is claiming that he has pardoned Tina Peters, the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado, who was convicted of 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, and sentenced to 9 years in prison.
She did all this in an attempt to create false evidence of a "stolen" election in 2020.
With all of the pardons that Trump is issuing lately, my reader(s) might wonder why this pardon is noteworthy.
It's pretty simple. All of the above charges are State charges, and the President has no authority to do so. (Well, at least he lacks the authority until the six corrupt Supreme Court Justices make yet another ruling rivaling the awfulness oif Dred Scott v. Sanford.)
Unfortunately, the so-called journalist out there are selling it as a, "Some experts say," as opposed to it being bat-shit insane, because there has been too much in the way of media mergers:
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he has pardoned Tina Peters, a former county clerk in Colorado who was convicted in state court on felony charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
“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,” wrote Trump in a post on Truth Social. “Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”
It was unclear whether Trump was asserting that he has the power to free Peters from state prison. She is serving a nine-year sentence. Presidents have the power to pardon defendants convicted in federal courts, but previous presidents have not claimed that authority in a state case.
Unclear? Seriously?
………
The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” The Supreme Court has interpreted that language as referring to federal crimes, not those charged by states.
In a lengthy letter to Trump this month, however, Ticktin disputed that traditional understanding.
“The issue which needs to be answered whether our founders understood or intended when they wrote that the President had the Power to Pardon offenses against the United States, if it meant the states or only the federal government. Did they mean the one central authority, or did they mean the plural, meaning the states which were united?” he wrote.
Ticktin conceded that the claim that the president could pardon people for state crimes “has never been raised in any court” but said Trump should assert that authority in Peters’s case.
It's never been raised in court because the argument is complete bullshit.
Anyone who is a serious journalist should be calling that bullshit out. This Washington Post reporter clearly is not serioius.
0 comments :
Post a Comment