In a move that has sent shockwaves through the American legal establishment, the Department of Justice has secured a new federal indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. The charges allege that Comey used an Instagram post featuring seashells to issue a veiled threat against the life of President Donald Trump.
The case centers on the interpretation of a social media post from May 2025 where the numbers “86 47” were displayed. Federal prosecutors argue that the arrangement of the shells constitutes a “true threat” under federal law, utilizing a combination of numeric codes that the administration views as an incitement to violence.
The Meaning of “86 47”
The core of the legal dispute hinges on the slang used in the post:
- 86: Traditionally a restaurant industry term meaning to refuse service or that a menu item is sold out, it is also informally used to mean “get rid of” or “eject.” However, the Justice Department alleges that “86” is frequently used as a call sign for murdering or eliminating someone—a definition supported by some slang dictionaries referencing “eight miles out of town” and “six feet deep.”
- 47: This is widely understood as a reference to Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States.
Those defending the former director argue that the post is protected speech and that the imagery does not meet the high legal threshold required to prove a willful intent to incite harm. They characterize the prosecution as a misinterpretation of symbolic expression.
Legal experts have noted that the Department of Justice faces significant challenges in such cases, particularly regarding the need to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The potential penalties for charges related to threatening a president can include up to 10 years in federal prison.
This development has prompted widespread discussion regarding the boundaries of political speech, the use of social media as evidence in criminal proceedings, and the impartiality of the judicial process. Whether a symbolic image on social media provides sufficient evidence of criminal intent remains a central question in this legal dispute.