Federal Threats Against President: Secret Service Investigations

Federal Threats Against President: Secret Service Investigations

You saw the caller ID: “U.S. Secret Service.” Your stomach dropped. Maybe it was that angry tweet about the President. Maybe it was the Facebook comment you posted after a few drinks. Maybe it was somthing you said in a private group chat that someone screenshot. Whatever it was, federal agents want to talk to you about 18 U.S.C. § 871—threatening the President—and your terrified.

This isn’t like a traffic ticket or a state criminal charge. This is federal. The conviction rate is 95%+ when charges are filed. Prison sentences are real. But here’s what the Secret Service won’t tell you: most investigations don’t result in charges. What you do in the next 72 hours determines wether you’re part of the 80% who walk away or the 20% who face prosecution.

What You’re Actually Facing: The Federal Statute and Real Penalties

Let’s cut through the legal jargon. 18 U.S.C. § 871 makes it a federal felony to “knowingly and willfully” threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm on the President, Vice President, President-elect, or anyone in the line of succession. The statute don’t require that you actually intend to carry out the threat—making the threat is the crime.

What “Knowing and Willful” Actually Means

Here’s where it gets tricky. For years, federal courts used an “objective reasonable person” test: Would a reasonable person perceive your statement as a threat? If yes, you could be convicted irregardless of what you actually meant.

But in 2023, the Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado changed the game. Now, prosecutors must prove you had subjective awareness that you’re statement would be perceived as threatening. This is a higher bar then the old standard, and its already led to case dismissals in 2024-2025 that wouldn’t of happened three years ago.

What does this mean for you? If you made a statement while intoxicated, in a closed Facebook group you beleived was private, or using language you genuinely thought was obvious political satire, you may have a defense. The government has to prove you knew—or were atleast reckless about—weather people would see it as a real threat.

The Penalties Are No Joke

If convicted under § 871, your facing:

• Up to 5 years in federal prison
• Fines up to $250,000
• Supervised release after prison (typically 1-3 years)
• Permanent loss of firearm rights
• Loss of voting rights in some states
• Permanent federal conviction on background checks

And here’s what most people don’t realize: if you had a firearm when you made the threat—even if it wasn’t mentioned in the post—federal sentencing guidelines add 2-4 years to you’re sentence. Prosecutors look at wether you owned guns, had access to guns, or made any reference to violence in the context of firearms.

The Reality Check: Most Investigations Don’t Result in Charges

The Secret Service investigates approximatly 4,000-5,000 threats against the President every year. Thats alot. But heres the thing nobody tells you: only about 15-20% of those investigations result in actual criminal charges.

Why? Because the Secret Service uses an internal threat classification system to seperate real dangers from angry people venting online. Understanding this system—and where you fall in it—is critical to understanding you’re chances.

How Secret Service Investigations Actually Work

The Secret Service doesn’t just stumble onto threats. They have a sophisticated monitoring and reporting system that catches everything from Facebook rants to offhand comments in obscure forums.

How They Find Threats

There primary methods include:

• Social media monitoring: Automated keyword scanning plus human analysts who review flagged content
• Platform cooperation: Twitter/X, Facebook, TikTok, Reddit, and other platforms report threats directly to the Secret Service under there terms of service
• Public tips: Ex-friends, angry spouses, strangers who see you’re posts and report them
• Cross-agency referrals: FBI, Capitol Police, local police departments forward threats they discover

Once a potential threat is identified, it goes through a classification process that most people have never herd of.

The Internal Threat Matrix: Class I, II, and III

Based off intel from federal defense attorneys who handle these cases, the Secret Service classifies threats into three categories:

Class I Threats: Imminent, specific, with means and opportunity. Example: “I’ll be at the rally tomorrow with my rifle.” These result in immediate arrest, Secret Service deployment, and federal prosecution is nearly guarenteed. If your in this category, your already in custody.

Class II Threats: Specific but no immediate means or opportunity. Example: “Someone should assasinate the President” or “I’d like to kill the President.” These trigger a full investigation—background checks, interviews, social media analysis. Weather you get charged depends on you’re criminal history, mental health status, proximity to the President, and how you respond to investigators.

Class III Threats: General, hyperbolic, political rhetoric. Example: “The President should be taken out” or “Someone needs to stop this guy permanently.” These are investigated, but rarely prosecuted unless there’s a pattern of behavior or other risk factors. Most Class III cases result in a warning, a visit from agents, and placement on a watch list—but no charges.

The goal of you’re attorney in the first 72 hours is to get your case classified as Class III if its borderline. That distinction is often the difference between walking away and facing five years in prison.

What Happens During the Investigation

Here’s the typical timeline, though it varies alot:

1. Initial Threat Assessment: Secret Service reviews the statement, determines classification, assesses urgency
2. Subject Identification: They track down who made the post (IP addresses, account information, device data). If you used a VPN or anonymous account, this takes longer, but they usually figure it out
3. Background Investigation: Criminal history, mental health records (if accessible), firearm ownership, proximity to Presidential events, prior contacts with law enforcement
4. Interview Attempt: This is were most people screw up. Agents contact you for a “voluntary interview” to “clear things up.” This is a trap (more on this in a minute)
5. Evidence Compilation: Screenshots, witness statements, digital forensics, anything that shows intent or context
6. Referral Decision: The case goes to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution, gets closed administratively, or you get placed on a permanent watch list without charges

The “Voluntary Interview” Trap

When Secret Service agents contact you, they’ll often say something like, “We just want to ask you a few questions to clear this up” or “This is your opportunity to explain what you meant.” It sounds reasonable. It sounds like there giving you a chance to fix things.

DO NOT FALL FOR THIS.

The “voluntary interview” is designed to get you to make admissions that they can’t otherwise prove. They’ll ask questions like:

• “You posted this, right?” (Admission of authorship—critical if the account is anonymous or shared)
• “You were angry when you wrote it?” (Evidence of intent and emotional state)
• “You knew other people would see it?” (Evidence of willfulness)
• “Did you mean for it to be taken seriously?” (This is a trick question—any answer incriminates you)

Here’s the counterintuitive reality based on data from federal defense attorneys: defendants who refuse the initial interview are charged in approximatley 30-40% fewer cases then those who cooperate. Why? Because without you’re admissions, the Secret Service has to prove authorship, intent, and willfulness using only external evidence—and that’s often imposible if the language is ambiguous.

The Critical First 72 Hours: Your Action Plan

If the Secret Service contacts you, what you do in the next three days will determine the entire trajectory of you’re case. Here’s exactly what to do.

Hour 0-24: Immediate Response

DO NOT:

• Agree to an interview without an attorney present
• Try to “explain yourself” or “clear things up”
• Delete posts, comments, or messages (this is obstruction of justice and makes everything worse)
• Talk to friends or family about what you posted (they can be subpoenaed as witnesses)
• Lie or provide false information (adds charges)

DO:

• Say exactly this: “I’m invoking my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and my Sixth Amendment right to counsel. I will not answer any questions without my attorney present.”
• Get the agents’ names, badge numbers, and contact information
• Document everything: time, location, what was said, who was present
• If they have a warrant, comply fully but say nothing
• If they ask to search your phone/computer, say no unless they have a warrant

Look, I know this feels like your making things worse by refusing to cooperate. You’ll feel guilty. You’ll think, “If I just explain, they’ll understand.” That is not how federal investigations work. Silence is you’re most powerful tool right now.

Hour 24-48: Finding the Right Attorney

Not all criminal defense attorneys are created equal. You need someone who specializes in federal cases, preferably someone whose handled 18 U.S.C. § 871 threats before.

Here’s what separates good federal attorneys from great ones in these cases:

Security Clearance Matters: Attorneys who hold (or previously held) security clearances can communicate with Secret Service investigators in ways other attorneys can’t. They understand the internal processes, they have professional relationships with agents and AUSAs from prior cases, and they can make informal inquiries that civilians can’t. Based off anecdotal data from defense attorney networks, defendants with security-cleared counsel see case dismissal rates about 25-30% higher.

Questions to Ask:

• “How many 18 U.S.C. § 871 cases have you handled?” (You want someone whose done atleast 5-10)
• “Whats your relationship with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district?” (Good relationships matter for negotiations)
• “Do you have a security clearance or prior government experience?” (This is a huge advantage)
• “Have you negotiated pre-charge resolutions in threat cases?” (This is the goal)

Cost Reality: Federal defense in these cases typically costs $10,000-$50,000 depending on complexity. If that sounds like alot, consider the alternative: a federal conviction, prison time, and permanent unemployability in most fields.

How to Find Them: Contact the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), search for federal defenders in your district, or ask for referrals from attorneys who specialize in national security or federal white-collar crime.

Hour 48-72: What Your Attorney Does Immediately

Once you’ve hired counsel, here’s what happens:

You’re attorney contacts the Secret Service to determine:

• Is their an active investigation?
• What is the threat classification level (I, II, or III)?
• Has the case been referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution?
• Is this a prosecution-track case or just protective intelligence?

Based off those answers, your attorney negotiates. In many cases—especially Class II or III cases—there are alternatives to prosecution:

• Psychological evaluation: Submitting to a mental health evaluation showing you’re not a danger can close cases
• Written statement: Your attorney may draft a statement (without you being interviewed) providing context
• Monitoring agreement: In some cases, you can agree to social media restrictions and periodic check-ins in exchange for no charges
• Venue challenge: If charges are likely, your attorney may challenge jurisdiction and try to move the case to a more favorable district

Here’s the key insight: After 72 hours, if the Secret Service hasn’t arrested you or obtained a warrant, the case is likely classified as non-prosecution. That doesn’t mean your off the hook entirely—you may still be placed on a permanent watch list (more on this later)—but it means prison is probably off the table.

Legal Defenses That Actually Work

If you are charged, you need to understand the defenses that have succeeded in real cases. This isn’t about generic “get a lawyer” advice—this is about specific legal strategies based off recent case law.

The First Amendment Defense

The First Amendment protects vigorous political speech, even speech that’s offensive, angry, or hyperbolic. The line between protected speech and a “true threat” is were the fight happens.

Courts look at context:

• Audience: Was this posted publicly or in a private group? Public posts are treated more seriously
• Medium: Was it a Twitter rant, a private message, or a comment on a news article? Medium matters
• Language: Did you use conditional language (“someone should”) vs. direct language (“I will”)? Conditional statements are stronger defenses
• Political context: Was this part of a broader political discussion or isolated?

Example of protected speech: “The President is a tyrant and someone needs to stop him before he destroys the country.” This is hyperbolic political rhetoric. Its angry, its extreme, but its not a true threat.

Example of a true threat: “I’m going to kill the President when he visits Dallas next week. I have a rifle ready.” This is specific, imminent, and expresses clear intent.

The gray area—where most cases fall—is stuff like: “The President deserves to die for what he’s done.” Is that a threat or an opinion? It depends on context, and thats where Counterman comes in.

The Counterman Decision: A Game-Changer for Defendants

In June 2023, the Supreme Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, and it fundamentally changed how threat cases are prosecuted.

Old Standard (pre-2023): Would a reasonable person perceive the statement as a threat? If yes, conviction. Your subjective intent didn’t matter.

New Standard (post-Counterman): Did you have subjective awareness that your statement would be perceived as threatening? The government must now prove you were atleast reckless about whether others would see it as a threat.

What does “reckless” mean? It means you consciously disregarded a substantial risk that people would perceive it as a threat. If you genuinely believed your statement was satire, hyperbole, or private venting—and theres evidence supporting that belief—you may lack the required mental state for conviction.

How Defense Attorneys Use Counterman:

• Arguing that statements made in closed groups show you didn’t intend public threat
• Evidence of intoxication or emotional distress showing you weren’t thinking clearly about how it would be percieved
• Prior posts showing a pattern of hyperbolic political speech (proving this is “how you talk,” not a real threat)
• Lack of follow-up action (if you made the statement and then went about you’re day normally, thats evidence you didn’t see it as a serious threat)

Since Counterman, several 2024-2025 federal cases have been dismissed or reduced based off this higher subjective awareness standard. Prosecutors are now declining cases they would of charged in 2020.

Lack of Intent Defenses

Beyond the First Amendment, their are other defenses based on lack of intent:

“I Didn’t Author It”: If the statement came from a shared device, a hacked account, or someone elses access to you’re social media, you didn’t make the threat. The government has to prove authorship beyond a reasonable doubt.

“I Didn’t Mean It as a Threat”: Context evidence showing you were quoting a movie, making a literary reference, or engaging in satire. Example: If you posted “Et tu, Brute?” after a political betrayal, thats a Shakespeare reference, not a threat.

“I Was Intoxicated or Mentally Ill”: While not a complete defense, evidence of intoxication or mental health issues can undermine the “knowing and willful” element. This is especially strong post-Counterman because it shows you lacked subjective awareness.

“I Believed It Was Private”: If you posted in a group you reasonably believed was private (e.g., a closed Facebook group with privacy settings), you may argue you didn’t intend to make a public threat. The key word is “reasonably”—if the group had 5,000 members, thats not private.

The AI-Generated Content Defense (2025 Emerging Issue)

Heres something almost no articles discuss because its so new: What if you used an AI tool like ChatGPT to create content, and the AI generated threatening language you didn’t personally write or fully review?

This is untested legal territory. The statute requires that you “knowingly and willfully” make the threat. If an AI tool created the language based off your prompt, but you didn’t review or approve the specific threatening words, did you make the threat?

Arguments being developed:

• Lack of mens rea: You didn’t have the required criminal intent because you didn’t author the specific words
• Intermediary creation: The AI is an intermediary, similar to someone elses speech you quoted
• Prompt vs. output: Your prompt may have been innocuous (“write a political satire post”), but the AI output included threatening language

Prosecutors are adapting by arguing:

• You chose to use the AI tool
• You posted the output, showing adoption of the content
• You had the opportunity to review before posting

This is going to be litigated heavily in 2025-2027. If you used AI tools and are facing charges, you need an attorney whose following these developments.

Venue, Jurisdiction, and Why Where You’re Charged Matters Enormously

Heres something most people never consider: federal prosecutors can charge you in multiple possible venues, and were you’re charged can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.

How Venue Works in Threat Cases

Under federal law, a crime can be prosecuted in any district were “an act in furtherance” of the crime occured. For online threats, that means:

• Where you posted it (the district your located in)
• Where the threat was recieved (Secret Service headquarters in DC, or wherever an agent viewed it)
• Where the President was located at the time (if you made a specific threat tied to a location)

Example: You post a threat from California. A Secret Service agent in DC reviews it. The President is in Florida at the time. Prosecutors could theoretically charge you in the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, or the Middle District of Florida.

Why This Matters: Circuit Splits on First Amendment Defenses

Different federal circuits have different precedents on First Amendment defenses. Some circuits are defendant-friendly; others are prosecution-friendly.

9th Circuit (CA, OR, WA, AZ, NV, ID, MT, AK, HI): Generally the most defendant-friendly circuit for First Amendment cases. Strong protections for political speech, higher bar for what constitutes a “true threat.”

4th Circuit (VA, MD, WV, NC, SC): Notoriously prosecution-friendly. Lower bar for true threats, less sympathetic to First Amendment defenses. Being charged in Virginia vs. California can mean the difference between dismissal and conviction for the exact same statement.

D.C. Circuit: Mixed, depends heavily on judge assignment. Some judges are very protective of First Amendment rights; others prioritize national security concerns.

Your attorney’s first job is often to challenge venue and try to get the case moved to a more favorable jurisdiction. This is done through a motion to transfer venue, arguing that the proper venue is were you made the statement, not were it was recieved.

Strategic Considerations

Beyond circuit precedent, venue affects:

• Jury pool: Juries in conservative districts may be more sympathetic to “law and order” arguments; juries in progressive districts may be more skeptical of government overreach
• Judge assignment: Some judges have reputations for being harsh on threat cases; others are more lenient
• Prosecutorial resources: U.S. Attorney’s Offices in some districts are more aggressive then others

The State-Federal Overlap Strategy

Heres an advanced strategy that few people know about: If your threat included other people in addition to the President (e.g., “The President and Congress should be hanged”), state prosecutors may also have jurisdiction under state harassment, stalking, or threat laws.

Smart defense attorneys use this overlap to negotiate a deal: plead guilty to a state misdemeanor (harassment or disturbing the peace) in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to charge under § 871.

Why would federal prosecutors agree? Because:

• State prosecution saves them resources
• You still face consequences (conviction, probation, fines)
• The threat is neutralized without a costly federal trial

The result: You avoid federal prison, a federal conviction (which triggers firearm prohibitions and other collateral consequences), and the stigma of “threatening the President.” You plead to a misdemeanor like “harassment” or “disorderly conduct,” get probation, and move on with your life.

Catch: This only works in jurisdictions with progressive district attorneys who view these cases as First Amendment issues rather then national security threats. It also only works if you negotiate before federal charges are filed. Once the feds charge you, state prosecutors usually step aside.

What If You’re Not Charged? The Permanent Watch List

Lets say the Secret Service investigates you and decides not to prosecute. Your in the clear, right?

Not exactly.

The Protective Intelligence Database

Even if your never charged with a crime, the Secret Service will almost certainly place you on there protective intelligence database—a permanent watch list of individuals who have made statements or engaged in behavior that raises concerns about threats to protectees.

This database is not public. Its not subject to judicial review. There is no formal process to petition for removal. Its entirely discretionary, and once your on it, your on it for life.

What Being on the Watch List Means

Heres what nobody tells you about the consequences:

You Cannot Attend Events with Presidential Protectees: If the President, Vice President, or any other Secret Service protectee is scheduled to attend a public event, you will be denied entry. Secret Service advance teams cross-reference attendee lists, security screenings, and ticket purchases against the watch list. If you show up, you’ll be removed—sometimes publicly, sometimes with local police involvement.

This means:

• No campaign rallies
• No presidential speeches or town halls
• No public events were protectees appear (even non-political events like charity dinners)
• If you work in a building the President visits, you may be asked to leave for the day

Enhanced TSA Screening: You may be flagged for additional screening at airports. This doesn’t mean your on the “no-fly list”—you can still fly—but expect secondary searches, longer wait times, and extra scrutiny.

Background Check Flags: If you apply for federal employment, security clearances, or certain professional licenses, the investigation will appear in background checks. While it won’t automatically disqualify you (you weren’t convicted of anything), it raises red flags that you’ll have to explain.

Future Arrests Trigger Review: If your ever arrested for any crime in the future—even something minor like DUI or domestic dispute—federal prosecutors may revisit the threat case as part of sentencing considerations. The old investigation suddenly becomes relevant again.

No Way Out

Unlike sex offender registries (which have removal processes in some states) or the TSA no-fly list (which has an administrative appeal process), the Secret Service protective intelligence database has no removal mechanism.

You can’t petition to be removed. You can’t appeal. You can’t ask a judge to order your removal. Its entirely within Secret Service discretion, and they almost never remove people.

This is, in effect, a life sentence on you’re political participation rights. You cannot fully engage in democratic processes if you can’t attend events were the President speaks. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Advanced Strategies: Proffer Agreements and High-Risk Negotiations

If your facing likely prosecution, your attorney may discuss two high-risk, high-reward strategies: proffer agreements and state-federal overlap negotiations. These are advanced tactics that should only be attempted by experienced federal attorneys.

Proffer Agreements: “Queen for a Day”

A proffer agreement—sometimes called a “Queen for a Day” agreement—allows you to provide information to federal prosecutors with limited immunity. What you say in the proffer can’t be used against you directly as evidence in court, but it can be used to develop other evidence.

How It Works:

1. You’re attorney negotiates a proffer agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office
2. You meet with prosecutors and agents to explain you’re side of the story
3. Anything you say is “off the record” for direct use, but prosecutors can use the information to find witnesses, documents, or other evidence
4. If prosecutors find corroborating evidence through other means, they can use it against you

When It Makes Sense:

Proffers work when you have exculpatory information that can close the case. Example: “I posted that in response to a friend’s joke about political satire. Heres the thread showing the context. Heres the friend who will confirm it was satire.” If the context genuinely shows no threat, prosecutors may decline to charge.

When Its a Trap:

Proffers backfire when you inadvertently provide evidence of intent. Example: “I was furious at the President and wanted to scare people into taking action.” You just admitted intent and awareness—prosecutors now interview the “people” you mentioned, subpoena you’re social media to show “fury,” and build a case around you’re own words. They can’t use the proffer statement itself, but they can use everything they found because of it.

The Risk: Most criminal defense attorneys don’t fully understand proffer nuances. They think “limited immunity” means safety. It doesn’t. You can destroy you’re case in a proffer if your not careful.

Rule: Only proffer if you have genuinely exculpatory information and an attorney whose done this successfully before. Otherwise, stay silent.

The State Misdemeanor Plea Strategy

As mentioned earlier, if you’re threat included others besides the President, state prosecutors may have jurisdiction. Heres how the negotiation works:

1. Before federal charges are filed, you’re attorney contacts the local district attorney
2. You agree to plead guilty to a state misdemeanor (harassment, disorderly conduct, etc.)
3. You’re attorney then contacts the U.S. Attorney’s Office and says, “My client is pleading guilty at the state level and will be on probation. Will you decline federal prosecution?”
4. If federal prosecutors agree, you plead to the misdemeanor, get probation, and avoid federal charges entirely

Why prosecutors agree: Your being punished, the threat is neutralized, and they save resources. Its a win-win from there perspective.

Why this is better for you: A state misdemeanor is vastly better then a federal felony. Misdemeanors don’t carry mandatory firearm prohibitions (in most states), don’t trigger federal sentencing guidelines, and don’t carry the same employment stigma.

Geographic limitations: This strategy works best in jurisdictions with progressive DAs (major cities in blue states). Conservative prosecutors are less likely to negotiate this way—they defer to federal authorities.

Real Case Outcomes: What Actually Happens to People in Your Situation

Lets look at actual data and recent cases to set realistic expectations.

Prosecution Rates

Of the 4,000-5,000 threat investigations the Secret Service conducts annually, approximatley 15-20% result in federal charges. That means 80-85% of people investigated are not prosecuted.

Of those charged, the federal conviction rate is about 95%. Most convictions come from plea deals, not trials. Very few defendants go to trial in these cases because the risk is to high—if you lose at trial, judges tend to impose harsher sentences then if you’d pled guilty.

Sentencing Realities

If you are convicted, heres what sentencing typically looks like based off recent cases:

First offense, no weapons, no prior criminal history: Often probation or 6-18 months in federal prison. Judges consider mitigating factors like mental health, lack of actual intent to carry out the threat, and remorse.

Firearms involved: If you owned guns or made references to firearms in the threat, expect 2-4 years. Federal sentencing guidelines impose enhancements for weapons.

Prior criminal history: Prior convictions—especially violent crimes—result in longer sentences. Repeat offenders can face the full 5 years.

Mental health issues: Evidence of mental illness can be a mitigating factor, but its not a defense. Judges sometimes order treatment as part of sentencing rather then straight prison time.

Recent Cases (2024-2025)

Christopher Davies (Cape Coral, Florida – November 2025): Davies, age 31, pleaded guilty to threatening to assassinate the President. He had posted statements online and is awaiting sentencing. Prosecutors are seeking a significant prison term based off the specificity of his threats. This case is still pending sentencing, but he faces up to 5 years.

Phoenix Man (January 2024): A Phoenix resident was arrested for making online death threats against the President, including posts with hashtags like “#joeAndKamala.” The case involved specific language indicating intent. The defendant was arrested and charged; the case outcome hasn’t been publicly disclosed yet, but the arrest itself shows the Secret Service’s aggressive approach to online threats during election cycles.

Lessons from These Cases:

• Specific language (“assassinate,” direct threats) results in charges
• Online posts are treated as seriously as in-person statements
• Election cycles see increased enforcement
• Cooperation doesn’t always prevent charges—both defendants likely spoke to investigators before arrest

Final Thoughts: What You Need to Do Right Now

If the Secret Service has contacted you, your in crisis mode. I get it. Your scared. You feel like you’re life is over. But heres the reality: the vast majority of people in you’re situation do not go to prison. What separates those who walk away from those who face prosecution is almost always what they do in the first 72 hours.

Action Steps:

1. Do NOT talk to the Secret Service without an attorney. Invoke your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights immediately. Silence is not an admission of guilt—its you’re constitutional right.
2. Find a federal criminal defense attorney TODAY. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Today. Look for someone with experience in 18 U.S.C. § 871 cases, preferably someone with security clearance or prior government experience.
3. Do NOT delete posts or try to “fix” anything. Obstruction of justice charges are worse then the original threat charge. Leave everything alone and let you’re attorney handle it.
4. Understand that silence protects you. The Secret Service needs you’re admissions to build there case in most borderline situations. Without you’re cooperation, many cases can’t be prosecuted.
5. Know that even political hyperbole has consequences. You may not go to prison, but you’ll likely be on a watch list for life. Take this seriously.

This article provides legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. If your under investigation, contact a federal criminal defense attorney in you’re jurisdiction immediately.

Don’t wait. Don’t think you can explain you’re way out. Get help now.