The FBI interviewed Salvatore Gravano, known as "Sammy the Bull" and former underboss of the Gambino crime family, to ask whether former FBI Director James Comey likely knew what the term "86" means in mob parlance, according to court documents filed in federal court.

The interview is part of an ongoing case against Comey in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Justice Department charged Comey in April with threatening President Donald Trump and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce over a May 2025 Instagram post displaying seashells arranged to read "8647." Prosecutors allege "86" is slang for killing someone, while "47" refers to Trump as the 47th president.

Gravano had direct familiarity with Comey due to Comey's role as lead prosecutor in United States v. John Gambino et al. in the 1990s. Gravano served as a cooperating witness in that trial.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative commentators and Trump allies have defended the prosecution, arguing that a former FBI director should face heightened scrutiny given his position of authority and knowledge of law enforcement terminology.

The Justice Department has alleged that Comey, with his background prosecuting organized crime, would have been intimately familiar with mob slang including "86" meaning to kill someone. Court documents show Gravano told investigators during a May 2026 phone call that Comey "had to know" what the term meant based on their prior professional interactions.

Prosecutors argue that Comey's legal expertise and experience prosecuting the Gambino family make it implausible he would not have understood the violent implications of his social media post. The affidavit from Gravano, prepared by defense lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald supporting Comey's motions to dismiss, documents Gravano's belief that Comey "had to know" what "86" meant.

Trump supporters have pointed to the timing and content of the post as evidence of intent to threaten, arguing that someone with Comey's background would understand how such imagery could be interpreted as a call for violence against the president.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive legal analysts and Comey supporters have questioned the merits of the charges against the former FBI director, arguing the case represents an overreach by the Justice Department under Trump-era prosecutions.

Defense lawyers for Comey cited the Gravano interview in motions to dismiss the case. The defense has argued that even if Comey understood "86" as a reference to killing, posting seashells found on a beach did not constitute a true threat but rather political expression protected under the First Amendment.

Comey himself has stated he found the seashell arrangement and did not arrange it himself. In a May 2025 interview with MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, Comey said: "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." He added that he removed the post after learning of certain interpretations and has never been associated with violence.

Civil liberties groups have raised concerns about prosecuting what they characterize as ambiguous social media posts, warning such cases could chill protected political speech.

What the Numbers Show

The federal charges carry potential penalties including imprisonment for making threats against a president. The case is being prosecuted in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the Trump administration's Justice Department.

Court documents show Gravano's recorded FBI interview lasted 25 minutes. According to the affidavit, FBI searches of Gambino case materials from Comey's prosecution found no references to "86" in official case files or documented discussions between Comey and Gravano.

Gravano stated that while he believed Comey's post was a call for violence against Trump ("let's kill Trump"), he did not claim the seashell image constituted a statement threatening that Comey himself would personally carry out the killing. This distinction is central to Comey's defense arguments.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William Taylor had been handling the prosecution but stepped down, with another assistant U.S. attorney subsequently stepping into the case. The reason for Taylor's departure has not been publicly disclosed.

The Bottom Line

The Comey case raises significant legal questions about the boundaries of protected speech on social media and the evidentiary standards required to prove criminal intent in threatening communications. A key dispute centers on whether Comey's background prosecuting organized crime establishes knowledge of mob terminology that would undermine his claim of innocent intent.

What happens next: The court will rule on Comey's motions to dismiss the charges. If the case proceeds, both sides are expected to present expert testimony on the meaning and cultural context of terms like "86" in criminal circles. The outcome could establish precedent for how federal prosecutors handle ambiguous social media posts by public figures.

What to watch for: Any additional evidence about who created the seashell arrangement and posted it to Comey's account, as well as whether other individuals with knowledge of mob slang were consulted during the investigation.