Woman Who Threatened to Kill President Trump Let Off the Hook by DC Grand Jury
“A grand jury has now found no probable cause to indict Ms. Jones on the charged offenses”
Make note of the judge in this case. He is an Obama appointee who has repeatedly tried to block Trump deportations.
WUSA News reports:
Grand jury refuses charges against woman accused of threatening President Trump, attorney says
A grand jury has refused charges against a New York woman accused of threatening President Donald Trump, her attorney said in a court filing Monday.
D.C. District Court Chief Judge Jeb Boasberg released 49-year-old Nathalie Rose Jones last week to GPS monitoring over the objection of prosecutors, who argued she’d made violent threats toward Trump. Boasberg overturned a ruling by a magistrate judge who’d ordered Jones detained following her arrest in D.C. last month.
On Monday, Jones’ attorney, assistant federal public defender Mary Petras, asked Boasberg to remove her remaining release conditions – saying a grand jury in D.C. had declined to indict her.
“A grand jury has now found no probable cause to indict Ms. Jones on the charged offenses,” Petras wrote. “Given that finding, the weight of the evidence is weak. The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed and no indictment is likely.”
Grand juries nearly always return indictments in federal cases because they are tasked with deciding only whether there is a reasonable basis to support charging a crime, a much lower burden than in criminal trials, and because they typically made their decisions after hearing evidence only from the government. Under federal law, an indictment is required within 30 days of arrest for any felony charge prosecutors want to bring.
Jones, who previously worked as a pharmacist in Indiana, came to federal investigators’ attention in early August when she allegedly began posting threatening messages toward Trump online. In a Facebook post on Aug. 6 in which she tagged the FBI, Jones wrote she was “willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea.” In an email sent Aug. 14, Jones allegedly wrote she was “available to kill this man” in apparent reference to Trump. According to a detention memo, the email was sent to “several military, pharmaceutical and governmental recipients.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s DC, which means that your jury pool is reliably Democrat, reliably on the side of criminals and ORANGE MAN BAD.
The DC grand jury’s members are Jim Crow democrats, who disregard the facts and vote their party line.
DC is the place where a white man was fired for using a word that a black man didnt understand
look up david howard
No, he wasn’t. He voluntarily resigned, and when offered his job back he refused it, but did take a different position instead. TBH he seemed rather like a “woke ally”, if we can retroject two terms that were not yet in use.
you are correct he did in fact volunteer under tremendous pressure but nonetheless not fired
I would not have indicted either. Her rant does not conform with the definition of a “true threat”. For a threat to be criminal, and not protected by the first amendment, it must be credible. It must be the case a normal person, on hearing it, would be seriously concerned that the speaker had both the intent and the means to carry it out, and would do so.
If anything about it would make a normal person not take it seriously, e.g. because they would not believe the speaker really intends to do it, or that he has the means to do it, then it’s not and can’t be a crime.
In this case there is no way a normal listener would suppose that Jones was really going to disemboweling Trump and cut out his trachea. It’s obviously just a sick fantasy. Therefore it’s protected speech.
Just like the “hang Mike Pence” chant that some of the J6 protesters used. Again, not a threat but merely an expression of protest. Only the TDS-infected imagine that they really intended to lynch Pence, let alone that the stage-prop “gallows” was there for that purpose.
Boasberg, huh? Never heard of him, have you?
He has no connection to the grand jury. It’s the grand jury that returned a no bill, not Boasberg.
Boasberg may have remained neutral in the courtroom, but judges can definitely influence jurors. With his recent history, I’d be surprised if he didn’t.
What courtroom? This wasn’t a court, it was a grand jury, and he certainly wasn’t in its room. He had no connection with the grand jury at all.
This after the Washingtonians declined to indict the sandwich thrower who committed battery on camera.
If this is only a court of democrat Justice then the district needs to be dissolved.
Would DC Democrats indict someone who murdered Trump, or would they recommend medals?
If the woman committed a crime then she should be charged. The question is, did she, or did she merely say something stupid?
Boasberg seems to be one of the ‘rising’ anti-Trump, #$%^& the Constitution, Democrat judges.