Former FBI Director James Comey on Monday asked a federal court to dismiss the case accusing him of threatening President Trump's life, arguing that posting a picture of seashells spelling out "86 47" could not legally be considered a "true threat." The filing was made in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The case stems from an Instagram post Comey made showing seashells arranged to read "86 47," which prosecutors interpreted as referencing violence against the president. The number "86" is criminal slang meaning to kill or eliminate someone, while "47" refers to President Trump, who served as the 45th president and returned to office as the 47th president.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil liberties advocates have argued that Comey's prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for interpreting online speech. Defense attorneys and some legal commentators have noted that Comey, a former top law enforcement official, would understand the distinction between protected speech and true threats better than most. Some progressive legal scholars have suggested the case reflects an overly aggressive interpretation of what constitutes a threat under federal law.
What the Right Is Saying
Trump administration allies and conservative commentators have defended the prosecution, arguing that any message referencing harm to the president should be taken seriously regardless of how it is framed. Supporters of the charges contend that Comey, given his background in law enforcement, should have understood the potential implications of posting such imagery. Some Republican officials have called for accountability regardless of the defendant's former position.
What the Numbers Show
Federal law defines a "true threat" as a statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious intent to commit an unlawful act against another person. Courts have consistently held that whether something constitutes a true threat depends on whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm, not merely the subjective intent of the speaker.
The Bottom Line
The case now moves to federal Judge James Dever in the Eastern District of North Carolina for a ruling. Comey's motion hinges on First Amendment protections for speech that does not rise to the level of a true threat. A dismissal would likely be appealed by prosecutors, while a denial could lead to further litigation over whether Comey's intent and the context of his post matter under the law.