No, I'm claiming he has no more legal right to make threats than any other person. There is a large difference there. Largely speaking a persons right to make threats is protected under the first amendment.
There are very narrow instances where verbal or written threats become assault (or terrorism, or attempts to incite a riot, etc); and since one of the criteria there is ability to carry out threat, someone in a position of power has somewhat more liability here, not less.
Which is all besides the point -- twitter isn't a government entity; your first amendment protections don't apply to their ban hammer. Their rules and regulations are more restrictive in all cases than what is allowed by law.
> You mean as in the case that we're discussing?
I mean, yes? My point is that a) Trump is in technical violation of the TOS and b) The TOS constrains the behaviors of the users, not Twitter so they have no real obligation to enforce it.