Jury clears Virginia man charged with soliciting assassination of President Trump

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: WTOP

Jury clears Virginia man charged with soliciting assassination of President Trump

Neal Augenstein | [e-mail]
October 30, 2025, 10:00 AM

Was it a solicitation of violence or free speech? A federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia, has acquitted a man who suggested someone should kill President Donald Trump. ... Federal prosecutors had argued that 63-year-old Peter Stinson, who had served more than three decades as a Coast Guard officer repeatedly called for someone to assassinate Trump, through a series of social media posts, dating to 2020.

Stinson often used derisive nicknames to identify Trump in posts on Twitter, which is now known as X, and on Bluesky. ... In an April 2020 post, prosecutors said Stinson pleaded for someone to “pull the proverbial trigger,” and wrote, “I would do it. I would take the fall to save America.” ... In a February 2020 post, Stinson posted he “would be willing to pitch in $100 for a contract,” referring to hiring a hit man, according to prosecutors.

Stinson was initially charged in June 2025 with a Threat Against the President of the United States. In August, in a superseding indictment, the charge was altered to Solicitation of a Crime of Violence. ... During this week’s two-day trial, federal public defenders argued his comments were Constitutionally-protected free speech, and that his postings lacked the “specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action” required to fall outside of constitutional protection.

On Tuesday, after deliberating for a few hours, the jury acquitted Stinson of solicitation of a crime of violence. He had been on house arrest before his trial, and was ordered released by U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
© 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Neal Augenstein
Neal Augenstein has been a general assignment reporter with WTOP since 1997. He says he looks forward to coming to work every day, even though that means waking up at 3:30 a.m.
[e-mail]

Read more: https://wtop.com/local/2025/10/jury-clears-virginia-man-charged-with-solicitating-assassination-of-president-trump/

---

Brandenburg v. Ohio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951) were overturned.

[3Hotdogs]

1. Somehow, I think. this went beyond free speech.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

2. The jury disagrees,

unless you meant the jury sent a message to Been A Dick Donald and the DoJ by acquitting him.

[3Hotdogs]

3. I don't know if it was jury nullification and a kick in the ass to King Donald.

I just think it went a bit over the top.

Alexandria is more Democratic.

[NH Ethylene]

4. Yeah, the post about chipping in $100 for an assassination

Seemed a bit beyond the line to me. I would certainly be upset and concerned if someone publicly posted that about one of our Dems.

But I wouldn't want to second guess the jurors who listened to all the arguments and evidence.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Exactly!!

The jurors had a much better picture of the actual evidence and made their decision based on actual law, or they were sending another message to this criminal admin.

[reACTIONary]

6. Someone who is seriously considering....

... Offing someone does not publicly announce it on Twitter and offer to "chip in". I think it is pretty obvious that the post lacked “specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action”.

Just FYI, the precedent that established that standard was a comment by a potential draftee during the Vietnam war period. He said that if he was drafted and given a gun, LBJ would be his first target. So you see, the first amendment gives a lot of room for expressing displeasure.

[reACTIONary]

7. In other news, here is someone who's threats ...

.... were not deemed protected speech:

Judge says prosecutors who were placed on leave ‘did a truly excellent job’ - Two federal prosecutors were placed on leave hours after describing Jan. 6 as an attack by “a mob of rioters.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/30/sentencing-memo-january-6-attack-00631013

Taranto .... triggered a massive police response and partial evacuation of D.C.’s Kalorama neighborhood by posting a rambling livestream where he suggested he was driving through the area in a van fitted with explosives and capable of driving itself.

At a bench trial in May, Nichols found Taranto guilty on the hoax and firearm-related charges, rejecting defense arguments that his online diatribes were protected First Amendment speech.