Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed charges against former FBI Director James Comey, alleging that an image he shared on social media of seashells arranged in the shape of two numbers amounted to “serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President.”
Comey posted the picture in May 2025, displaying shells he found on a beach during his family vacation. The shells made out the numbers “86” and “47.”
The “47” alludes to Donald Trump, as he is currently the 47th president of the United States. The meaning behind “86” is up for debate, with the administration alleging that it demonstrated a desire by Comey for Trump to be harmed.
That number, however, has historically meant to “throw out,” “get rid of,” or “refuse service to” items or people, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It is a common phrase at restaurants, for example, to indicate to staff that a menu item is no longer available for a particular day.
Some people interpret the number to mean “kill.” When social media users commented on Comey’s post questioning if that was his intended meaning, he immediately deleted the post, and explained in a subsequent post that that wasn’t his intent.
“It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down,” Comey wrote.
Nevertheless, the DOJ secured a grand jury indictment listing two charges against Comey — one alleging he violated federal law by making a direct threat against the president’s life, and the other regarding his transmitting such a threat over state lines via social media.
The department alleges that Comey “knowingly and willfully made a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States,” and that he “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communication would be viewed as threatening violence.”
This is the second indictment Comey has faced from the DOJ since Trump re-entered the White House. The first one he faced was dismissed on procedural grounds last fall.
Reacting to the new indictment, Comey released a video message on Tuesday.
“This won’t be the end of it, but nothing has changed with me,” he said. “I am still innocent. I am still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So, let’s go.”
Comey has been the subject of Trump’s ire for many years, dating back to his first term when the former FBI director refused to drop an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Trump eventually fired Comey over the matter, and years later, appeared to admit he did so to protect himself politically.
The new case will undoubtedly face multiple legal challenges. Comey could again challenge the charges based on procedural grounds, as current FBI Director Kash Patel said during a press conference on Tuesday that the grand jury came to the decision based on Comey’s choice to delete the post and apologize, claiming that the move implied guilt.
Anna Bower, senior editor at Lawfare, reacted to Patel’s explanation by questioning whether Patel had broken grand jury secrecy laws.
“Hmm. Did the FBI director just disclose evidence presented before a grand jury?” Bower asked on social media.
Patel also told reporters that his agency had been investigating the case “over the past 9, 10, 11 months.”
Legal experts believe the case is flimsy, at best, and indicative of the DOJ’s desire to stay in Trump’s good graces, after he previously made public demands to charge Comey and other figures he deemed to be his adversaries in a Truth Social post last year. Such orders from the president may make the case against Comey more difficult to prove, as it could be argued that the charges are based on a desire to settle a political score, rather than on a legitimate concern for the president’s life.
Former U.S. attorney and MS NOW legal analyst Barbara McQuade panned the decision to target Comey with these charges.
“Under First Amendment jurisprudence, a threat may be prosecuted only if it amounts to a ‘true’ threat, which the Supreme Court has defined as a serious expression conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence,” McQuade pointed out.
“The timing is also suspect,” she added. “The conduct described in this new indictment occurred almost a year ago. If this were a serious crime, the Justice Department would not have waited so long to indict.”
“It’s specious, it’ll be thrown out, it’s classic revenge. … It’s a document that really isn’t worth anything other than the PR that the president’s trying to get to intimidate Comey and others who might speak out against him,” said former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb. “It’s a vindictive prosecution; the previous attempts to get Comey certainly buttress that argument.”
“I have to say I must be in a parallel universe to be talking about the shell artwork of James Comey. … I think that just showing the picture is going to be a weak case in terms of a threat,” said conservative constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley in an appearance on Fox News. “In my view, it would very likely be viewed as protected speech.”
Journalist Radley Balko also criticized the case, saying it was evident that the Justice Department is primarily concerned with catering to Trump’s wishes.
“The Comey indictment isn’t an ‘uphill battle’ for DOJ. It isn’t ‘questionable.’ It isn’t debatable. It’s an insane abuse of power, and it isn’t remotely close,” Balko said on Bluesky.
“Disbar these lawyers,” constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said.
“This might be the worst case DOJ has filed in my lifetime,” a former DOJ official said, speaking to CNN about the case.
Media that fights fascism
Truthout is funded almost entirely by readers — that’s why we can speak truth to power and cut against the mainstream narrative. But independent journalists at Truthout face mounting political repression under Trump.
We rely on your support to survive McCarthyist censorship. Please make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation.