A federal judge just threw out a case against a man accused of threatening President Donald Trump, while delivering a stinging rebuke to the Department of Justice that’s got everyone talking, Fox News reported.
In a dramatic turn of events at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui dismissed charges against Edward Alexander Dana and tore into U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office for what he sees as a total collapse of trust.
Judge Faruqui didn’t mince words during the hearing, as reported by The Associated Press, declaring, “There’s no credibility left.”
That kind of bluntness from the bench isn’t just a slap on the wrist—it’s a full-on wake-up call for a Justice Department that, in the eyes of many law-and-order advocates, has been playing fast and loose with its priorities.
The case began with Dana’s arrest, stemming from an incident where he allegedly damaged a restaurant’s exterior light fixture, as noted in a criminal complaint affidavit.
But the real bombshell came from allegations that Dana threatened lethal violence against President Trump, with chilling words captured in the affidavit: “I will f[---]ing kill you.”
Such a threat against the leader of the free world should’ve been a slam dunk for prosecutors, yet grand juries in Washington, D.C., refused to indict Dana on federal charges—a decision that’s left many scratching their heads.
Instead, the case was downgraded to multiple misdemeanor charges in D.C. Superior Court, a move that feels like bringing a butter knife to a gunfight when the stakes are this high.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, understandably livid, took to the social media platform X to vent her frustration, accusing Judge Faruqui of letting personal politics override his duty with the comment, “This judge took an oath.”
Her point isn’t hard to grasp—when a judge seems more interested in grandstanding than in protecting the President, it’s no wonder trust in our institutions is at rock bottom.
Pirro doubled down in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital, asserting, “Our duty as prosecutors is clear.” She’s right to remind us that justice doesn’t stop just because a grand jury balks; pursuing charges in Superior Court shows grit, not defeat.
Still, her sharp critique of Faruqui as the “antithesis” of law and order on X raises eyebrows—while frustration is warranted, public spats between prosecutors and judges risk further eroding faith in a system already on shaky ground.
Let’s be clear: threats against any President, regardless of party, should be met with the full force of the law, not a shrug and a downgrade to petty charges.
Yet, Judge Faruqui’s harsh words about the DOJ’s lost credibility can’t be dismissed outright—many Americans, tired of perceived overreach by progressive agendas in government, might nod along even if they disagree with his ruling.
This case isn’t just about Dana or a broken light fixture; it’s a flashpoint for deeper questions about whether our justice system can still prioritize safety and fairness over political gamesmanship. Pirro’s appearance in a TV interview at the White House hints at the high-level concern this fiasco has sparked. If we’re to rebuild trust, both sides need to focus on the law, not the headlines.
