Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for a second time by the Department of Justice. The charges stem from a social media post featuring a photograph of seashells arranged to form the numbers 86 and 47.
Critics and administration officials interpreted the post as a veiled threat against President Donald Trump. The number 86 is often used as slang for removal, while 47 corresponds to Trump’s current presidential term.
Comey initially shared the image on Instagram with a caption describing a beach walk. He later deleted the post and clarified that he did not intend to convey a violent message. He stated that he was unaware of the specific associations some individuals make with those numbers.
Despite his explanation, the Secret Service conducted an extensive interview with the former director. High-ranking officials, including then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, publicly condemned the post as a call for assassination. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also expressed significant concern regarding the president's safety.
Legal experts suggest that the case may face significant hurdles due to robust free speech protections. This indictment represents a broader, ongoing effort by the current administration to prosecute prominent political opponents. It follows a previous attempt to charge Comey regarding alleged leaks to the press, which was dismissed by a federal judge.
The dismissal of the prior case was attributed to procedural errors involving the appointment of the interim US Attorney. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has since accelerated the pace of investigations that align with the president's public priorities.
The relationship between Comey and Trump has been deeply adversarial since the 2017 firing of the FBI director. That dismissal occurred during the height of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Since leaving office, Comey has remained a vocal critic of the administration, further fueling the political divide.
As the legal proceedings move forward, the case highlights the intensifying friction between the executive branch and former intelligence officials. Observers are closely watching how the courts will balance national security concerns with constitutional rights. The outcome of this trial could set a significant precedent for how social media activity is treated under federal law.