A jury in Virginia has acquitted a man who wrote, in graphic detail, about his desire to assassinate President Donald J. Trump.
This verdict is not a victory for the First Amendment, folks. It is a terrifying green light for the radical Left, sending a clear message: If your target is President Trump, your violent, sociopathic rhetoric will be excused as “political advocacy.”
While the D.C. establishment and their media allies aggressively prosecute anyone who looks sideways at a Democrat, they are now actively protecting a man who wanted to “take the shot.” This is the two-tiered system of justice in action, and it should concern every single patriot.
Discussion
Take off the tinfoil hat, this isn't a Deep State episode of your imagination.
This is disgusting, folks! Clear proof that there's a different set of rules for Trump haters. If this was about a democrat, they’d be jailed immediately! The left's blind hatred is out of control. Justice system rigged against us patriots! #MAGA #DrainTheSwamp
Leave a Comment
‘I Would Twist the Knife’
Let’s be perfectly clear about what we are discussing. This was not a case of simple “political hyperbole,” as the defense shamefully argued.
The man, Peter Stinson, is a former longtime Coast Guard officer. This is not some basement-dwelling troll; this is a man who was, for decades, a member of the federal bureaucracy. And, according to court papers, he openly identified as a member of Antifa.
This is the Deep State, folks.
Here are Stinson’s own words about the sitting President of the United States:
- He called for someone to “take the shot.”
- He wrote, “I would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh.”
- He said he “would be willing to pitch in” for a hitman contract.
- He stated, “Realistically the only solution is violence.”
This is not “vituperative” political speech. This is the detailed, hateful fantasy of a political extremist. This is a man describing, with relish, the act of murder.
And a jury in Virginia—a state right next to the D.C. swamp—heard all of this and decided it was perfectly acceptable speech.
Academia’s Sickness: ‘A Very Common Sentiment’
If the verdict itself wasn’t sickening enough, the defense’s star witness perfectly captured the moral decay of our academic elite.
The defense brought in Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland to testify. Did she condemn this violent language? Did she express shock?
Of course not. According to the Washington Post, Professor Golbeck calmly told the court that people “rooting for Trump to die online” is “common.”
“I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things,” she testified. “It’s a very common sentiment.”
This is what they are teaching in our universities. This is the mindset of the liberal elite. They have become so consumed by their own hatred for President Trump that they now view open, violent fantasies about his murder as “common” and “normal.”
They are not just observers; they are enablers. They are the ones creating the “assassination culture” that allowed this man to walk free.
The Swamp’s Pathetic Legal Fig Leaf
So how did the system let this happen? They used a pathetic legal technicality.
Stinson was charged with “soliciting a crime of violence.” His attorneys, and some so-called “experts,” argued that his words weren’t technically solicitation.
Brennen VanderVeen, from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Fox News that solicitation is when “he contacts an actual hit man.”
Because Stinson only broadcast his desire to murder the President and offered to pay for it on a public forum—instead of hiring a specific assassin—the legal swamp says it doesn’t count.
This is the kind of hair-splitting nonsense that only a D.C. lawyer could love. They are ignoring the intent and the poison being injected into the public square.
Stinson’s attorneys argued this was “political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect.”
What an absolute disgrace. The Founding Fathers did not write the First Amendment to protect Antifa members who fantasize about “twisting the knife” in a sitting President.
The Two-Tiered System of Justice Is Real
The true outrage of this verdict is exposed when you see how the very same legal system treats threats against other political figures.
The double standard is so blatant, it’s impossible to ignore.
- When the Target is Justice Kavanaugh: A man was convicted of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. That man (rightfully) faced the full force of the law. Why? Because he “took concrete steps,” like searching online for mass shootings and showing up armed at Kavanaugh’s house.
- When the Target is Barack Obama: A man was convicted by a judge for making a “hoax threat” against the former president. What did he do? He livestreamed himself driving around Obama’s neighborhood with a machete and illegal weapons.
- When the Target is Federal Judges: Another man is currently facing charges for sending “ominous messages” to the Supreme Court website. A judge denied his attempt to have the case tossed on First Amendment grounds, saying a jury must weigh the argument.
Notice the pattern?
When the target is a judge, an establishment conservative like Kavanaugh, or a Democrat like Obama, the system works. They find the charges. They deny the First Amendment claims. They get convictions.
But when the target is President Donald J. Trump, the system suddenly finds ” nuance.” The First Amendment is suddenly “squarely designed” to protect the speech. A liberal professor is brought in to normalize the death threats.
This is not justice. This is a politically weaponized legal system.
The Ghost of Charlie Kirk: This Is Not a Game
This academic debate about “solicitation” and “hyperbole” is not happening in a vacuum. We are living in the direct aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The Left’s violent rhetoric has consequences.
For years, they have dehumanized President Trump and anyone who supports him. Now, their academic allies are testifying under oath that wanting him dead is “common.”
This Stinson verdict is a message from the establishment to the most unhinged, violent elements of the Left: We will protect you.
The jury’s decision has given a legal stamp of approval to the very “assassination culture” that Fox News has been warning about. It provides comfort and cover for the next person who decides to act on these “common” fantasies.
The ‘Hate Speech’ Trap
This entire episode shows the terrible bind conservatives are in. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to reassure the public.
She said the DOJ would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
This, of course, caused an immediate backlash from conservatives, who correctly pointed out that “hate speech” is an unconstitutional, radical-Left concept. It’s a “crime” that is only ever used to silence, deplatform, and prosecute the Right.
AG Bondi had to walk back her comments, clarifying she meant speech that “crosses the line into threats of violence.”
But the Stinson case just proved that the system has moved that line.
The Left has created a legal trap: They can use the most violent, graphic, and specific rhetoric against President Trump, and our own courts will protect it as “political advocacy.”
A 1969 Precedent That Cannot Stand
The legal swamp hiding behind this decision is a 1969 Supreme Court case. In it, the court protected a protester who said he wanted to kill President Lyndon Johnson.
The court ruled that the “language of the political arena” is often “vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”
What we are seeing in 2025 is not inexact.
“I would twist the knife after sliding it into his fatty flesh” is not “inexact.” It is a specific, horrifying, and sociopathic statement.
The world of 1969 is not the world of 2025. We are not talking about a protester shouting in a park. We are talking about a member of Antifa, a former government officer, broadcasting his plans and his desires on social media platforms in an age of rampant, politically-motivated violence.
The Real Threat to Our Republic
This verdict is a dark stain on our nation. A jury, aided by a liberal professor and a weak prosecution, has failed the President and the American people.
They have affirmed the Left’s new, terrifying standard: It is not a crime to solicit the murder of Donald Trump.
The expert in the article claims that for speech to be “incitement,” it must be imminent. He says if someone else acts on the speech, “that’s on the person doing the violence.”
This is the pathetic, cowardly dodge of the academic Left. They light the fuse, hand out the matches, and then claim they have no responsibility when the bomb goes off.
President Trump has faced down the Deep State, the Fake News media, and the radical Left for a decade. This ruling proves, once again, that they will stop at nothing to destroy him. They have now, quite literally, endorsed the language of his would-be assassins.
Wow, just when you think you've seen how low the radical Left will go, they surprise you with more insanity. This Virginia jury verdict is a disgrace! Imagine if roles were reversed—Trump supporters wouldn't get away so easily. The hate against President Trump is relentless, and now it seems like even fantasies of violence against him are openly excused. Makes you wonder if the Deep State isn't pulling all the strings to protect their own while targeting patriots. If dangerous rhetoric is getting a pass now, what’s next? Wake up, folks—the two-tiered justice system is real and it’s terrifying!