Former FBI Director James Comey has requested a court toss the case accusing him of threatening President Trump’s life with seashells arranged in such a manner as to read “86 47.”
“To justify this prosecution, the indictment alleges that Mr. Comey’s ‘86 47’ post constitutes a ‘true threat’ on the President’s life. That claim is contradicted by every possible source of meaning: dictionaries, context, precedent, and common sense,” the new filing reads.
“‘86’ simply means ‘get rid of’ or ‘eject’ and has no violent connotation except in the most uncommon usages. Most dictionaries do not even list the meaning—’to kill’—that the government now proposes. And when combined with ’47’—slang for President Trump, the forty-seventh President—’86’ becomes nothing more than a call to oppose President Trump. Thus, in this context, no reasonable observer would understand the phrase ‘86 47’ to connote violence at all—let alone to threaten that Mr. Comey personally would commit violence against the President.”
The filing further alleged that, if anything, Comey’s seashell post could be recognized as “protected political hyperbole.”
“And such a hyperbolic appeal to others would not remotely qualify as an incitement to violence—an offense the indictment does not charge in any event. The true-threat theory thus fails under an objective reasonable observer test as a matter of law,” the document adds. “Courts have regularly dismissed indictments alleging statements far more ‘threatening’ than Mr. Comey’s social media post, and the same result is warranted here.”
Comey’s trial on the matter has been set for October 21.
“Taking defendant’s request and the government’s lack of opposition into account, the court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance and setting arraignment for September 30, 2026, outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial,” the order reads. “The gravity of the charges, anticipated further discovery production to defendant, and the need to provide defendant time to file motions based upon same promote need for continuance. Implicit in the government’s reported statement of no opposition here is the government’s agreement that the ends of justice served by this continuance, for direct benefit of defendant, outweigh the interests of the public in a speedy trial.”
