More Rebukes for Prosecutors: Grand Jurors Refuse to Indict 2 People Accused of Threatening Trump

    10
    FILE - U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a news conference, Aug. 12, 2025, at the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal grand jurors in the nation’s capital have refused to indict two people who were charged separately with threatening to kill President Donald Trump, more evidence of a growing backlash against Trump’s law enforcement intervention in Washington, D.C.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to balk at returning an indictment, but it has happened at least seven times in five cases since Trump last month ordered a surge in patrols by federal agents and troops in the District of Columbia. One of the instances involved the case against a man charged with hurling a sandwich at a federal agent.

    The latest example occurred Tuesday, when Justice Department prosecutors told a magistrate judge that a grand jury declined to indict Edward Alexander Dana. He is accused of making a death threat against Trump while in police custody on Aug. 17. Dana also told police that he was intoxicated that night.

    Grand jurors also refused to hand up an indictment against Nathalie Rose Jones, who was arrested Aug. 16 in Washington on charges that she made death threats against Trump on social media and during an interview with Secret Service agents. Jones’ attorney disclosed the decision in a court filing Monday.

    Dana’s lawyer, Elizabeth Mullin, said she has never seen anything like this in over 20 years as a public defender in Washington. She said prosecutors are responding to Trump’s surge by bringing “weak cases” that don’t belong in federal court.

    “And the grand juries are seeing through it,” Mullin said. “It’s a huge waste in resources.”

    U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, whom Trump appointed to be the top federal prosecutor for Washington, said a grand jury’s refusal to indict somebody for threatening to kill the president “is the essence of a politicized jury.”

    “The system here is broken on many levels,” Pirro said in a statement. “Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in DC refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics.”

    Last month, a grand jury refused to indict a government attorney who was facing a felony assault charge for throwing a “sub-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent — a confrontation captured on a viral video.

    Three grand juries voted separately against indicting a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent outside the city’s jail in July, where she was recording video of the transfer of inmates into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    A grand jury also rejected an indictment against a man who was arrested on an assault charge by a U.S. Park Police officer with the assistance of National Guard members.

    Grand jury proceedings are secret, so the reasons for their decisions don’t become public. But the string of rebukes has fueled speculation that residents serving on grand juries are using their votes to protest against the White House’s surge.

    “Grand juries, judges, we will not simply go along with the flow,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said during a hearing last week for a surge-related criminal case.

    Dana was arrested on suspicion of damaging a light fixture at a restaurant. An officer was driving Dana to a police station when he threatened to kill Trump, according to a Secret Service agent’s affidavit. The officer’s body camera captured Dana saying he was “not going to tolerate fascism” and would “protect the Constitution by any means necessary.”

    “And that means killing you, officer, killing the president, killing anyone who stands in the way of our Constitution,” he said, according to the affidavit.

    Prosecutors said Jones, 50, of Lafayette, Indiana, posted a Aug. 6 message on Facebook that she was “willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea.” When Secret Service agents questioned her on Aug. 15, Jones said she hoped to peacefully remove Trump from office but “will kill him out at the compound if I have to,” according to prosecutors. Jones was arrested a day later in Washington, where she joined a protest near the White House.

    Petras said Jones repeatedly told Secret Service agents that she had no intent to harm anyone, didn’t own any weapons and went to Washington to peacefully protest.

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group
    10 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    The Left all support the Hamas Nazi Supporters
    The Left all support the Hamas Nazi Supporters
    1 year ago

    The DC jurors are all Trump hating democrats, so they will let all these people off.

    Marcia
    Marcia
    1 year ago

    Anyone in DC will absolutely go against anything POTUS does no matter how positive it is for the state or country

    Eli the Psycho
    Eli the Psycho
    1 year ago

    I think the individual quoted in the article makes a good point about “weak cases.” This is how the system of checks and balances work. Its one reason that I laugh at liberals who claim Trump has turned America in to a dictatorship and/or that we are like Germany in 1933. The system is clunky but it is one of the best out there. I am less worried about sandwich throwing idiots and drunk rantings (see article) and more proud of the constitution that makes this country great – even of liberals benefit sometimes

    Listener
    Listener
    1 year ago

    Wait until someone throws a sub sandwich at them, then see how fast they will prosecute them

    Anonymous
    Anonymous
    1 year ago

    Did some say the USA is fast evolving into a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, NAH IMPOSSIBLE !!!

    New rule
    New rule
    1 year ago

    All people who overstay visa. Subject. To deportation if they do not have a graduate degree or highly valuable skill