Good mind reading.
Actually you are wrong. People who think something or even state how they feel, or state what they dream of witnessing are not guilty of any crime. Which is of course why the entire left of this country was not arrested.
Here is the law:
"What Constitutes a "Threat?"
According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Witnessing (or wanting to witness) an event is not at all the same as committing an event. If it were then all sorts of people would have been guilty when Kennedy was shot. And when Lincoln was shot probably 30% of the country was glad.
According to the law above threatening the president with harm is included in the same law as threatening the president with death.
That would make Greco and this other hateful person equally guilty of wanting a president to be harmed or killed.
This other guy did not actually threaten the president. When Greco played that video game could one say that he was rehearsing? When he posted it for others to play was he advocating that? Clearly simulated acts of violence against a president fit the law more than wishes to witness those events.
And despite all that neither one actually made any threat at all.
And why was it not a threat?
“In order to punish someone for threatening the life of the president under the First Amendment, the government has to be able to prove a true threat, and there must be intent,” said Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “If you crudely say, ‘Oh I could just kill the president,’ that is not a true threat, and therefore, it is protected political speech.”