Tina Peters’ Attorney Suggests Trump Could Use the Military to Remove Her From Prison
The legal battle surrounding former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters has veered into extreme territory after one of her attorneys publicly entertained the idea of Donald Trump using the U.S. military to free her from state custody. What began as a criminal case has grown into a symbol for far-right extremism — and a test of how far Trump-aligned figures are willing to push the boundaries of legal and political norms.
During an appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, Peters’ attorney Peter Ticktin responded to a hypothetical question about whether a future Trump administration should send federal troops to Colorado to extract his client from prison. Rather than dismissing the scenario as absurd, Ticktin said he supported the idea, framing it as a legitimate option rather than an outrageous suggestion.
Peters is currently serving a nine-year sentence after she was convicted for allowing outsiders to access secure Mesa County voting equipment in 2021. Prosecutors said she enabled the copying of sensitive election data in an effort to fuel conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election. Her actions made her a hero in election-denial circles and a criminal in the eyes of Colorado courts.
Despite her conviction, Peters continues to attract national attention. Trump has repeatedly described her as a political martyr and called for her release, further elevating her status among his supporters. Meanwhile, federal officials have been weighing whether she should be transferred to a federal facility, citing health concerns — a move that Colorado officials have strongly opposed.
Colorado county clerks, both Democrat and Republican, issued a rare bipartisan appeal urging Governor Jared Polis to keep Peters in the state system. They warned that treating her as a persecuted figure only emboldens hostility toward election workers.
The rhetoric surrounding the case has grown increasingly alarming. A Denver-area activist associated with the far right recently made violent statements targeting state officials, elevating concerns about safety and political extremism. Combined with Ticktin’s comments about a military intervention, these remarks show how far some members of the movement have strayed from conventional legal advocacy.
Peters’ saga has become far more than a criminal case about the mishandling of election equipment. She now represents a deeper conflict — one where the rule of law, political loyalty, and extreme rhetoric collide in ways that continue to escalate beyond the courtroom.
