James Comey indicted over seashells social media post
The Justice Department charged former FBI Director James Comey with threatening President Trump's life by posting a seashells photo on Instagram.
Objective Facts
The Justice Department secured an indictment charging former FBI Director James Comey with threatening the life of President Donald Trump by posting a photo of seashells on Instagram, showing shells in the shape of "8647". Citing the slang meaning of "86" as to "nix" or "get rid" of something, allies of the president allege that the post was a veiled threat against Trump, who is the 47th president. The indictment alleges Comey "did knowingly and willfully make a threat" in that he "publicly posted a photograph on the internet social media site Instagram which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out \"86 47\", which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States". Comey's lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said "Mr. Comey vigorously denies the charges" and "We will contest these charges in the courtroom and look forward to vindicating Mr. Comey and the First Amendment". Comey said in a video response "I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let's go".
Left-Leaning Perspective
Left-leaning coverage and legal analysts argued this indictment represents weaponization of the Justice Department against Trump's political enemies. University of Notre Dame Law School professor and former federal prosecutor Jimmy Gurulé called the indictment "an embarrassment to the American criminal justice system," declaring "Every DOJ lawyer that played a role in returning this frivolous indictment should be ashamed." Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., issued a statement calling it "another case of a weaponized Justice Department lashing out on behalf of a vengeful President." Legal scholars challenged the prosecution's core theory. George Washington University Law professor Mary Anne Franks argued prosecutors would need to show clear meaning but said Comey's post is "a very ambiguous statement at best." Michael Moore, who served as US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, told CNN that "A picture of seashells spelling 86 is unlikely to meet that bar" for threatening language, and "This is not (Comey) saying, 'I am going to kill him.'" Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade told Newsweek that if the case goes to trial, "I can't imagine any jury finding unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey communicated 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." Left-leaning outlets and officials emphasized the political dimensions of the prosecution. PBS NewsHour reported the case "is part of the Trump administration Justice Department's relentless effort to prosecute political opponents of the Republican president." Coverage noted that pursuing a new case months after a separate indictment was dismissed "could expose the government to claims of a vindictive prosecution and to arguments that it is going out of its way to target Comey."
Right-Leaning Perspective
Right-leaning coverage and Trump administration officials defended the prosecution as a legitimate threat case. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche argued that Comey's post crossed the line between First Amendment-protected speech and speech warranting prosecution, asserting "It's not a very difficult line to look at, and it's not, in my mind, a difficult line for one to cross over, one way or the other." Blanche stated "We cannot, you are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States of America" and cited federal statute passed by Congress that "we charge multiple times a year." Trump himself framed the post as a clear violent threat. In a Fox News interview in May 2025, Trump accused Comey of knowing "exactly what that meant," saying "A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear." Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for Comey's imprisonment, telling Fox News "James Comey in my view should be held accountable and put behind bars for this." Right-leaning justification rested on interpreting the slang meaning of "86." Allies of the president alleged that the post was a veiled threat against Trump, citing "the slang meaning of '86' as to 'nix' or 'get rid' of something, with Trump being the 47th president." The DOJ defended itself by saying it is "treating Comey the same as it would anyone accused of threatening the president."
Deep Dive
The Comey seashells indictment represents a fundamental clash over First Amendment boundaries and presidential power in an era of intense political polarization. The specific angle here is not whether Comey criticized Trump—that is protected—but whether a coded ambiguous image can constitute a prosecutable threat, and whether this prosecution reflects genuine law enforcement or retaliation against a prominent critic. The legal and factual landscape reveals genuine complexity. Prosecutors will face a "high legal bar" under Supreme Court precedent that requires clear intent. Other political figures from both parties have used the "86" nomenclature without prosecution, which cuts both ways: it suggests either the DOJ is selectively targeting Comey, or these other instances were simply not investigated thoroughly. The structural fact that Trump publicly ordered the prosecution and then fired the Attorney General for insufficient zeal in pursuing his foes before elevating Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer, to acting AG—this timing and sequence creates plausible grounds for the selective prosecution claim, though it does not definitively prove it in law. What each side gets right and what they miss: The left correctly identifies the institutional risks of prosecuting highly ambiguous political speech. Multiple legal scholars genuinely believe this case will fail or be dismissed on constitutional grounds. But the left somewhat minimizes that the "86" slang can plausibly be read as violent in certain contexts, and that presidential safety is a legitimate government interest. The right correctly notes that threats against a sitting president are routinely prosecuted and that ambiguous speech sometimes requires jury determination. But the right glosses over the particular context—that this prosecution came only after Trump publicly demanded it, that the first Comey indictment (on unrelated charges) was dismissed as unlawfully prosecuted, and that the phrase "86 47" has become common political protest language, making selective enforcement concerns concrete rather than speculative.