James Comey Investigated for Instagram Post on Trump

3 hours ago

3167 posts

James Comey Investigated for Instagram Post on Trump \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Former FBI Director James Comey was interviewed by the Secret Service over a cryptic Instagram post that Republicans claim was a threat against President Donald Trump. The post featured seashells seemingly arranged to reference “86 47,” which some interpret as violent slang. Comey denied any intent to threaten and deleted the post.

Quick Looks

Secret Service interviewed James Comey over controversial Instagram post.
Republicans claim post referencing “86 47” was a veiled threat to Trump.
Comey denied any intent to communicate violence.
Post deleted after criticism; Comey said he was unaware of implications.
Trump says post was “assassination” coded, defers charging decision to AG.
AG Pam Bondi to decide on potential charges.
“86” is slang that can mean “to kill,” though rarely.
Investigation still ongoing; FBI is assisting the probe.
Post showed seashells with “86 47” formation.
Comey’s relationship with Trump has been tense since 2017 firing.
Comey previously documented Trump’s loyalty request in private dinner.
Russia probe led to Comey’s dismissal by Trump.

Deep Look

What began as a cryptic social media post from former FBI Director James Comey has escalated into a high-stakes investigation now involving the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Trump administration. The post — a photo of seashells arranged in the sand with the caption “cool shell formation on my beach walk” — featured a formation many interpreted as reading “86 47.”

While on its surface the post seemed innocuous, the combination of numbers has stirred a political and legal storm. The number “86” is widely known as restaurant slang for discarding or rejecting something. But in certain subcultures and contexts, “to 86” can imply eliminating or even killing. The number “47” refers unmistakably to President Donald Trump, who is currently serving as the 47th president of the United States. The implication, some argue, is that the post called for Trump’s assassination — a claim Comey vehemently denies.

This evolving case not only taps into the contentious history between Trump and Comey, but it also underscores the complex intersection of free speech, political symbolism, digital communication, and the legal thresholds for prosecutable threats against public officials.

The Post That Sparked a Federal Investigation

The now-deleted post was shared to Instagram late Thursday, drawing rapid attention from right-wing media outlets and Trump supporters online. Comey’s caption — “cool shell formation on my beach walk” — appeared benign until the arrangement of shells was scrutinized. To some, the shells clearly formed the numbers 86 and 47.

Republican officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, immediately accused Comey of advocating violence. Noem, a staunch Trump ally, released a statement saying the post “was not a joke and should be treated as a serious threat to the president.”

By Friday, the Secret Service had launched an inquiry, as is customary for any perceived threat against a sitting president. Comey was interviewed by agents, a standard first step in evaluating the intent and perceived danger of the message. An anonymous law enforcement source confirmed to the Associated Press that the interview was conducted as part of an ongoing probe but emphasized that it’s unclear if any criminal charges would follow.

That decision, Trump said in a Fox News interview, would be left to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is overseeing the case for the administration. Still, the bar for prosecution remains high.

Comey’s Defense: Misunderstanding, Not Malice

Comey, who deleted the post within hours of publishing it, later posted a clarification, stating:

“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.”

He emphasized that there was no intention to incite harm, and many legal observers agree that intent is critical in any case related to threats against public officials. Still, with former President Trump back in office and continuing to direct his administration’s focus toward critics and perceived enemies, the investigation is not being taken lightly.

Trump’s Response: Accusations and Familiar Tension

The president, never shy about his disdain for Comey, used a Friday Fox News appearance to publicly castigate his former FBI chief.

“He knew exactly what that meant,” Trump said. “A child knows what that meant. That meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.”

Trump refused to say what punishment he believed Comey should face but called the post “disgusting” and “dangerous.” He insisted Attorney General Bondi would make the final determination but made clear that he believed Comey crossed a red line.

It’s a familiar dynamic for the two men, whose relationship has been fraught since 2017. Comey was the FBI Director when Trump took office and was seen as a major obstacle to Trump’s early presidency. The tension famously boiled over during a private dinner when Trump asked for Comey’s personal loyalty — a request Comey documented in a memo that later became central to claims of presidential misconduct.

Trump ultimately fired Comey in May 2017, a decision that helped trigger the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to oversee the investigation into Russian election interference. While Mueller found evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and that the Trump campaign welcomed the assistance, the investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge a criminal conspiracy.

Legal Context: When Speech Becomes a Threat

One of the most significant hurdles in the Comey case is the legal definition of a threat. For a social media post to be prosecuted as a threat against the president, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the post was:

Knowingly made
Intended as a threat
Likely to be interpreted as a threat by a reasonable person

This standard, according to legal experts, is difficult to meet, especially in ambiguous cases involving symbolic language, numbers, or satire.

“Context is everything in these cases,” said attorney and former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade. “If Comey had a documented pattern of threatening behavior, or had posted violent language alongside the image, then the government might have a stronger case. But isolated symbolism — especially something as vague as numbers — will likely fall short.”

Free Speech or Incitement?

Critics of the administration’s aggressive stance argue the probe could chill political speech and represents a misuse of federal investigative power. Supporters counter that coded language can still constitute a threat, especially when made by someone with a national platform.

The debate is reminiscent of prior political controversies over symbolism in speech, including discussions about whether crosshairs on maps, hashtags, or even song lyrics constitute incitement or protected expression.

For now, legal analysts expect the case to stall without more evidence of intent, but in the Trump era — where politics and law often collide — such predictions are tenuous.

A Political Feud Reignited

The investigation has rekindled public interest in the Trump–Comey saga, one of the most defining conflicts of Trump’s first term. Comey, now a best-selling author and frequent media commentator, has consistently cast Trump as a threat to democratic institutions. Trump has repeatedly labeled Comey “a liar” and “a leaker,” blaming him for various investigations and setbacks during his presidency.

The current probe, though centered on a single photo, fits into a broader pattern of Trump using his second term to confront past opponents, including not only Comey but former prosecutors, journalists, and even former Vice President Mike Pence.

The Bigger Picture: Polarization, Power, and Platform

This case also touches on the broader question of how political speech is interpreted in a polarized nation. Online platforms have become battlegrounds for messaging and misinformation, where hashtags and emojis can spark lawsuits, and memes can influence elections.

Comey’s situation illustrates the perils of digital ambiguity. Whether intentional or not, public figures are increasingly judged not just for what they say, but for what others believe they mean. For critics of the Trump administration, the Comey probe is yet another example of power being used to punish dissent. For Trump supporters, it’s a case of holding elites accountable for veiled threats.

Either way, the outcome of this case could have implications for how online speech is policed, how former officials are treated, and whether the bounds of free expression can withstand today’s deeply divided political climate.