DOJ argues Comey novel shows he knew ‘86 47’ post was a threat against Trump

It was premeditated. Has anyone bought his book?

Is CNN defending this asshat Comey?

Comey wrote about it being "stochastic terrorism" in his book. Look up the definition.

I am not saying Comey will be convicted for this, possibly insurrection/coup in a Fla GJ?

But this case is a lot stronger than thought. An Emerald Island NC, LEO reported Comey

quote:

---

I in no way interpret 86 to mean violence.

---

OK, but that’s a sign of being old or out of touch.
That’s how TDS liberals interpret it, and that’s what matters.

quote:

---

OK, but that’s a sign of being old or out of touch.
That’s how TDS liberals interpret it, and that’s what matters.

---

Do you have any proof of this? The evidence is completely to the contrary.

Again, lazy way out with ChatGPT:

"There are multiple documented examples of “86 47” being used publicly against Trump without the speaker being prosecuted, and one is particularly significant because it involved a federal court.

1. Accountability Now USA — “86 47” flag
A progressive protest group called Accountability Now USA has displayed a large “86 47” flag at its protest near the National Mall.
The Department of Justice/National Park Service argued that the phrase could be understood as a call for violence against Trump. The group challenged the government's attempt to restrict its demonstration.
On June 1, 2026, federal District Judge Randolph Moss ruled in the group's favor, finding that the evidence did not reasonably establish that the flag was a call to violence. The court understood “86” in its ordinary sense of throw out/get rid of and the message as advocating Trump's political removal/impeachment.

That is a considerably stronger example than simply finding somebody on social media who wasn't prosecuted: the government actually tried to suppress the expression, and a federal judge rejected the argument that “86 47” itself constituted a violent threat.

2. Matt Gaetz — “86'd” Republican leaders
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican, wrote in February 2024:
“We've now 86'd: McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell.”
He was referring to Kevin McCarthy, Ronna McDaniel and Mitch McConnell—all Republicans whom he wanted removed from positions of political power.
Obviously, nobody prosecuted Gaetz for this. PolitiFact documented the post when examining the meaning of “86” after the Comey controversy.

This isn't literally “86 47,” but it's useful evidence of how politicians were using “86” in political speech to mean remove/eliminate someone from a position, rather than kill them.

3. The phrase has been used repeatedly as an anti-Trump protest slogan
“86 47” has appeared on protest signs, flags, merchandise and social media since 2025. PolitiFact found “86 47” merchandise, while also noting that “86 46” merchandise was being sold to mean opposition to Biden.

There have also been physical displays. For example, in June 2026 someone wrote enormous “86 47” markings on the National Mall. The Park Police investigated the incident, but the reporting does not indicate that the person responsible was prosecuted for threatening Trump.

4. A Texas state-fair display
This one is especially interesting because it occurred at a Trump-backed event.
In June 2026, someone wrote “86 47” on a replica of the Cadillac Ranch sculpture at the Great American State Fair's Texas exhibit on the National Mall. The Texas governor's office said the writing was immediately covered and that the incident was being investigated. There was no reported criminal prosecution for threatening Trump.

5. Doug Cooper — the Secret Service investigated, but did not prosecute
A farmer in Mattituck, New York, Doug Cooper, hung a sign reading “86 47” above an American flag for July 4.
The Secret Service subsequently visited him and questioned him. Cooper explained that he meant “dump the guy,” not kill Trump. There is no indication that he was arrested or prosecuted.

quote:

---

Proof of what?

---

Proof that TDS liberals interpret "8647" to be a call to kill President Trump.
.

Somehow I believe the former top law enforcement officer in the country needs to be held to a little bit higher standard than some retard in buttfrick wherever America… His aww shucks I had no idea what it meant routine is pretty lame considering he was probably on the other end of sending in the cavity crew when dip shits made similar threats and statements when he was at his former post.

quote:

---

I can't stand Comey and love seeing him go through this, but I in no way interpret 86 to mean violence.

---

So did you just not read anything in this thread?

Legally, I’ve got no idea what should happen.

But he100% did it to as a continuation of a plan to have some deranged individual assassinate Trump.

quote:

---

dip shits made similar threats and statements when he was at his former post.

---

Y'all keep saying this, but there is simply no proof of that...despite how much most of us think Comey is a scumbag.

Here's a good summary of why Comey will never go to jail on the 8647 charge (in the unlikely event that this make it to trial and conviction, it would be reversed upon appeal):


Courts & Litigation Criminal Justice & the Rule of Law Executive Branch
The FBI Proved Comey’s Innocence. The DOJ Indicted Anyway.
Roger Parloff
Wednesday, August 12, 2026, 10:03 AM

In the seashells case, the FBI searched for proof that gangsters used “86” to mean “kill” and that Comey knew it. Now an expert says their theory is “preposterous.”

From the outset, the most obvious hurdle to bringing the so-called seashells case against former FBI director James Comey—the case stemming from his May 15, 2025, Instagram post of a photograph of shells on a beach arrayed to form the digits “8647”—was proving that any reasonable, objective observer would consider what he did to constitute a threat on the life of the 47th president.

The second most obvious hurdle was proving that Comey himself, as a subjective matter, regarded what he did to be a violent threat. Because threats are by their nature pure speech, proof of some subjective intent to threaten is constitutionally required in such cases. The constitutional minimum, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is that the defendant act with “recklessness.” But in this case, both federal criminal offenses with which Comey was ultimately charged require much more than that. They require proof that the defendant acted “knowingly and willfully” to threaten to “take the life of … or to inflict bodily harm upon” or “to kill” the president.

So early on, those who saw—or were ordered to see—what Comey did in a criminal light developed a theory. The theory was that “86” was a widely known term within organized crime syndicates meaning “to kill,” and that anyone who had spent a lifetime in law enforcement, as Comey had, would have known that.

The stronger form of this theory—and this appears to have become the investigators’ working hypothesis—was that Comey had been provably exposed to the use of “86” as organized crime slang in the course of bringing cases such as United States v. Giovanni Gambino in the Southern District of New York. Comey was the lead prosecutor in the 1993 trial of that case, whose lead defendant was the boss of one of the era’s five New York mafia crime families.

The materials publicly filed in court in connection with Comey’s pretrial motions on July 27 and July 28 show that investigators diligently tracked the latter theory down for 11 months—and, basically, disproved it. They scoured FBI files, judicial case files, and trial transcripts, but found no evidence that Comey was actually exposed to the use of such slang.

Indeed, the FBI found precious little evidence to support even the weaker version of the theory—the speculation that, because such usages were supposedly commonplace, Comey must have been exposed to them. Upon examination, such usages did not, in fact, appear to be commonplace. Nevertheless, on April 28, 2026, federal prosecutors sought and obtained an indictment anyway.

Then investigators kept looking for evidence to back up the prosecution theory. The FBI tracked down two former FBI agents who worked on the Gambino case and even a notorious cooperating witness in that case, Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano, who had admitted involvement in 19 murders. But, again, they found zero direct evidence proving that Comey had ever been exposed to “86” as a slang term meaning “to kill.”

Eventually, shortly after the indictment, a man who seems to be the ultimate expert stepped forward. But for the defense.

On July 28, attorneys for Comey submitted a declaration from John Gleeson, a renowned former assistant U.S. attorney and, later, federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, who specialized in organized crime cases as a prosecutor. Gleeson offered his expert opinion that the theory behind the government’s seashells case was “preposterous.” After decades of investigating, prosecuting, and presiding over such cases, he wrote, he had never come across usage of “86” to mean “to kill” “in any way, shape, or form.”

Yet the seashells case lumbers forward.

This is the sad account of a shameful and vindictive prosecution, in which high-level Justice Department officials are plowing ahead against all credible evidence to punish an enemy of the president. It doesn’t get worse than this."

Lawfare: the FBI Proved Comey’s Innocence