Prosecutors: Comey Seashell Post Could Be Trump Threat

The Department of Justice is defending its prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey, arguing there is “no serious dispute” that a social media post of seashells he made last year could be understood as a threat against President Donald Trump. In court filings submitted Tuesday, federal prosecutors also called into question Comey’s account that he had stumbled upon the seashells arranged in the numerical pattern “86 47” while walking on a North Carolina beach, according to AP News.

The Case

Comey was indicted in April by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina on two counts: making threats to harm President Trump and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The charges stem from a May 2025 Instagram post in which Comey shared a photo of seashells arranged to read “86 47” — a reference to the slang term “86,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “to throw out” or “to get rid of,” and Trump’s status as the 47th president.

“There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey’s post could read it to mean ‘Kill President Trump,’” prosecutors wrote in their latest filing, as reported by The Guardian.

Comey deleted the post shortly after publishing it, saying he did not know that anyone interpreted the numbers as a call to violence. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” he wrote at the time. “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.” The original incident prompted an investigation by the Secret Service, as BBC News reported in May 2025.

The Defense’s Argument

Comey’s lawyers have moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the post was protected political speech that did not constitute a “true threat” under First Amendment jurisprudence. They contend the slogan “86” has long meant “get rid of” or “eject” and has been featured on thousands of items sold online and regularly displayed at protests.

“The indictment alleges that Mr. Comey’s ‘86 47’ post constitutes a ‘true threat’ on the President’s life,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in a July filing. “That claim is contradicted by every possible source of meaning: dictionaries, context, precedent, and common sense.” They further argued that “even if ‘86 47’ could implausibly be read to suggest violence, a reasonable observer would still understand Mr. Comey’s post as mere political hyperbole, not a true threat,” as AP News reported.

Defense lawyers have also alleged serious misconduct by investigators, claiming they misled judges, submitted documents containing false statements, withheld key facts, and conducted “unlawful” surveillance of Comey and his wife. They say the FBI searched internal databases for any association between Comey and the term “86” but found inconclusive results, and that interviews with mob cooperator Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano yielded no evidence that Comey had ever used the term in a violent context, according to AP News.

A Broader Legal Battle

This is the second indictment against Comey, a longtime Trump adversary whom the president fired in 2017 while he was overseeing the FBI’s investigation into potential ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. An earlier case in Virginia accusing Comey of lying to Congress was dismissed in November 2025 after a judge concluded that the prosecutor who charged him was illegally appointed.

In announcing the indictment in April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said: “Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws. The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable,” according to the DOJ press release.

Comey has maintained his innocence, responding to the indictment in a Substack video: “I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So, let’s go,” as Rolling Stone reported.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Legal observers have expressed skepticism about the strength of the government’s case. Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb called it “specious” and “classic revenge,” saying it would likely be thrown out. Conservative constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the case would “very likely be viewed as protected speech.” Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade noted that “the timing is also suspect,” pointing out that the conduct occurred almost a year before the indictment, as reported by Truthout.

The broader meaning of “8647” has been a subject of national debate. The slogan has circulated on protest signs and merchandise since Trump took office, and NPR’s analysis of the term notes that “86” most commonly means “to get rid of” in restaurant and service industry usage, with the violent interpretation being a less common extension, as STLPR reported.

What’s Next

The court must now decide whether to dismiss the charges or allow the case to proceed to trial. The outcome will have significant implications not only for Comey but for the broader debate over the Justice Department’s independence and the limits of political speech under the First Amendment. As the case unfolds, observers will be watching closely to see whether the courts uphold the government’s interpretation of the seashell post — or whether this prosecution becomes a defining test of the Trump administration’s approach to its political opponents.