Attorneys called it a smoking gun. The judge said they had never seen anything like it before. Then, the court wondered aloud what people would think if the contents of an email sent by a White House staffer were published in Th e Denver Post.On Aug. 14, our partners at The Denver Post did just that. Seth Klamann, a political reporter, was the first to break the news about an email correspondence disclosed last week in federal court as part of a case Colorado filed against the Trump administration.That email, attorneys argue, proves the Executive Office of the President participated in an "unconstitutional scheme to attack and punish the State of Colorado for its lawful exercise of sovereign powers."According to the court transcript from Aug. 11 that was obtained by Denver7, Emily Underwood in the White House executive office sent an email on Dec. 15, 2025, with the subject line brainstorm call. In that email, Colorado attorneys said Underwood directed members from the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Management and Budget to attend a call that afternoon.David Moskowitz, who argued the case on behalf of the State of Colorado, read a portion of the email from Underwood into the record. Watch Colette Bordelon's report in the video below: Experts say Trump adminstration illigally targeted Colorado after Tina Peters conviction"In a key part, she said, 'please come prepared to discuss immediate actions that your department or agency can take with respect to Colorado. Please do not forward this invitation or include others on the call without discussing with me first,'" Moskowitz told the court.That email was sent a few days after President Donald Trump took to Truth Social and claimed he was granting Tina Peters a full pardon."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," the post from the president said.Legal experts were quick to point out that the president cannot pardon Peters since she was convicted of state crimes, not federal crimes.Peters is the former Mesa County Clerk who was sentenced to nine years in prison in 2024 after she was convicted of charges related to tampering with Colorado's election systems during the 2020 presidential election. Gov. Jared Polis granted Peters clemency in May of this year.Some Coloradans believe the Trump administration has targeted the state whether over the imprisonment of Peters or mail-in voting through a number of actions that included plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder or cuts to federal funding.Denver7 spoke with Ian Farrell, a professor of law at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, about the email from the White House staff member.As is so often the case in these current times, shocked but not surprised," said Farrell. Read more of Denver7's stories on Colorado politics hereThe lawsuit filed by the State of Colorado names Trump and his administration as defendants. The state alleges that the Trump administration has "unlawfully punished" Colorado for "its exercise of sovereign powers."Specifically, the filing highlights mail-in voting as a source of tension between Colorado and the federal government.The case began when Trump moved U.S. Space Command Headquarters from Colorado Springs to Alabama. According to state attorneys, that was unconstitutional since Trump said Colorado's use of mail-in voting played a role in his decision.State governments are sovereign in their own right, and they do not have to share in the the goals and policies of the federal government at any particular time," Farrell said. That shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone here in the United States, since it is very common. In fact, it's almost always the case that there are at least some states with a different party in control than the federal government.In a statement, Attorney General Phil Weiser told Denver7 that the email discussed in court last week proves "the White House orchestrated an unconstitutional scheme to weaponize the federal government to attack and punish Colorado for its lawful decisions over elections and our criminal justice system."Read the full statement from Weiser below: The shocking White House email discussed in court earlier this week proves what we have long suspected: the White House orchestrated an unconstitutional scheme to weaponize the federal government to attack and punish Colorado for its lawful decisions over elections and our criminal justice system. Well learn more about the governments revenge campaign plans against Colorado as the Trump administration produces more evidence, as the court ordered. And well keep fighting to uncover the whole truth, stand up for Coloradans, and hold this lawless administration accountable.Moskowitz, the attorney who argued during the discovery hearing on Aug. 11, said they need to learn what happened during the Dec. 15 meeting called by Underwood."Every agency was instructed to come up with actions they could immediately take against Colorado. Each of those actions is relevant. It's relevant to this case regardless of whether it was expressly described in the complaint or whether defendants have yet to follow through," Moskowitz said, according to the transcript."Due to the timing of the email, it suggested that it was related to attempts by President Trump to get Colorado to pardon Tina Peters. Although that is not explicitly stated, the timing is quite suggestive," Farrell said when Denver7 asked what his interpretation of the Underwood email was. "Whether or not that was in fact the point of these targeted moves against the State of Colorado, they seem to be illegal and unconstitutional, whether they're about that specific particular matter or whether they were targeting Colorado for some other reason in terms of not aligning with the goals of the federal administration.Farrell believes the Underwood email is incredibly important to the state's case."It is often very, very difficult in most circumstances it is quite difficult to prove motive or intent or the rationale behind things like the moving of Space Command and so forth," said Farrell.Judge Brooke Jackson told Adam Fox with the Department of Justice, who represented the defendants in the case, that the Underwood email is extraordinary and she had never seen anything like it."I've never even imagined something like it," Jackson said. "The very idea that the President of the United States or the Executive Office of the President would target a state because they don't feel that the state and its administrators are in line with the current administration's priorities, is phenomenal."For his part, Fox argued the plaintiffs are seeking information in this discovery process that goes beyond mail-in voting and Peters. Fox said his team has tried to narrow the scope of the request they were served and has been acting in good faith to reach agreements on some issues.Fox continued to address a request from Colorado attorneys for oral and deleted communications related to actions or threats against Colorado, saying it was "unbelievably unduly burdensome."The judge interrupted, saying she actually considered the request "quite specific." When Fox pushed back, and once again said it would be burdensome to track down every person that had a conversation on the topic, Jackson replied with another question: "In other words, there are so many oral communications and so many written communications about actions or threats against Colorado that it's an undue burden to even try to find them all?"Jackson went on to say there may be other motivations besides Peters and mail-in voting that the Trump administration targeted Colorado, if that is the case."It's extraordinary that the federal government would target a state and retaliate against a state because they don't like the state's politics. That's not the country I think we live in," Jackson said, according to the transcript. "But if that's what is happening, that's what they want to find out about and then do what they can to stop it."At the end of the hearing, Jackson ordered the defendant to participate in the discovery process like any other defendant. She agreed with Fox that it would be unduly burdensome to uncover evidence of federal actions or threats against other states, not just Colorado.However, Jackson said if the federal actions are linked with Colorado as "targets," then she has no problem with such discovery.The judge also found that any oral or written communications, deleted or not, that relate to actions or threats taken against Colorado are "fair game" for discovery.Jackson clarified that a request from the plaintiffs for materials that stretched beyond Peters or mail-in voting as reasons for the federal government "targeting" Colorado "ought to come out, ought to be produced, ought to be discussed, ought to be dealt with, and one would hope, ought to be reversed by the people who have decided that it's a good idea to take such negative actions against a particular state."According to a spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General's Office, another court hearing in this case has not yet been scheduled.Denver7 reached out to a White House spokesperson for comment on the email disclosed during the hearing but did not receive a response before publication. ...read more read less