A New York man was arrested after posting explicit threats against U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and admitting he traveled across state lines looking for her; federal authorities charged him under a law that can carry up to five years in prison.
Federal prosecutors say Daniel Wayne Kretsinger of Hauppauge, New York, posted two videos on June 30 that threatened to kill Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Authorities arrested him on August 11 and filed a criminal complaint charging him with transmitting a threat to injure a person across state lines, a federal offense carrying a maximum sentence of five years. The complaint alleges the videos named a target, named a city, and described a specific act, which federal law treats as criminal conduct rather than protected speech.
Law enforcement interviewed Kretsinger on July 9, and during that interview he acknowledged the account posting the videos was his. Investigators say he admitted that he had traveled to Washington, D.C., Florida, and Long Island in efforts to find Pirro, which elevates the case from online vitriol to a concrete threat with interstate movement involved. Those admissions are central to the government’s position that the danger was not merely rhetorical.
Federal officers say the videos were explicit and specific. In the first video, Kretsinger appeared shirtless and agitated and issued a direct threat. The complaint quotes him saying the following words verbatim, and those lines are reproduced here exactly as they appear in the public filings:
“Because you’re such a lying despicable piece of s***, I’m specifically targeting you when I come to Washington, D.C., and put a bullet directly between your eyes c***. And if Trump keeps up his bulls*** I may kill the president too.”
Minutes later, the complaint says, a second video followed with more explicit language and another clear threat. The complaint reproduces that second statement word for word, and it is presented here unchanged from the record:
“I’m gonna come to DC very f***in soon sweetheart and I’m gonna put a bullet in your f***in head. I love you, you evil lying dirt bag thieving f***ing b****!”
After Kretsinger was taken into custody, a federal magistrate judge ordered him released to an inpatient psychiatric treatment program, a move the government explicitly opposed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York confirmed the release conditions and the requirement that Kretsinger remain in the treatment facility, but did not provide further detail about the judge or the program. That decision has prompted concern among prosecutors and observers who question whether confinement in a psychiatric setting adequately addresses the interstate travel and targeted nature of the alleged conduct.
Pirro’s office issued a statement responding to the arrest and praising the marshals. The statement appeared in public filings and press material exactly as follows:
“No one should ever be threatened or targeted for violence. Public officials are no exception, and we commend the United States Marshals Service for its swift action.”
The timeline in the filings is straightforward: the threats were posted on June 30, investigators interviewed Kretsinger on July 9, an arrest warrant was issued on August 7, and U.S. Marshals took him into custody on August 11. Prosecutors had urged detention rather than release to inpatient care, citing the graphic nature of the threats and his admissions of travel to locate the target, but the court ordered the psychiatric program placement instead.
Observers note Pirro’s high profile as a federal prosecutor and her involvement in politically sensitive investigations during her tenure as D.C. U.S. Attorney. She has handled high-profile cases that drew national attention, and those roles have put her in the public eye and in the crosshairs of hostile commentary from people on various sides of political disputes. That context helps explain why authorities treated the threats as matters of federal concern.
Kretsinger faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison if convicted on the charge of transmitting a threat across state lines. Court records available to the public do not yet show whether he has entered a plea or retained counsel, and prosecutors have said certain details in the complaint remain under investigation. The filings do not specify the exact timing of his prior trips to Washington, Florida, and Long Island or how close he came to locating Pirro during those travels.
The facts laid out in the complaint raise clear questions about how the courts balance mental health treatment and public safety when someone admits interstate travel to find a federal prosecutor and makes explicit threats on social media. Prosecutors argued for detention, while the magistrate judge chose treatment placement, leaving unsettled what would happen if the defendant leaves the program. That unresolved practical risk is a point of concern for law-and-order advocates who stress accountability and protection for public officials.
As proceedings continue, the government will decide whether to pursue detention further or press forward toward indictment and trial. The case illustrates the intersection of violent threats, social media, interstate conduct, and the criminal justice system’s approach to assessing risk. In the meantime, authorities say the defendant remains under the ordered conditions of inpatient care while the legal process unfolds.
