Tina Peters Requests Presidential Pardon as New Evidence Bolsters Her Claims

By A.L. Goodwin | Guest Contributor, Rocky Mountain Voice

On December 6, 2025, former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters formally submitted an application for a Presidential Pardon to President Donald J. Trump. Her legal team describes the request as both a matter of justice and national security, pointing to newly released evidence and expanding federal investigations that directly corroborate Peters’ original claims.

Attorney John Case, who represents Peters, summarized the urgency:

“The President has authority under the U.S. Constitution to pardon Tina Peters. Colorado officials continue to persecute Tina in state prison, where her health has deteriorated. The courts refuse to allow Tina release on bond while the Colorado Court of Appeals considers her appeal. So, Tina has asked President Trump to pardon her.” — John Case, Esq.

A Key Witness in a Growing National Security Investigation

The supplemental pardon letter, authored by attorney Peter Ticktin, emphasizes that Peters is not merely a defendant—she is a material witness in an expanding federal investigation involving Venezuela, Smartmatic, Dominion contractors, and foreign interference operations. 

The December 6, 2025 supplemental pardon letter submitted by attorney Peter Ticktin outlining the legal and national-security basis for clemency.

That investigation accelerated after the release of the public proffer of Venezuelan General Hugo Carvajal Barrios, former Director of Military Intelligence, on December 2, 2025. In his sworn statement, Carvajal confirmed that:

• Smartmatic technology “can be altered—this is a fact”
• The system was exported internationally, including to the United States
• Foreign intelligence operatives embedded themselves inside U.S. election infrastructure
• Election software could be—and has been—used to rig results

Carvajal’s testimony, taken directly from his proffer, places Peters’ preservation of Mesa County’s 2020 election records in a very different light. 

Dominion’s 2021 Letter to the DOJ: The Trigger for Criminal Charges

On August 4, 2021, Dominion Voting Systems contacted the Colorado Secretary of State and the U.S. Department of Justice, reporting that a video recorded in Mesa County had been leaked and suggesting that criminal charges might be appropriate. Internal emails show Dominion believed the clerk or a county employee filmed the material during the May 2021 upgrade.

Dominion’s August 4, 2021 internal email identifying Mesa County as the likely source of the leaked video and coordinating with Colorado officials before the criminal inquiry began.

Dominion’s communications reveal that:

• They quickly identified Mesa County as the likely source of the footage.
• They coordinated with state officials to evaluate “what laws apply.”
• They expressed concerns about exposure of system passwords and processes—but not about the election-system activity revealed in the footage.

Despite the clear relevance of Dominion’s correspondence to Peters’ defense, Judge Barrett refused to admit the Dominion letter into evidence at trial and quashed the defense’s subpoena for Dominion’s attorney.

When Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf posted the August 24, 2021 DOJ email in June, it revealed that federal prosecutors and FBI agents were already coordinating with Dominion representatives about “an issue regarding Colorado,” pointing to early federal oversight of the matter.

August 24, 2021 DOJ email showing federal trial attorneys and FBI agents coordinating directly with Dominion representatives regarding Colorado.

This left jurors unaware that Dominion had contacted state officials and the DOJ just days before the criminal investigation began—effectively concealing from the jury the context of why Peters became a target.

Dominion’s complaint triggered a swift state response, launching the criminal case that would ultimately prevent Peters from presenting her full defense and would silence a key witness in a matter now acknowledged to have national-security implications.

Whistleblowers and Technical Experts Support Peters’ Claims

Whistleblower declarations cited in the pardon packet detail:

• Undisclosed remote-access capabilities
• Post-certification software changes
• VPN configurations allowing external manipulation
• Wiping of adjudication, access-log, and audit-log files during the Trusted Build

Peters’ preserved data is now one of the only complete before-and-after forensic records available to federal investigators.

A Trial Marked by Irregularities and Constitutional Concerns

Ticktin’s letter catalogues serious due-process violations during Peters’ 2024 trial, including:

• Prohibiting Peters from explaining her legal duty to preserve election records
• Blocking evidence that her expert, Conan Hayes, held DHS security credentials
• Jury prejudice revealed after the verdict
• Testimony from the lead investigator admitting he knew imaging the system was not a crime

These errors, combined with Peters’ deteriorating health and multiple threats to her life inside prison, have heightened the urgency of her request for executive clemency.

Why the Presidential Pardon Power Applies

Ticktin’s argument for presidential authority is straightforward: the Constitution’s original language used “United States” in the plural, referring to the states themselves. The President’s power to pardon “offenses against the United States,” he argues, historically included offenses prosecuted by individual states—not just federal crimes. 

In other words, a state should not be able to imprison a necessary witness in a national-security investigation simply by labeling the charges as “state crimes.”

A Case That Has Escalated Beyond Colorado Politics

What began as a local criminal case has now intersected with:

• Federal money-laundering and foreign-corruption indictments
• Whistleblower evidence of systemic election vulnerabilities
• A national-security investigation implicating foreign intelligence services
• A documented effort by Dominion and the Colorado Secretary of State to pursue charges after Peters preserved election data

As attorney John Case put it, Peters has turned to the President because the state continues to deny her bond and medical relief while her appeal is pending.

With the release of Carvajal’s testimony and ongoing federal action, Peters’ preserved Mesa County data may prove pivotal in unraveling what her attorneys describe as one of the most significant election-security failures in American history.