U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has quietly dropped yet another high-profile case—this time against a woman accused of threatening to kill former President Donald Trump—after three separate grand juries refused to indict. It marks her fourth failed attempt in recent weeks to secure charges in politically charged cases, adding to a growing pattern of prosecutorial misfires.
The Justice Department officially asked the court to dismiss the charges this week, walking away from a case that Pirro tried and failed to push through over the course of several weeks. The decision came after a grand jury once again declined to indict Nathalie Rose Jones, who was arrested last month for allegedly making violent threats against Trump on social media.
Reuters crime and justice reporter Brad Heath shared the government’s filing on Bluesky, confirming what many had already expected. “A grand jury previously declined to bring an indictment. Now the government is tossing the case entirely,” Heath wrote.
Jones, who faced charges of threatening a U.S. president, had posted a string of inflammatory messages online. In one, she called Trump a “terrorist” and a “Nazi,” while labeling his administration a “dictatorship.” According to charging documents from the DOJ, she also claimed Trump had “caused extreme and unnecessary loss of life in relation to the coronavirus.”
But the post that made headlines came later, in a Facebook comment:
“I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present.”
Despite the language, Jones told the Secret Service in an interview that she had no actual intent to harm the president. She said she would only consider such violence to “avenge” the victims of the pandemic—hardly a convincing legal defense, but apparently enough to raise doubts.
The grand jury wasn’t buying what Pirro was selling. After three attempts, they still refused to indict.
By Monday, Jones’ public defenders moved to get her released. Their argument? The case was dead.
“Given that finding, the weight of the evidence is weak,” her lawyers wrote, according to NBC News. “The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed and no indictment is likely. For this reason the Court should release Ms. Jones on her personal recognizance to appear if required.”
And now, that’s exactly what’s happened. The government folded.
Pirro, once seen as a tough prosecutor with a nose for high-profile cases, has now racked up a string of failed indictments. This one in particular seems to underline a pattern—aggressive charges, shaky evidence, and little to show for it in court.
The Justice Department’s decision to walk away from a case involving threats against a president isn’t exactly common. But this wasn’t your standard slam-dunk, either. If anything, it reflects a broader issue with overcharging and under-delivering.
At the end of the day, Pirro went to bat three times—and struck out every time.
This latest retreat will raise more questions about her judgment and prosecutorial strategy. Because while aggressive prosecutions make headlines, they don’t mean much when juries aren’t convinced. And right now, neither are the courts.
