The Justice Department is fighting to keep the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey alive, telling a federal judge that a jury—not the court—should determine whether his social media post depicting seashells arranged to read “86 47” amounted to a genuine threat against President Trump.
In a filing this week, prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina argued that Comey’s attempt to have the indictment dismissed prematurely would improperly strip jurors of their role. “The issue presented is who should answer the ‘true threats’ question,” they wrote. “Comey seeks to take the question away from the jury before the government presents any evidence (or even allegations setting forth its theory of the case).” They added that “no authority supports his attempt to shortcircuit these proceedings.”
Comey’s legal team filed a motion last month to throw out the charges, asserting that the case is politically motivated and that the image alone cannot be interpreted as a credible threat. They argued that “86” commonly means “get rid of” or “eject,” and that the phrase “86 47”—where “47” refers to Trump as the 47th president—is merely a call for political opposition, not violence. “In this context, no reasonable observer would understand the phrase ‘’86 47’’ to connote violence at all,” his attorneys wrote.
But federal prosecutors contend that the full context of the post, including surrounding circumstances and Comey’s own actions, supports a different reading. They noted that Comey deleted the post shortly after publishing it, which they argue suggests he recognized it could be seen as menacing. “It would be exceedingly odd for this Court to dismiss an indictment concerning a post that Comey agrees could have been understood to convey a violent message depending on the context,” they wrote, “without the government having ever had the opportunity to present evidence of that context.”
The government emphasized that its indictment does not need to spell out every piece of evidence, and that additional material will be introduced at trial, scheduled for October. “There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey’s post could read it to mean ‘Kill President Trump,’” prosecutors stated.
This is the second prosecution brought against Comey, who has been a frequent target of Trump’s ire. His lawyers have repeatedly alleged that the charges are part of a broader pattern of political retribution by the administration. The case has drawn attention amid ongoing debates over the limits of free speech and the definition of true threats in the digital age.
The judge overseeing the case has not yet ruled on the dismissal motion. Legal analysts say the outcome could hinge on how courts balance First Amendment protections against the government’s interest in preventing credible threats against public officials. The case also intersects with broader political tensions, as Trump’s approval ratings face new pressures and his legal battles continue to unfold.
Comey’s defense team remains adamant that the prosecution is an overreach. “To justify this prosecution, the indictment alleges that Mr. Comey’s ‘’86 47’’ post constitutes a ‘true threat’ on the President’s life,” they wrote. “That claim is contradicted by every possible source of meaning: dictionaries, context, precedent, and common sense.”
The court’s decision will likely have implications for how similar cases are handled, especially those involving political speech and social media. For now, the Justice Department is pressing forward, insisting that the jury should have the final say.
