>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
And this wasn’t a man bluffing.
While Stinson once wrote, “Someone should take the shot…he said I can’t shoot but I can drive. I’d take the shot, but I’m a lousy shot, so it would be a waste,” prosecutors revealed the truth: Stinson was lying. He had in fact received expert marksman ribbons during his 33-year career in the U.S. Coast Guard.
So the man who joked about being a “lousy shot” was actually a trained killer.
Stinson didn’t just talk about Trump. He also referenced other violent acts, including a chilling post where he said Trump needed to be “Luigied”—a reference to Luigi Mangione, who allegedly murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Adding fuel to the fire, the FBI found Stinson had proudly declared allegiance to Antifa, the far-left domestic group linked to street violence, riots, and anti-government extremism.
In a February 2 post on X, he wrote: “Sure. This is war. Sides will be drawn. Antifa always wins in the end. Violence is inherently necessary.”
Just days before he was arrested, on June 11, Stinson wrote, “When he dies, the party is going to be yuge.”
This was no slip of the tongue or vague comment. This was a clear, consistent pattern of hate, targeted threats, and violent intent.
Despite the severity of the evidence, Federal Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis ruled that Stinson could be released on house arrest with an ankle monitor.
The Department of Justice had objected, warning that Stinson posed a clear threat to public safety. But the judge, who graduated from Howard University School of Law, chose to side with Stinson’s defense.
Stinson’s lawyer attempted to downplay the threats by suggesting his “lousy shot” comment made the threats unserious. The defense also argued that Stinson’s actions were protected political speech under the First Amendment.
But these weren’t harmless political opinions. These were threats from a man with the training and the means to carry them out.
Still, the judge instructed prosecutors to submit more arguments within a week while letting Stinson go home instead of remaining in custody.
The case once again shows what many believe to be a double standard in America’s legal system. While peaceful January 6 attendees were locked up for nonviolent conduct, an Antifa-linked ex-military man who threatened to kill a sitting president is sent home with a tracking bracelet.
How is that justice?
This was a man who not only had a disturbing obsession with Trump, but also repeatedly pushed extremist views and promoted political violence. And yet, the system appears more interested in leniency than in protecting the public.
This case should be setting off alarm bells across the nation. A federal judge essentially told America that five years of assassination threats, paired with military sharpshooter training, aren’t enough to justify pre-trial detention.
What kind of message does that send to radicals who want to harm conservative leaders?
The American people expect the law to be applied equally—regardless of political beliefs. But instead, we’re seeing a disturbing trend of leniency toward those who threaten conservatives, especially Trump.
When a radical with military training can openly talk about killing a former President and still sleep in his own bed at night, the justice system isn’t just broken—it’s dangerous.
It’s time for Americans to demand accountability, and for the justice system to treat all threats with the seriousness they deserve. Equal justice shouldn’t be a partisan concept—it should be a constitutional guarantee.
