Justice Department Indicts Comey Second Time Over Instagram Seashell Post

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Tuesday over a photo of seashells that officials said threatened President Donald Trump, marking the administration's second attempt to prosecute one of his largest political opponents.

Objective Facts

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Tuesday over a photo of seashells that officials said threatened President Donald Trump, marking the administration's second attempt to prosecute one of his largest political opponents. The seashells spelled out the numbers "86 47," where 86 can often refer to getting rid of or tossing something out, while 47 corresponds to Trump's current term in office as the 47th president. The charges include making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, approved by a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina. This is the second effort by Trump's Justice Department to convict the former director; in September the Justice Department first brought charges accusing Comey of lying to Congress, but the case was dismissed late last year by a federal judge who found that the interim U.S. Attorney had been improperly appointed. Comey's attorney Patrick Fitzgerald stated his client "vigorously denies the charges contained in the Indictment" and said "We will contest these charges in the courtroom and look forward to vindicating Mr. Comey and the First Amendment".

Left-Leaning Perspective

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace characterized the DOJ action as "Waging an all out war on free speech". Under the circumstances described in MS NOW's Rachel Maddow-associated outlet, it's likely the Trump appointees at the DOJ were looking for a way to charge Comey, and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was in a position to either green light the indictment or to quash it, and the former Trump defense lawyer apparently chose the former. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh from Stanford's Hoover Institution told CNN "This is clearly not a punishable threat," and prosecutors face a high legal bar. Critics argue that given "86 47" can be found on merchandise and has been used by others not prosecuted, singling out Comey alone constitutes selective prosecution consistent with DOJ official Ed Martin's pledge to "name and shame" those who allegedly weaponized government. According to Mary Anne Franks, a George Washington University Law professor, prosecutors would need to show clear meaning that a reasonable recipient would feel was a threat, but Comey's post is "a very ambiguous statement at best". Under recent Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors would have to show that Comey was aware his message could make recipients fearful and that he callously disregarded the risk it would be perceived that way. Left-leaning coverage emphasizes that others have posted similar "86" images without prosecution, including conservative commentators and public figures. The coverage emphasizes First Amendment concerns and the pattern of prosecutions against Trump's perceived enemies, but does not deeply engage with the government's argument about context and intent.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on CBS Mornings denied political direction, stating "Of course not, absolutely, positively not" when asked if Trump directed the prosecution, claiming "This is something that has been investigated for nearly a year now, and the results of that investigation is that a grand jury returned an indictment". Blanche stated "While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute". Rep. Dan Meuser argued to NewsNation that "when the former FBI director writes in the sand, 86-47, which means, kill the 47th president, that's concerning," claiming there is something called "dangerous speak" that "invokes in others the desire to carry out violent acts" and "what James Comey put out" could be interpreted that way. Blanche emphasized that given recent attacks on Trump, the prosecution is justified, stating "If anybody in this country thinks that it is okay for anybody to threaten the president of the United States" given "what happened over the past couple of years with respect to President Trump, then we have a bigger problem," and defended the charges by insisting those "who tries to put forward some narrative that this is just about seashells or something to the contrary is missing the point". Blanche referenced that the DOJ has prosecuted several other cases against people threatening Trump and characterized Comey's alleged conduct as "the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate". The post in May prompted an uproar among some Republicans, with Donald Trump Jr. accusing Comey of "calling for my dad to be murdered". Right-wing coverage emphasizes the seriousness of threatening the president, the context of Trump's recent assassination attempt, and frames the prosecution as consistent enforcement of existing law rather than political persecution.

Deep Dive

The new case represents a reinvigorated effort to satisfy Trump's demands to investigate his own foes, including Comey, who he sees as a key leader in the perceived effort to "weaponize" the justice system against him. The indictment comes less than a month after the president dismissed Attorney General Pam Bondi, after Trump had for weeks complained that Bondi was not aggressive enough in executing his agenda. Comey posted the image in May 2025 showing seashells spelling "86 47," with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk," then deleted it the same day. The prosecution faces significant legal and practical obstacles. Prosecutors will likely face a high legal bar to prove that the Instagram post constituted a "true threat," which the Supreme Court in 2023 found required showing an individual understood their message would be perceived as threatening, and with the phrase "86 47" increasingly adopted by protesters of the Trump administration, the case could carry sweeping implications for the First Amendment. The government's problem in proving this isn't selective prosecution is significant—many others have used the "86" formulation without it being interpreted as a threat, including pro-Trump influencer Jack Posobiec in 2022 posting "86 46" about Biden. There is also no evidence of similar investigation of Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who appeared on TV in 2020 with "86 45" displayed next to her. What remains unresolved is whether Comey will face trial, whether the First Amendment defense will succeed at dismissal, and what precedent—if any—this case sets for political speech protections in an era when certain phrases have become coded political messaging.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Justice Department Indicts Comey Second Time Over Instagram Seashell Post

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Tuesday over a photo of seashells that officials said threatened President Donald Trump, marking the administration's second attempt to prosecute one of his largest political opponents.

Apr 28, 2026· Updated Apr 29, 2026
What's Going On

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Tuesday over a photo of seashells that officials said threatened President Donald Trump, marking the administration's second attempt to prosecute one of his largest political opponents. The seashells spelled out the numbers "86 47," where 86 can often refer to getting rid of or tossing something out, while 47 corresponds to Trump's current term in office as the 47th president. The charges include making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, approved by a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina. This is the second effort by Trump's Justice Department to convict the former director; in September the Justice Department first brought charges accusing Comey of lying to Congress, but the case was dismissed late last year by a federal judge who found that the interim U.S. Attorney had been improperly appointed. Comey's attorney Patrick Fitzgerald stated his client "vigorously denies the charges contained in the Indictment" and said "We will contest these charges in the courtroom and look forward to vindicating Mr. Comey and the First Amendment".

Left says: MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace characterized the DOJ as "Waging an all out war on free speech" in pursuing the indictment, while legal experts contend the post falls within First Amendment protections and the prosecution amounts to selective political targeting of a Trump critic.
Right says: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche argued the prosecution was not politically motivated, stating the case "has been investigated for nearly a year now, and the results of that investigation is that a grand jury returned an indictment", while Republican lawmakers defend the charges as necessary prosecution of threatening conduct.
✓ Common Ground
Some voices across perspectives acknowledge that Supreme Court precedent has placed a high bar for convictions in threat cases, with even legal experts skeptical the prosecution would be successful, as Eugene Volokh stated "This is clearly not a punishable threat".
Both sides acknowledge the ambiguity in the term "86" and its widespread use in American slang and commercial contexts.
Some observers across the spectrum note that many others have used the "86" formulation without it being interpreted as a threat, including pro-Trump influencer Jack Posobiec who posted "86 46" about Biden.
Objective Deep Dive

The new case represents a reinvigorated effort to satisfy Trump's demands to investigate his own foes, including Comey, who he sees as a key leader in the perceived effort to "weaponize" the justice system against him. The indictment comes less than a month after the president dismissed Attorney General Pam Bondi, after Trump had for weeks complained that Bondi was not aggressive enough in executing his agenda. Comey posted the image in May 2025 showing seashells spelling "86 47," with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk," then deleted it the same day.

The prosecution faces significant legal and practical obstacles. Prosecutors will likely face a high legal bar to prove that the Instagram post constituted a "true threat," which the Supreme Court in 2023 found required showing an individual understood their message would be perceived as threatening, and with the phrase "86 47" increasingly adopted by protesters of the Trump administration, the case could carry sweeping implications for the First Amendment. The government's problem in proving this isn't selective prosecution is significant—many others have used the "86" formulation without it being interpreted as a threat, including pro-Trump influencer Jack Posobiec in 2022 posting "86 46" about Biden. There is also no evidence of similar investigation of Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who appeared on TV in 2020 with "86 45" displayed next to her. What remains unresolved is whether Comey will face trial, whether the First Amendment defense will succeed at dismissal, and what precedent—if any—this case sets for political speech protections in an era when certain phrases have become coded political messaging.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets use sarcasm and phrases like "seashells" in quotation marks to suggest frivolity, while right-leaning sources treat the charges with gravitas, emphasizing presidential safety and the seriousness of even ambiguous threats. Left uses "alleged threat" more frequently; right uses "threat" without qualification.