by Matthew Holloway | Nov 12, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
President Donald J. Trump issued a sweeping proclamation granting unconditional pardons to dozens of figures tied to 2020 alternate-elector efforts on Friday. Trump described the move as ending a “grave national injustice” while shielding allies from potential federal prosecution.
The pardon, signed by Trump acting under Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, explicitly states that it “ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation.”
The proclamation covers any advice, organization, execution, participation in or advocacy for proposed slates of electors – whether recognized by state officials or not – submitted in battleground states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, where alternate elector certificates were filed in an effort to challenge results certified for then-candidate Joe Biden. It applies to federal offenses only and does not extend to state-level charges, nor does it pardon Trump himself, with the document noting: “This pardon does not apply to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.”
Ed Martin, a Justice Department attorney serving as U.S. Pardon Attorney, announced the pardons late Sunday on X, posting images of the four-page proclamation and stating, “Breaking: President Trump pardoned the 2020 Alternative Electors. Thank you: @POTUS for allowing me, as U.S. Pardon Attorney, to work with @WhiteHouse, along with @AGPamBondi, @DAGToddBlanche & SG John Sauer, to achieve your intent—let their healing begin. #Federalist74.” Martin shared the document in a reply to his earlier post with the comment, “No MAGA left behind.”
The pardon names 77 individuals explicitly, though it states the list is not exhaustive and encompasses broader conduct tied to the alternate elector efforts. Prominent figures included are former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; attorneys Sidney Powell, John Eastman, and Kenneth Chesebro; former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows; Trump campaign aides Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb; and Georgia Republican Party officials David Shafer, Cathy Latham, and Shawn Still.
Among the Arizona Republicans named are former state GOP Chair Dr. Kelli Ward, Dr. Michael Ward, former U.S. Senate candidate James (Jim) Lamon, former state Sen. Anthony Kern, state Sen. Jake Hoffman, and Turning Point USA COO Tyler Bowyer.
These pardons do not affect ongoing state prosecutions, however, such as those currently pending review by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
Dr. Kelli Ward responded to the pardon in a statement posted to X writing:
“President @realDonaldTrump has issued a Federal pardon which will protect us from future Federal Democrat lawfare. @jimmythemole001 [Dr. Michael Ward] and I are grateful for this and we maintain our innocence as well as our right to challenge elections in America. Thanks to @EagleEdMartin, @CletaMitchell, and others for not forgetting all of us and the 2020 election debacle that has caused so much harm to our great country.
It’s been a long road and we aren’t quite at the end yet. We still face state charges though a state judge has already ruled the state violated our rights and the Appeals Court refused to take up the case. The Democrat AG has until 11/21/25 to decide whether she will appeal to the state Supreme Court to continue her partisan targeting of her political adversaries or if she will drop the case. Keep us in your prayers.”
Other named recipients include: Jenna Ellis, Jeffrey Clark, Scott Hall, Harrison Floyd, Ray Smith, Misty Hampton, Trevian Kutti, Michael Roman, Stephen Cliffgard Lee, Robert Cheeley, Mark Amick, Kathy Berden, Joseph Brannan, Carol Brunner, Mary Buestrin, Daryl Carlson, James “Ken” Carroll, and Brad Carver.
The alternate elector documents were created in December 2020 and asserted that President Trump had won those states while the results were being contested, following the precedent of the 1960 Presidential Election in Hawaii. They were submitted to Congress and the National Archives ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, electoral vote certification. None of the 77 individuals faced federal charges, rendering the pardons largely preemptive against potential future prosecutions, according to reports. Separately, Trump pardoned more than 1,000 individuals convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, which stemmed from efforts to disrupt the election certification.
Acting-CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, Kari Lake, praised the action early Monday on X, writing, “God bless you, President @realDonaldTrump, for pardoning these folks. Most of them are incredible Patriots. They didn’t deserve what came their way.”
Replies to both posts reflected divided sentiment, with supporters calling the recipients “honorable” and victims of “political persecution.” At the same time, critics labeled them “anti-American” and the pardons a “perversion of justice.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Warren Petersen | Oct 13, 2025 | Opinion
By Sen. Warren Petersen |
Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility recommended the most drastic punishment—disbarment—for former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark over his private strategic counsel in the aftermath of the 2020 election. This complaint was pushed by liberal activists, showing the lengths they will go to punish individuals by going after their livelihoods despite the clear lack of criminal, unlawful, or unethical behavior.
Even past Attorneys General – William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey – filed an amicus brief to push back against this “dangerous precedent,” writing, “Disciplining Mr. Clark would open the door to charging federal lawyers with ‘dishonesty’ or ‘attempted dishonesty’ for statements made during oral arguments, theories in briefs, legal advice provided in memoranda, or even (as here) proposals in privileged internal draft documents and discussions. Such acts of political retribution would severely discourage lawyers from serving in the federal government and invite extraordinary dysfunction as federal lawyers constrain the advice they provide for fear of political retaliation by the Bar.”
Over the past decade, radical politicians and interest groups have weaponized the key to attorneys’ livelihoods over partisan disputes, as in Clark’s matter before the DC Appeals Board. These parties seek to bring their vengeance on conservative attorneys’ bar licenses, which allow them to do their jobs and provide for themselves and their families. The obvious intent of these attacks—which echo other attacks from the left such as debanking conservatives, voting against company directors, and threatening doctors’ licenses—is to terrorize and chill any conservative voices.
Attorneys are one of the most important groups to protect from these attacks because their entire job is to open the courthouse doors for their clients; if they are chilled by the left from representing certain groups, those groups will lose their constitutional rights to access the courts and have their causes zealously argued or even to receive legal advice in the first place. Simply put, if our nation is to exist in a society where attorneys feel free to perform the services their clients expect and deserve, we must enhance the protections for their licenses – especially from outside agitators who have no business engaging in this interference.
Perhaps no greater example can be found of this abuse of our judicial system than after the 2020 election in Arizona, when two respected attorneys found themselves facing legal complaints for their work to represent the Arizona Republican Party, as political officials across the country worked to hash out challenges to the hotly contested General Election. The most insidious part of the claims against these men wasn’t simply about the filings, but that a New Jersey Congressman, U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell, led the official accusations.
Most people, regardless of their understanding of our legal system, can apply good-old-fashioned common sense to conclude that lawsuits must be waged between two sides with a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct. Yet, Pascrell had no connection to the case. He filed a complaint against the Arizona-based attorneys, which was ultimately dismissed. However, the damage was done to these attorneys’ reputations because of their fight to beat the frivolous charges from an unconnected, unhinged, partisan Democrat thousands of miles away.
Whether you agree or disagree with the efforts to extend litigation in the courts in the aftermath of the 2020 election, it is uncontestable that the left and their allies grossly abused their powers to assault, undermine, and intimidate attorneys who were attempting to do their jobs within a legal system enshrined by the American Constitution and laws. These tactics were experienced across the country, as President Trump and Republican-affiliated attorneys – like Jeff Clark – found themselves not only defending their clients but their livelihoods against increasingly personal and vicious attacks – from parties that, again, had no direct interest or tie to the case.
This reality was also seen more recently in the State of Montana, where dozens of charges were leveled against the Attorney General, the honorable and respected Austin Knudsen. The allegations were, in part, brought against Montana’s Attorney General for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize justices on the state’s Supreme Court as he worked to execute his constitutionally appropriated responsibilities to the people and legislature. Again, what was most egregious about this case was that one of the earliest steps was an ethical complaint being lodged by a California-based attorney – hundreds of miles away from the action. Because of this complaint, Attorney General Knudsen is now fighting a serious suspension that could complicate his abilities to represent Montanans.
These cases, and plenty more, are why I have been working on legislation in Arizona to protect well-meaning, law-abiding, and ethical attorneys from fear of reprisal from outside radical left agitators. If eventually passed and signed into law, the bill would mandate [is it now law now? – no] that the State Bar of Arizona and the Supreme Court immediately dismiss all complaints against attorneys, where the complainant does not have an attorney-client relationship with the attorney or another substantial nexus to the attorney’s alleged violation or conduct, and where it is clear that the complaint is simply a difference of political opinion. In addition, I collaborated with the Arizona Supreme Court to change its rule that had allowed this persecution to take place. This reform is necessary for many good conservatives who deserve to work their profession without fear of political persecution. I’m grateful that the court made the right decision to strike the balance of protecting the public from bad attorneys while defending good attorneys from frivolous complaints.
If the events of the past decade, as our nation becomes more politically polarized, have taught us anything, it is that we must guard the legal profession to ensure that bad actors are not permitted to chase away good attorneys who are committed to doing their jobs. Not everyone will agree with the cases those attorneys assume — and that’s okay. Our nation’s judicial system, which allows parties to peacefully work out their disagreements, is part of what makes our nation the envy of the entire world. We should resolve to defend this proud institution from nefarious agitators who must not be allowed to interfere with or manipulate our hallowed judicial system.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 28, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Court of Appeals judge in the “alternate electors” case donated to Attorney General Mayes when she was campaigning on prosecuting President Donald Trump’s 2020 electors.
On Wednesday, the day after Attorney General Kris Mayes asked the court to reject the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court held oral arguments in the alternate electors case.
The appeals court judge on the case, Andrew Jacobs, was appointed by Governor Katie Hobbs in February 2023. Jacobs donated $500 to Mayes’ campaign for the office in 2022. At the time, Jacobs was an attorney with Snell and Wilmer.
Several days after Mayes promised publicly to investigate the 2020 electors, Jacobs submitted his first donation to her campaign.
“I would have immediately investigated the alternate electors as Attorney General,” said Mayes. “Arizona needs a #LawyerForthePeople.”
Jacobs submitted his second donation to Mayes’ campaign the day after an Arizona Republic article emerged highlighting the differences between her and then-opponent (now congressman) Abe Hamadeh.
A source that observed the emergency hearing described Jacobs as “hostile” to the electors. During oral arguments, the conflict of interest was raised, however, Jacbos still voted on an issue in the case, the decision to grant a stay.
Last month, Maricopa County Judge Sam Myers ruled the 2020 electors, 16 in total, provided sufficient evidence that Mayes’ case against them may be dismissable for violating Arizona’s Anti-SLAPP law.
Anti-SLAPP, or “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” imposes civil liability against any state actor that brings or maintains a legal action substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliation against, or prevent free speech and association.
Myers said the 2020 electors demonstrated their actions to comprise “at least in part some arguably lawful speech.” Myers cited Mayes’ remarks announcing the indictments as potential proof of a political motivation behind her prosecution.
Mayes disagreed with the ruling. The attorney general said the 2020 creation of an alternate elector slate didn’t constitute free speech and shouldn’t be afforded constitutional protections.
“It is not the lawful exercise of free speech to file forged slates of electors to deprive Arizona voters of their right to vote,” said Mayes.
In order to counter Myers’ ruling, Mayes had to prove in a brief due earlier this week that she wasn’t motivated by a desire to retaliate or deter the 2020 electors’ free speech rights.
The outcome of that motion to dismiss the case remains pending.
Myers did deny motions to dismiss Mayes’ case last week, however. The motions claimed Mayes lacked authority to bring the case to court and failed to allege crimes committed.
Last November, the first judge on the case, Bruce Cohen, recused himself after emails emerged in which he ordered his fellow judges to come to the defense of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
The defendants in the case include former AZGOP Chair Dr. Kelli Ward, Dr. Michael Ward, former executive director of the AZGOP Greg Safsten, former Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern, former Senate Candidate Jim Lamon, former Cochise County Republican Committee chair Robert Montgomery, former Cochise County Republican Committee chair Samuel Moorhead, Arizona State Senator Jake Hoffman, Turning Point USA COO Tyler Bowyer, and attorneys John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, as well as President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Campaign Aide Boris Epshteyn, and director of Election Day operations Mike Roman.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Sep 18, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona District Court declined to assume jurisdiction in the prosecution of Mark Meadows for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
The court remanded the case back to the Maricopa County Superior Court. In the order issued on Monday, Judge John Tuchi said that Meadows’ actions concerning the 2020 election aren’t covered by the “color of office” afforded by his role as chief of staff to former President Donald Trump.
“The Court finds that Mr. Meadows fails to present good cause for his untimely filing of his Notice of Removal, and that in any event, an evaluation on the merits yields that he fails to demonstrate that the conduct charged in the state’s prosecution relates to his former color of office as Chief of Staff to the President,” wrote Tuchi.
An Arizona grand jury dropped felony indictments on Trump’s 2020 electors and their alleged conspirators, among them Meadows, earlier this year. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes accused the 18 indicted of participating in an organized “scheme” intending to “prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency.”
Mayes alleged that Meadows worked with members of the Trump campaign to coordinate and implement Arizona’s false Republican electors following the 2020 election. Meadows argued that his actions pertaining to the aftermath of the 2020 election were covered by his asserted official authority as chief of staff to the president. The district court disagreed, mainly due to Meadows’ lack of justification given for his argument.
“Indeed, rather than make any additional or alternative factual assertions to support his invocation of federal jurisdiction, Mr. Meadows simply quotes the State’s indictment verbatim,” wrote Tuchi. “Not only has Mr. Meadows not disputed any of the foregoing facts, but he has necessarily relied upon them. […] In other words, this is not a case in which opposing parties offer competing facts; rather, it is a case in which the parties offer competing characterizations of identical facts.”
Tuchi wrote that Meadows didn’t justify how his actions pertaining to the 2020 election fell under the proper scope and content of his job responsibilities as chief of staff, as Ninth Circuit precedent requires. Tuchi rejected Meadows’ characterization of his actions as a mere middleman of communication between the president and others.
“Contrary to Mr. Meadows’s assertions, the State has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the President or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on. Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme,” wrote Tuchi. “To allow Mr. Meadows to recharacterize the State’s indictment at the level of generality that he seeks to do would be to vitiate both the federal officer removal statute and the Supreme Court precedent interpreting that statute, as every criminal prosecution of a federal officer will in some vague sense involve that officer’s staying ‘apprised of what is happening.’”
The court also rejected Meadows’ reasoning for his untimeliness in filing his notice of removal: his pursuit of an effort to convince the state to drop the charges against him, and his awaiting a Supreme Court decision in the case Trump v. United States that would lend to his immunity defense.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | May 5, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Republican Party of Arizona (AZ GOP) won’t be punished for challenging the 2020 election. The court vacated the attorney fees awards issued by the trial court and court of appeals, and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion.
“Petitioners’ claim was not groundless and arguably was made in good faith,” ruled the court. “‘Raising questions’ by petitioning our courts to clarify the meaning and application of our laws and noting the potential consequences of the failure to do so — particularly in the context of our elections — is never a threat to the rule of law, even if the claims are charitably characterized as ‘long shots.’”
In a press release, the AZ GOP said the ruling was a victory for election integrity. The case concerned the party’s lawsuit against Maricopa County election officials’ administration of the mandatory hand count of ballots following the 2020 general election.
“This ruling reaffirms the fundamental legal principles that raising questions about the interpretation and application of election laws is a legitimate use of the judicial system, not a groundless or bad faith action,” stated the party.
The AZ GOP’s lawsuit against the county sought declaration that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM), passed under then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, violated state law directing precincts to be the sampling source for the hand count, rather than voting centers.
The AZ GOP sued to prevent the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors from canvassing the votes before the late November deadline.
In the ruling, authored by Justice John Lopez, the court determined the AZ GOP hadn’t brought a groundless claim, and that therefore the trial court and court of appeals had erred in awarding attorney fees against the AZ GOP.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court was wrong to find the AZ GOP’s claim was groundless over several criteria: the party failing to name the secretary of state as a defendant, seeking mandamus relief unavailable as a matter of law, and improperly contesting a pre-election procedure.
“It is untenable to invoke an alleged procedural defect like the one in this case — readily remediable and, in fact, remedied one day after the complaint was filed — to irrevocably mar a complaint as groundless,” wrote Lopez. “Whatever the Secretary’s interest in Petitioners’ declaratory action, it was fairly debatable whether Petitioners’ naming of the County as a defendant in their complaint was adequate, and, regardless, the parties agreed to the Secretary’s intervention just one day after the complaint was filed.”
Lopez wrote that the requested mandamus relief was fairly debatable, not groundless.
“Thus, because the Maricopa County election officials enjoyed no discretion in the discharge of their hand-count duties — a prerequisite to mandamus relief rather than a legal disqualifier — the trial court erred,” wrote Lopez. “[W]e only hold that Petitioners’ requested mandamus relief was not groundless because it was at least fairly debatable, even if a ‘long shot,’ whether the County was obligated to conduct a hand count consistent with [the law] or an arguably conflicting EPM provision.”
Lopez further wrote that the trial court erroneously assumed that the challenged hand count constituted a pre-election procedure subject to the election-law time bar. The judge noted that the 2019 EPM also doesn’t include hand count among its pre-election procedures.
“[T]he hand-count protocol continues past the election’s conclusion. In fact, although the statute directs the sampling from precincts, the actual selection of polling places does not commence until after the election,” wrote Lopez. “The merits of Petitioners’ claim are not before us; therefore, we need not determine whether, or to what extent, the election-law time bar applies to a procedure, like the hand count, that straddles the election. We merely conclude that Petitioners’ post-election claim was not groundless because whether their claim was time-barred by our jurisprudential election-law procedural rule is at least ‘fairly debatable.’”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
