You get pardoned, you are still a felon. Next step is expungement, or getting into the Trump admin I suppose.
Of course, the judge was going to take off more than that at resentencing.
Would it have fooled Trump? Doubt it. But then, I’m of the Trump-is-smart-life-a-fox school.
Trump will create the ‘Department of Election Security’ for Tina. Kristy Noam will somehow be her boss. Criminals generaly stick together. Their office’s will probably be in Argentina. Kristy has all those nice new jets, so it souldn’t be a problem.
Which he’ll probably still do anyway to spite Lauren Boebert.
While I agree with the spirit of your post, the phrase “could withhold billions of” in the sentence above should be replaced with “has withheld at least a billion.”
See the colorado.federalfunds.gov web site:
U.S. states cannot run budget deficits. Jared Polis is responsible for the finances of the state in a way that the large numbers of other Democratic Party politicians condemning his action are not.
Will Colorado get back a billion dollars in return for a sentence commutation that could be pretty similar to what would happen at the coming resentencing? No, but Trump tends to forgive those who grovel a bit. And he is already posting about the commutation on Truth Social. So the likelihood is that Colorado will get a lot of money out of this.
I get that it infuriates many when wrongdoers get away with serious misdeeds. I see it as an inevitable way of the world. And Peters did serve 19 months. If it happened to me, I sure wouldn’t see it as a slap on the wrist.
And a felony conviction the rest of her life.
Note to mention is wasnt just Polis- (from wikipedia)-
On April 2, 2026, a Colorado appeals court in a 3–0 ruling upheld Peters’s conviction and did not release her from prison, but it threw out her prison sentence and asked the trial court to resentence her.
As a proud Coloradoan (and former County enployee), I’m very sad that Polis backed down.
If Trump did illegally withhold Fed funding (or threatoned that), Polis should be in every newspaper, radio/tv station saying so.
Why is everyone so afraid of a stupid (to use his term ‘low IQ’) man with dementia. Sheesss grow a backbone.
Yes, I think Peters conviction was a bit strict. But leave her in there for a few more years.
It is not just a threat, as seen in my previous links.
I hope that Polis does not control the media in your state. But of course he makes statements about it.
This month at ColoradoPolitics.com:
Polis pushes back after Trump administration again denies federal disaster aid
Last year at NewsFromTheStates.com:
More links available on request.
As many links as I can provide, progressives could always say that Polis should have been holding more press conferences and attacking Trump even more vehemently and often. This would make Polis more popular with the Democratic Party base, but would not broaden it. It would not help his state.
withdrawn; was off-topic
Not just Polis- the Court of Appeals also.
All three of the appeals courts judges were appointed by a Democratic governor.
Here is the decision:
See First Amendment Discussion Starting on Page 68
Since the decision was unanimous, I don’t see the other side. Other than dislike for the defendant, is there one?
Like for democracy, maybe?
Not really. Polis went along with the Court of Appeals. Note this wasnt a pardon, by any means.
I think you’re missing the point. People are offering a justification for this guy’s actions, that he had to commute this guy or Trump would withhold funding from the state otherwise. That is what the poster is saying he should be flooding the newspapers with.
I disagree, but that’s because this entire argument is utterly backwards. Saying that he did it to appease Trump is the opposite of telling us that he puts the people Colorado first. It communicates “I will cave to outsiders and do things that I would otherwise consider detrimental to the state.” It says “I put the short term over the long term.”
The default narrative is that he capitulated, and that the people of the state can’t trust him not to do so. He would need to show that this is not the case, that he will stand up for the state when it counts. That this was something he was considering doing anyway.
What I’m seeing is the time honored practice of people coming up with their own excuses for actions rather than relying on the other person to give them. He did something that looks incredibly bad. He could have made a point not to get involved, making sure that the process was followed. He chose an action that makes it look like he’s another one into pre-compliance, and thus will not defend his state.
It’s up to him to dispel this narrative, either by speech or his own actions that contradict it.
Considering this on its own, this would definitely have led me to lean more for a Democratic challenger next time that is relevant.
That is one justification, under “realpolitik” , but there are others, like what the Court of Appeals ruled.
He has explained this at least once.
”I really agree with the Appeals Court that found that her sentence was longer than it should have been because me and many others disagree with what she has to say… Polis: “I did wait for the Court of Appeals. I was looking at this case and felt the same way but I really wanted to see what the court had to say. They said it far more eloquently (than me). Effectively, it’s well-settled that the First Amendment generally prohibits punishing someone for their protected speech, and the trial court’s comments about Peters’ belief about the existence of election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing.
”Her actual resentencing is uncertain when it will occur, if it would ever occur without my action.
Good. Democrats in office who refuse to act as though this struggle is existential for our democracy must be left in the dust.
She did more than just ‘speech’ didn’t she? I thought she played a part in the false elector scheme.
Either way, shame on Polis for caving. Tina Peters is a snotty little shit who thinks she is better than everybody. Fuck him and fuck her.
The point of the commutation: According to the reasoning of Polis and the Demcratic-appointed Appeals Court judges, she should have been sentenced only on the basis of what she did re the voting machines, not on the basis of beliefs that she stated (which are protected speech).