The FBI interviewed Salvatore 'Sammy the Bull' Gravano, the former underboss of the Gambino crime family, to ask whether former FBI Director James Comey likely knew what the term '86' means in mob terminology, according to court documents filed in Comey's federal criminal case.
Gravano was a cooperating witness during United States v. John Gambino et al. in the 1990s, when Comey served as lead prosecutor.
During a May 2026 phone call with an FBI case agent, Gravano said Comey 'had to know' what '86' meant, according to a sworn affidavit from lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald supporting Comey's motions to dismiss the case.
Comey is facing two federal charges in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina: threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.
The charges stem from a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged on a beach to form '8647,' which prosecutors allege references killing Trump, with '86' as mob slang for killing and '47' referring to Trump as the 47th president.
What the Left Is Saying
Defense lawyers and Comey's supporters argue the prosecution represents government overreach targeting a former FBI director who investigated Trump's political allies.
Comey has maintained he found the seashell display and did not arrange it himself. 'I actually didn't think of it as political speech by me, but I thought, "What a clever way to express a political view." The shells were the same color for each of the letters… It took a lot of work,' Comey told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in May 2025.
The affidavit states: 'During the telephone conversation to discuss the logistics of his forthcoming interview, Mr. Gravano stated his belief that Mr. Comey had to know what the term "86" meant "as it related to killing someone."'
Comey's defense cited Gravano's statement that while he believed the post was 'a call for violence against President Trump ('let's kill Trump'),' Gravano 'did not claim Mr. Comey's seashell post to be a statement threatening that Mr. Comey would personally kill President Trump.'
Civil liberties groups have raised concerns about prosecuting what critics characterize as ambiguous political imagery, arguing that intent and context matter in First Amendment cases.
What the Right Is Saying
Justice Department prosecutors and Republican supporters say any threat against the president must be taken seriously, regardless of whether the poster claims ignorance.
The affidavit notes that FBI searches of Gambino case materials found no references to '86,' which Comey's defense cited as evidence he did not learn the term during his mob prosecutions.
However, Gravano maintained his position that Comey 'had to know' given his years prosecuting organized crime cases in New York.
White House officials have pointed to the seriousness with which federal law treats threats against the president, noting that prosecutors would not bring charges without believing there was sufficient evidence of a credible threat.
What the Numbers Show
The case is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey has filed motions to dismiss both charges.
Gravano's recorded FBI interview lasted 25 minutes, according to the affidavit.
Comey removed the Instagram post shortly after posting it on May 8, 2025, according to his public statements.
The U.S. Department of Justice brought two federal charges against Comey in April 2025: threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen J. Kzmaul replaced the original prosecutor in the case, though court filings do not specify why the change occurred.
The Bottom Line
The Gravano affidavit adds another layer to an unusual prosecution that has raised questions about political motivations and the boundaries of protected speech online.
Comey's defense team continues to argue the charges should be dismissed, contending there was no intent to threaten the president.
A federal judge will ultimately decide whether Comey's motions to dismiss have merit or whether the case proceeds to trial.
The outcome could establish precedent for how prosecutors handle ambiguous political imagery posted on social media platforms.