Below is my column on Fox.com on the second indictment of former FBI director James Comey. Despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. If it did, it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.
Here is the column:
In the last year, coverage of former FBI Director James Comey appears to be reverting to the level of a high school yearbook. Last March, we were discussing how Comey channeled Beyoncé in a classified meeting and then may have revealed a code name in an encore performance for family. Now we are back to discussing Comey’s beach shell art on social media.
The latter controversy is now at the heart of a second criminal indictment of Comey. In November, a court dismissed the first indictment for false statements after a challenge to the status of the acting U.S. attorney.
However, this indictment is being brought in North Carolina, the location of the beach where the offending shells were found. Comey will now likely create a new category of protected shell speech.
The problem with this indictment will be the merits. The indictment concerns an image that was later removed by Comey showing “86 47” in shells on a beach. Comey has a rather odd history of drawing inspiration from shells. This message, however, had a lethal twist since many interpreted the message as essentially calling for the killing or “86-ing” of Trump.
Comey insists that he did not make the shell art and that he only posted it to his more than 1 million followers on X. He was merely the captive of his shell muses.
For over a decade, I have been one of Comey’s most vocal and consistent critics. I have dozens of columns criticizing his excesses and the damage that he has done to our system.
For that reason, I would prefer to crawl into one of Comey’s conversant shells than write a column supporting him. However, here we are. The fact is that I believe that this indictment is facially unconstitutional absent some unknown new facts.
To convict Comey, the Justice Department will have to show that his adolescent picture was a “true threat” under 18 U.S.C. § 871 and § 875(c). It is not.
The First Amendment is designed to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech rarely needs protection. It also protects bad and hateful speech. It even protects lies so long as those lies are not used for the purpose of fraud or other criminal conspiracies.
In 1969, the Supreme Court declared a more direct threat protected under the First Amendment. In Watts v. United States, an 18-year-old anti-war protester exclaimed, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.”
While the court did rule that “the statute [criminalizing presidential threats] is constitutional on its face,” it emphasized that “what is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”
The court ruled that the expression of wanting to kill a president is “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.” Saying the same thing in shell is only further removed from criminal speech.
Citizens are allowed to denounce and even wish a president ill. I have written about what I called this “age of rage.” It is not our first. This nation was founded in rage. The Boston Tea Party was rage. In forming this more perfect union, we created the world’s greatest protection of free speech in history. It is arguably the most American contribution to our Bill of Rights. Great Britain did not — and still does not — protect free speech as we do.
It comes at a cost. Perhaps Comey is that cost. However, he has a right to write out any hateful thoughts that come to him on his walks on the beach.
It is certainly true that the threat can be implied. However, “The ‘true’ in that term distinguishes what is at issue from jests, ‘hyperbole,’ or other statements that when taken in context do not convey a real possibility that violence will follow.” Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 74 (2023).
At the time, Comey quickly deleted the post and said that it never occurred to him that it would be interpreted as being violent.
In a subsequent Instagram post, Comey said he assumed the shells that he saw on a beach walk were “a political message” and that he “did not realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.”
We will have to wait to see if the administration has a “smoking shell” allegation that makes Comey’s shell speech more menacing as a willful and knowing threat. I cannot imagine what that would be beyond a sleeper surfer hit squad waiting for a shell signal.
Absent such new evidence, it appears to be yet another Comey posting that makes his Beyoncé renditions seem professional in comparison.
Ironically, the indictment is unlikely to survive a challenge, but it is likely to fulfill Comey’s narrative about the administration. It will undermine the legitimate objections to the lawfare waged under Comey.
Comey’s shell speech should not be celebrated, but it should be protected.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I have to agree with JT on this one. As to the pronouncements from Dem politicians and their leaders, the MSM, unfunny late night comedians and 1000’s of keyboard warriors expressing regret that DJT wakes each day to draw another breath, I am reminded of the account King Henry II and Thomas Beckett. Beckett was promoted to sainthood (posthumously of course) and Henry had to do penance for expressing his lament re Beckett openly. He was not responsible for his knights taking it as a command. While I find Comey and all the others despicable, the administration will likely hurt itself in the eyes of the public by justifying the opposition’s claims of using the legal system for retribution. What is despicable, cruel or inhumane is not illegal. Better to fight bad speech with better speech. Comey has done a pretty good job of debasing himself in the eyes of those who matter. This action could give him relief.
Free speech absolutism is dangerous. Speech that advocates violence should not be permitted. Period. The unctuous Comey can say he didn’t know what he was doing. But few believe a word he says any more. Waiting until violence happens before action is taken is like telling a stalking victim: “we can’t do anything until you are harmed.” By then, it is too late.
Snowflake! Biggest snowflakes old white conservatives! oh the shells what about the shells. Clearly none of you have ever worked a real job.
We dont have to take mommy or daddy with us to a job interview, 77% of Gen Z job seekers have brought a parent to an interview—they’re even getting them to negotiate pay rises and take their hiring tests
https://fortune.com/2025/08/14/gen-z-job-seekers-have-brought-a-parent-to-interview-research-reveals/
This is what we call Gen Z, failure to launch.
The good news is, those conservative Gen Z who do launch, they have significantly higher birth rates than progressives. Progressives are non-breeding themselves out of existence, Conservatives’ Higher Birthrates Point To Future Political Dominance
https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/conservatives-higher-birthrates-than-progressives
That is okay. The Gen Z, failure to launch live at home adult children will have a AI bot to “date.”
How marvelous!
Nonsequitur much. got it your folks didn’t love you. and made you fend for yourself. like some feral beast. and then you cry and whine becasue gen z parents cared. Again Snowflake much?
You could not be more wrong. My parents love me just fine. But they did raise me to be responsible adult who could take care of myself and not have to rely on them for nearly everything like you Gen Z failures to launch. It would never even enter my mind to take my parents to a job interview with me, negotiate pay raises, take my hiring tests.
And guess what else I can do you Gen Z failures to launch cannot?
Keep a job.
Now who is the snowflake?
still you
got it your folks didnt love you and threw you to the wolves. Again whining snowflake. Appears to me Gen z parents actually care for their kids.
If they did care they wouldn’t be sexually maiming them now would they you Cretinous fool.
haha why are you always worried about the private parts of children. seems like you maga pervs got some issues
Run along now, let the grown ups converse …. No that’s not about a tennis shoe either.
Oh Lawdy Lawd..someone call the SPLC, 1-088 011-1111.
Figure it out and it has nothing to do with WW 11.
Comey: I “did not realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.”
I am not claiming that Comey should be prosecuted. But that statement is obviously a bald-faced lie.
He spent 17 years in federal law enforcement — as an Assistant and US Attorney, as a Deputy AG, then as FBI Director. During that entire time, across countless cases (his own and others), he never encountered or heard of those “folks” who openly “associate those numbers with violence?”
Those “folks” are the Mafia, who use those numbers to mean kill, murder, execute — as in: Take him 8 miles out of town and bury him 6 feet deep.
Why? People commonly use 86 to mean “cancel”, and I see no reason why thinking Trump is unfit to be president is in any way connected with wanting him dead?
I don’t want Trump dead. I want him investigated and indicted for pedophile offences, industrialised corruption, insurrection, and working as an agent for a hostile foreign power. I want him to sweat in jail, not be spared by death still less made a martyr.
Whoa! That is some industrial-strength TDS you have. Are there actual crimes you can more that just ‘imagine’ trump has committed? Would you share JUST ONE here so we can evaluate your TDS further? I’m pretty sure, failing putting Trump in jail, you would be more than happy to see him dead you Anti-American scumbag.
You’ve got the wrong man in President Trump.
Who you really mean is President Joe Biden who showers with his daughter, embraced inefficient solar and wind energy so that the Chinese who manufacture solar and wind equipment can kick back to members of the Democrat Party and his family.
Biden also stated that the ‘White supremacy’ is the most dangerous terrorist threat to the United States, prompting an “open season” on white men.
Not one Democrat disagreed with him and yet no white male Democrat stepped down from their office to give someone else a chance. Senators, Chris Murphy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and “DaNang” Dick Blumenthal should set a good example and resign.
oh could you explain how the cash the trumpys are getting from the gov’t is not criminal. I like mental gymnastics performed by fools.
“he never encountered or heard of those “folks” who openly “associate those numbers with violence?””
Even if he was somehow aware of the mob reference, “86” is common, long-standing, restaurant employee slang for a menu item that has become unavailable because it (or its ingredients) has been used up. It wouldn’t exactly take a genius to infer the connection there.
And for those here who would suggest a different origin for the phrase, what is your time frame of reference? I heard the term used as I described as early as 1966 when I was a teen-aged busboy in a Howard Johnsons restaurant.
And those here who would suggest a different origin for the phrase, what is your time frame of reference? I heard the term used as I described as early as 1966 when I was a teen-aged busboy in a Howard Johnson’s restaurant.
It would appear that the duplicate comment check widget is broken…
Poor Comey. Let’s put ourselves inside his head. Comey had quite a career going and then Trump comes along. So of course comey is part of the plan to discredit Trump at all costs and he’s on the ‘side’ he thinks is gonna win and he will continue on with his career. Comey goes all in with their discrediting campaign, he’s passionate about it. TDS starts. If you spout it enough, you start believing it. Trump wins and it’s plan B, now he’s on the inside, a mole (rat) and he’s looking for where his cheese comes from and Trumps not that kinda guy. So he gets his instructions on those on the outside trying to take down Trump’s presidency. “You’re Fired!”. And so, what we see here in innocent sea shell form is his revenge tour. he’s unhinged, and has been spurred on by all the others that fell out of the national security coconut tree (brennan, clapper, et al at the head of a mob of wrong-doers). This is his TDS, it takes over your judgement. The powerlessness of a once powerful person was more than Comey could contain with reasonableness. Of course the Attorney General of the United States knows what 86 means. Why even post it on instagram if it was just some unknown numbers? Walking a beach, wondering where it all went wrong, fuming over Trump’s ability to see through him, when he should have been a mover and shaker, His TDS pushed ‘send’ and here we are. I wonder if he’s lucid at times. Must be very depressing for him.
You are forgetting the Comey’s intervention during the 2016 election was pivotal in getting Trump elected. It was an unnecessary and shameful act.
THAT was before the TDS kicked in and fouled his judgement and he realized hilary put him in the hot seat with evidence to convict her so he did the least harmful thing to her. It was necessary for him to maintain his credibility at the time before he threw it all away as he was still “in the game”. Shameful? no, it was a cover-up via abuse of immunity powers. You think comey wanted trump elected? give me a break nutcase.
It made him even less credible and damaged the FBI as an institution.
Two unnecessary and shameful acts: not dinging Hillary in the first place, and what you meant.
He was covering his own ass, it had nothing to do with getting Trump elected. His alternative was to seek indictments against Hillary which would have exposed their entire seditious conspiracy plan.
I have to believe that it’s coming soon where America will finally see all truth revealed.
I’ve got to admit, it is disappointing to watch conservatives drift into “let’s just indict him and see what shakes out.” That is exactly the mindset we spent years condemning on the other side.
Yes, I want real accountability for what Comey did. But there is a big difference between proving real crimes and slapping an indictment on someone just to drag them through years of process, legal bills and public smearing. We already watched that movie with Trump, Flynn and a long list of others. The process itself became the punishment.
If DOJ actually has solid evidence, put it on the table and prove it. If all they have is a beach photo and a creative theory, then this is just more lawfare dressed up as justice. And if we cheer that on now, we have no standing to complain when the next Democratic administration does the same thing to us all over again.
Well OLLY, Myself and many others think comey DID threaten the President and I’d like some recourse since many maniacs have tried to follow through with comey’s reprehensible post.
If comey makes it through without conviction, that’s fine with me, but no one should be able to threaten anyone without consequences in this country, that works only in the country comey and his friends want it to be. This indictment is called LAW and ORDER and I voted for it.
Look, I will be honest. In my gut, I think Comey would put a bullet in Trump on live TV if he knew he could get away with it. That is how much contempt he has for the man. But my gut is not evidence, and this shells case is not that.
On paper they are saying he violated 18 U.S.C. 871 and 875(c), the presidential threat and interstate threat statutes. Fine. Show me the true threat. Show me the serious expression of intent to commit violence, and show me the evidence that he meant it that way. Do not just hand me a beach photo and everybody’s worst assumptions.
Calling this “law and order” does not make it so. If this is really just “we hate this guy, so we are going to turn a stupid post into a felony and let the process be the punishment,” that is not law and order. That is lawfare. It is exactly what was done to Flynn and others. I want Comey nailed for real crimes if you can prove them. I do not want a system where we can wreck anyone’s life on vibes and slogans and call it justice.
ask yourself what would happen to the average joe in comeys position. Is that the world you want to live in? Principles are more important than ‘winning’ and we are a country BASED on laws. without the law we have people like comey trying to take over.
Prosecuting Presidential death threats are a valid government action. A ‘borderline’ threat is still a threat and I haven’t heard any of the crazys going along with comeys 86 threat because they know it crossed the line because if they thought it didn’t there would be 86 posts everyday from every lefty nutcases. I see none now so the threat of prosecution is working. I’m ok with winning the war on assassins and losing a case to comey.
If Bastiat were looking at this, I think he’d call it exactly what he warned about in The Law. When you use the force of law to go after a man’s symbolic speech because he is hated and politically dangerous, you are not protecting life and property. You are perverting the law into a weapon.
Punish actual violence and real threats. Fine. But when you start inventing “offenses” out of ambiguous expression just to make an example out of an enemy, you are no longer talking about law in Bastiat’s sense. You are talking about legalized revenge dressed up as “law and order.” And that is exactly what we say we are fighting against.
Olly, stay off of AI, okay? Reference to Bastait did not come from your little brain, it came from AI. If you continue to rewrite AI as your own, you make it very hard for us to 86 georgie.
Bastiat.
You’re about a decade late with that insult. I bought and read The Law back in 2011 and I’ve been citing Bastiat on this blog for about 15 years, long before AI was part of anyone’s toolbox.
If you want to argue with what Bastiat said about law being perverted into a weapon, go after the substance. Screaming “AI” every time you see a name you don’t recognize is not an argument, it is a tell.
Olly
I would have to think that Comey’s evidenced involvement with errors by omission to FISA courts, leaking classified information, perjury to Congress, election interference, and a multitude of other crimes which there appears to be substantial evidence per Tulsi Gabbard could all be used to show his utter contempt and arrogance towards the intent of his message. I would additionally suggest that his prior position as Director of the nation’s leading law enforcement agency has great impact on the audience receiving his veiled message. Remembering the while that this followed two failed assassination attempts. Time will tell, Obama and Clinton rewrote the rules on skullduggery and now they are all going to have to embrace them.
I’ll 86 you. does that actually sound like a threat. Whiney snowflake. Conservative white dudes are the biggest snowflakes.
Agreed, when you look at the entirety of Comey’s actions against Trump both before and after, they seem quite revealing and definitive of his hatred for him. A review of his historical interactions with Hillary are also quite revealing. These people are mentally unstable and have been brainwashed to their own demise.
Olly I agree with you. It’s amazing how quickly Conservatives revert to doing exactly what Democrats are accused of doing and ignoring the irony and hypocrisy. It’s always been that way.
If that’s where you’ve landed now, then the next step is to say out loud where you were wrong before. When this kind of lawfare was aimed at Trump, Flynn and J6 defendants, you were not exactly on the “this is dangerous and wrong” side of the line.
Seeing the problem now that it is pointed at Comey is better than not seeing it at all, but principles only mean something if they apply when your own team benefits too. If we both agree this is lawfare, then it would be helpful to hear you say, “I was wrong to defend it when it was used against conservatives, and I do not want it used on anyone.”
Olly, surely you are not that naive. X only complimented you to avoid being 86ed on this site. Another little game he likes to play. It reappears periodically whenever criticism against his comments reaches a peak.
Well, I can’t completely agree on the ‘lawfare’ of J6 defendants. Because the evidence against them was overwhelming. Remember, they filmed themselves committing crimes. Posted their evidence on social media. The ‘lawfare’ against them was literally prosecutors doing their job. Prosecuting criminals with evidence provided by the criminals themselves.
As John Say now seems to be making exemptions about lawfare. Apparently there’s legal lawfare and lawless lawfare and he gets to decide which one applies to who.
Trump had real evidence against him. Comey didn’t. All he had were allegations used as evidence.
I According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang “to 86” also means “to kill, to murder, to execute judicially”. The Government explained in detail how the message 86 47 is assessed and their reasoning for claiming §§ 871(a)/875(c) violations.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-former-fbi-director-james-comey-threats-harm-president-trump
II. Hardly anyone was bothered after Douglass Mackey was sentenced to seven months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to interfere with potential voters’ right to vote in the 2016 election for POTUS because he attemped to trick voters into believing they could vote for Hillary Clinton by text message. A federal appeals court has overturned this conviction.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election
Cassel’s dictionary. How about Merriam?
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to “eighty-six” (or 86) something is an informal verb that means:
To refuse service to a customer
To get rid of or throw out someone or something
To eject or dismiss someone from a place, like a bar or restaurant
To remove an item from a menu because it is no longer available.
Comey of all people easily would have known of both definitions and uses (including to kill and/or eliminate). Even Merriam-Webster explained that. Why did you eliminate it, georgie?
Many were quite bothered by II.
I agree that this is a weak indictment and unlikely to produce a conviction. On the gripping hand, even failed prosecutions have a strong tendency to permanently damage the reputations and careers of political figures. That is exactly the kind of thing that Comey attempted to do to Trump, so, while I would much prefer to see Comey prosecuted for offenses directly related to Russiagate, I really can’t say that I have a serious problem with this indictment. What goes around frequently comes around, and in this case any resulting damage is massively deserved.
He stacks sea shells by the sea shore.
And there in lies the rub. Lincoln observed blacks being sold during his first visit to Louisiana. Daughters screaming as there were ripped from their mothers’ bosom and sold. “If slavery isn’t evil, nothing is,” he moaned.
And our laws protected that lovely social institution when deep down INSIDE, a better law shouted out it was unbearably wrong. Some of our laws squelch our obligation to be humane.
The problem is that, in this most recent attempt, no one truly believes this 31-year-old school teacher from CA acted alone. Also, there is real need to dial back Democrat calls for a Trump assasination/ execution. Add that I’m actually very surprised Chuck Schumer has not been arrested for threatening Supreme Court justices with his “you will pay the price” and “you will not know what hit you.” Clearly these are, and rightfully should be, interpreted as threats upon their lives. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I don’t think it’s the right way to do American politics, and I think Democrats have tremendously damaged what was once intended as a “civil body politick” now long since established and framed in the American Way. We are witnessing a Tammany Hall form of politicking that is entirely foreiegn to America at large.
He seems to have acted alone, and he never really had a chance. Shooting up a checkpoint won’t get you in the room. But if one of the invited guests had a pre-positioned weapon hidden inside, that could have been successful.
betuadollar
Absolutely classic,textbook example of the weak-minded thinking of the false consensus effect.
You say: “no one truly believes this 31-year-old school teacher from CA acted alone”.
What you mean is that is what YOU think, and you falsely assume that most people think like you, therefore most people agree that he did not act alone.
Extraordinarily weak minded and narrow thinking typical of a non-thinking cult member.
Acting alone? Well, he did have a whole mob of insane marxist media sources practically screaming for a solution to the orange fascist. Really dumb people hear that and get delusions of heroic grandeur.
So there’s always a mental patient like cole that will be influenced by these manipulators and they know it. that’s why threats need to be prosecuted.
Leftists, marxist etc never act alone. they are a mob nodding in unison.
How about CA candidate for governor Katie Porker, riling up her supporters this week with a sign saying F— Trump? One definition of F— is the same as for 86: to kill or maim. She wants anyone to do to Trump what some illegals have done to coeds or whole families.
I’m starting to wonder about the distinction between a “threat” and an “appeal” or “wish”. If a million people Like a post saying 86 or F— is that slightly less bad than one screw-loose cannon threatening I have an arm just watch me? There might be a million of those, too, but finding the one who’s really ready to do it is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
You don’t fight lawfare with more lawfare. You just teach everyone it is now a legitimate tool. Then the next crew in power picks it up and cranks the dial.
What the regime did to conservatives and J6 defendants is bad enough. The answer is not “they did it, so we get to do it now.” That is the exact opposite of the lesson we should be learning.
You do not get back to constitutional, principled government by going outside the Constitution and being unprincipled. If we want to restore the rule of law, we have to model it, not copy their abuses and slap our flag on it.
You don’t fight lawfare with more lawfare? Oh, yes you do. To say otherwise is simply denying today’s reality. Its about exhibiting strength , chest pounding, that the enemy gets the message. No retreat, no surrender.
Really, what planet do you live on old man? You keep harking back on some other-world reality. You’re a dinosaur, so go the way of all dinos, get extinct.
Perhaps, if the indictments keep coming, Comey will be bankrupted. That is what they did to Mike Flynn – remember? He lost.everything. He pleaded guilty only because the FBI threatened indictments against his son.. General Flynn was guilty of NO crime or misconduct.
Paul
There is absolutely no chance that Comey will be bankrupted by legal fees.
There will be no legal fees whatsoever.
His lead attorney is a lifelong friend. His daughter and son-in-law are attorneys, both of whom are former DOJ prosecutors.
This indictment will fail very quickly after a minimal amount of effort by his legal team, and it will not cost him a single penny.
What’s the over/under on a Mangione-style GoFundMe for Comey?
I’m just looking forward to exposing more of his pathetic life to the light of justice.
His squirming is just icing on the cake.
This is not lawfare as there is an actual crime being put forth.
There will be no exposing of his life.
There will be no squirming.
This absurd indictment will be dismissed in very short order.
It will never get to trial.
There will be no evidentiary proceedings.
Comey will simply have fodder to write another book and make even more money than he has already. He has written 6 books so far. They were all best sellers and he has made many millions of dollars, exponentially more than he made in public service.
This will be just an opportunity to make a few more millions of dollars.
He is absolutely loving this fiasco.
my thoughts, exactly the point is not to convict, but to bankrupt him
“You don’t fight lawfare with more lawfare.” He it is folks, the famous republican submission stance. Ever wonder why reps. get trounced in elections? It’s because stupid old men, the very people responsible for our current predicament, caused it with that cowardly stance … you don’t fight lawfare with lawfare. Might as well just hand the dems your balls you cowardly old fart.
You’re a laughable and pathetic example of a republican.
Mostly correct,
But the CORRECT phrasing is
“you do not fight lawlessness with lawlessness”
You absolutely can and should fight lawless lawfare with lawful lafare.
This is not lawful lawfare.
Folks on the right need to take a hard look in the mirror. Ask one simple question. “What would Democrats and the left do?” Then do the opposite.
They normalized lawfare. They stretched every statute to crush political enemies. Our answer cannot be “great, let’s copy that and slap the word ‘lawful’ in front of it.” Calling it “lawful lawfare” is nonsense. If it is really lawful and principled, we just call it enforcing the law. If we’re imitating their tactics, we are not fixing the problem. We are becoming it.
Olly you are a coward mentally and morally. You are not a political strategist, or any resembling it. You are a senile old man with a too much time on your hands.
Your laughable argument is ripe with non sequiturs, the mark of a small mind. Your comment is irrelevant to Turley’s opinion
“What would Democrats and the left do?” Then do the opposite.”
OLLY, No. it’s the left that does ‘the opposite’ of Trump. we aren’t guided by the other side, our guide is civilization over anarchy.
Fighting democrats is not our guiding light.
this is fighting lawlessness with the law. that’s what we do. A crime was committed.
This latest indictment is more of a message to opponents. It implores them to silence themselves. Look at John Brennan, a vicious Trump critic, who now complains about defending himself and its costs. Even Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe have scaled back their vitriol. Defense attorneys are expensive. I only hope the shoe falls on Anthony Fauci, and soon. Are not the Dems doing the same thing, threatening yet another Trump impeachment, when back in power? Indeed, say “Impeach Trump” to most Dems, and it causes instant salivation. Pavlov would be proud!
Hit em where it hurts… in the wallet.
Comey needs to face the process that he and Merrick Garland and others placed on Trump and others in Washington, New York, Atlanta, etc. It would be nice if he was convicted but that’s secondary. He needs to spend much time and money hiring attorneys and talking to judges. For whatever reason a grand jury can come to a conclusion about. Maybe they will storm his house and look for classified documents. Gotta be some just laying around somewhere.
“Comey needs to face the process that he and Merrick Garland and others placed on Trump . . .”
That irrational “process” is called lawfare. It is corrupt and violates every principle of Western jurisprudence.
Your neighbor commits arson. You, who claim to be against arson, demand that his house be burnt down.
How does that revenge-motivated, tit-for-tat *stop* the vicious cycle of lawfare?
Is there any actual evidence that Comey even arranged the shells? From what I’ve seen, he and his wife stumble on an “86 47” in the sand, he snaps a pic, slaps on a dopey “look what I found on my beach walk” caption, and posts it. That’s juvenile and obnoxious, sure. But turning that into a federal “threat” case is not just overreach. It is stupid.
If the theory now is that taking a picture of somebody else’s shell art and putting it on Instagram = “true threat against a president,” then nobody at DOJ is even pretending to care about the First Amendment. At that point you are criminalizing a Rorschach test.
What makes it worse is the target. We have years of paper on Crossfire Hurricane, leaks, surveillance games, and all the other real misconduct that actually damaged the system. You could build serious cases out of that if you wanted to. Instead, they go hunting for Comey over a beach photo. It is like they asked, “What is the dumbest possible case we could bring so that we look petty, lose on free speech, and hand Comey a martyr costume?” And this is what the committee of geniuses came up with.
Olly you are not a lawyer. Its obvious. Inserting a hypothetical is a child’s tactic. Grow up.
I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer, so you can relax on that point. What I am doing is exactly what this indictment itself does. The whole case rests on hypotheticals about what some people might read into a shell pattern. If prosecutors can spin out hypotheticals to turn a beach photo into a felony, it is more than reasonable to use hypotheticals to test how far their theory would reach and how many other people it would criminalize. If your position can’t survive that kind of basic stress test, that’s not my problem.
Just calm down Olly. You’re prone to hissy fits.
Its obvious you make up a lot of BS here. If your childish argument can’t survive criticism, then I suggest you go whine elsewhere. You put yourself out there and you’re fair game. Or just wait around until upstate farmer shows up and gives you a shoulder to cry on.
Olly – there is no doubt this is a threat. there is no doubt comey published it.
None of that is hypothetical.
But this is still protected speech, and Comey will win.
But not because some aspect is hypothetical.
The reuirements to criminalize threats are in Brndenburg v Ohio
” speech can only be punished if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
This was clarified in Elonis.
Comey’s meme is not specific, nor does it meet the imminence reuirement.
The only people who know all the evidence are the folks inside this investigation. The rest of us are working off what is public. And in the public record, there is no proof Comey arranged the shells or laid out a concrete plan to hurt Trump.
So you do not get to say “there is no doubt it was a threat and he orchestrated it” and then pretend you are not dealing in hypotheticals. Without evidence, what you have is inference stacked on inference. That is fine for opinion. It is not fine for felony charges or for rewriting what counts as a true threat under the First Amendment.
You have no idea what the DOJ’s strategy is. No one does.
One point is clear, it is a threat against POTUS, an incitement to violence. Maybe you just are not smart enough to comprehend that. Instead you play with words and phrases. The mark of a fool.
Why would you think arranging the shells is the crime? It’s the post. OLLY you are not thinking this through.
Not specific? 86 = kill, 47 = Trump. I want him prosecuted to the fullest extent of our laws. Not specific? Not imminent? 3 attempts so far.
this scumbag wants our (Greatest) President dead by anyone listening and has spurred maniacs. Perp walk the perp. Expose his life to our scrutiny. ALL on record for history if nothing else.
We’re living in a civilization, this behavior is lawlessness not speech and just a part of a larger conspiracy to “Get Trump!”.
John
If this were stand alone perhaps. However, given the total circumstances of Comey interactions and position I disagree. I think that what he has done is more akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Given the rhetoric for violence that the left has perpetrated against Trump, I believe there is a valid argument in this to be made. The Democrats have dehumanized him for nine years by falsely and continually equating him to Hitler, a Fascist, a Dictator, a threat to our Nation, a Rapist, a Pedophile, a King…the list goes on and on. These are propaganda tactics that have been practiced in war against our enemies.
This tact has created the false sense to those gullible weak minded, mentally and/or emotionally unstable individuals that killing him would be an acceptable and rewarding outcome for their cause.
It’s equivalent to putting a bottle of vodka next to the punch bowl at an AA meeting.
I am a lawyer. Olly is right, as usual.
😁 Thanks WOL. It’s just the troll attempting to spin me up and it just doesn’t work on me.
It doesn’t work on you? What exactly doesn’t work on you Olly? You seeing trolls everywhere now?
So you found a shoulder to cry on olly. You child, hide behind another senile ole coot. Act like a man you child.
As usual … you are not a lawyer. Then prove it.
All you senile old fools claim to be lawyers.
Time to fade away old man.
Foolish youth thinks he knows everything.
You are here to be the foolish youth that all us old guys know all about.
This is great! keep up the “I’m a young guy” bit cause I love it you dopey young person.
Touched a nerve eh? Are you gonna cry now? You had a a life, now get out of the way. You old farts need to disappear. Fast.
OK, how old are you? 8? are you a commie? Are you on the left? why are you here? How old do you have to be to be wrong about everything, Mr Smarmy young guy?
PLEASE keep up with the “I’m a young guy” schtick. It’s awesome in ways you know not!
i notice you never say anything of reason or substance. Hallmark of the immature.
YOU need to post here more!
If we were to “disappear” who would you take to your job interviews? Write your resumes? Negotiate your salaries? Solve your workplace conflicts? Do your laundry? Make you dinner? Grocery shop for you? Pay the mortgage?
Certainly not you.
77% of Gen Z job seekers have brought a parent to an interview—they’re even getting them to negotiate pay rises and take their hiring tests
https://fortune.com/2025/08/14/gen-z-job-seekers-have-brought-a-parent-to-interview-research-reveals/
Heck, you cannot even keep a job.
Bosses are firing Gen Z workers in record time: ‘Yeah, checks out’
https://www.dailymail.com/yourmoney/consumer/article-13886905/bosses-firing-gen-z-workers-record-time.html
USF
Please understand, it’s tough out there for them to get a job. You know with sleeves, a neck tattoo, a bone or bull ring through the nose and expanders in what use to be ear lobes!
There is always Starbucks and Burger King…and the resumes are very short; black, sugar and/or cream?
Comey without any doubt in the world published the threat.
It is not necescary to establish that he arranged the shells.
At the same time – those of you on the left may BELEIVE that you can walk the beaches in NC and commonly find shells arranged to say “86 47” but sane people realize you can not.
Comey arrange the shells.
None of this changes the fact that it is free speech and does not come close to meeting the reuirements of a true threat.
But then nearly everything YOU prosecuted regarding J6 is eually protected speech.
You also impeached Trump for more begnign speech than this.
DOJ should not prosecute this.
They should NOT do so, because they are NOT lawless like democrats, and because they actually respect free speech – unlike democrats.
Disney should take Kimmel off the air – not because Trump or Melania threatened them, but because Kimmel is repugnant and unfunny.
But if they wish to continue to hemorage money – it is their money.
Who is the “you” that you’re pointing to in this comment? Or were you just being sloppy in your haste to comment to me?
Johh Say, “ They should NOT do so, because they are NOT lawless like democrats, and because they actually respect free speech – unlike democrats.”
They are more lawless than Democrats. It’s funny that this obvious lawlessness which has been going on for a long time was just fine with you and others. It’s because the charge here is so bad and so clearly against protected speech that you cannot ignore it. Trump has been demanding his political enemies be jailed by any means necessary and that includes these flimsy excuses. Letitia James couldn’t be convicted even if the DA was legal. It all comes down to evidence. Olly is right on this and the only thing missing as it alway is with you and others is making assumptions and implied suggestions and declaring them to be evidence. It was the same thing with the voter fraud claims.
Trump absolutely demanded Kimmel be fired because of his jokes. And now the FCC is ‘making an early review’ of ABC’s broadcast license to ‘lightly’ threaten them to fire Kimmel. We know Trump is pushing the FCC to threaten ABC so they can fire Kimmel. Talk about lawlessness. Wow.
Speech that is intended to result in the incitement of violence or harm is not protected speech and is actionable. Isn’t that what the SC has ruled in the past?
leaks of FBI investigations are a crime and when it can be established who did them – they are prosecuted.
Ask Reality Winner.
Publishing a threat is actually WORSE than writing the threat. But in THIS instance it is still protected speech.
Repugnant but protected.
The purpose of the first amendment is to protect repugnant speech.
Punishing what John? Comey didn’t publish a threat. You WANT “86” to mean what you want it to mean so it’s a ‘true threat’. It’s so laughably stupid.
Anyone in the restaurant business knows what “86” means and it does not mean what you want it to mean. Publishing or writing it is not “worse”. It’s irrelevant. Republican lawmakers publishing photos of Democrats with crosshairs in their faces according to you IS a serious threat. Come on John you’re not that crazy, are you?
BTW reality winner’s indictment involved real concrete evidence. Comey’s “leak” is not even near an equivalent. Sorry.
Perhaps there is evidence Comey arranged the shells and didn’t just “find” them. Perhaps he admitted to it in subsequent communications. We will find out if it goes to trial.
Andrew, on that we can agree. I actually hope there is more evidence than what we have seen. If the grand jury recommended an indictment based only on the same thin public record we are all looking at, that is a pretty strong “ham sandwich” warning sign.
I want real evidence of real crimes. Personally, I would have no problem seeing Comey spend the rest of his life in a prison jumpsuit if the facts support it. What I do not want is a system where “we hate this guy” is enough to drag him through years of process, bury him in legal bills, and then shrug at the end and say “guess there was not quite enough there.” That is lawfare. That is what they did to Flynn. If we keep normalizing that, we are not fixing anything. We are just proving their playbook works on our side too.
You might have stumbled onto the perjury trap. No doubt one of the Comeys arranged the shells and gabbed about it. So all of the Comeys have to testify and if anyone tells a different story, then Comey takes a plea to keep his wife & daughter out of Club Fed.
If DOJ actually has hard evidence that a Comey arranged the shells and then lied about it under oath, that is a different case and they should bring that charge straight up. But that is not what has been put in front of the public. Right now, all we have is an indictment that treats a beach photo as a “true threat.”
Building elaborate perjury‑trap scenarios on evidence none of us have seen does not make this indictment smarter. It just proves my point. If there is real, non‑speech crime here, show it and charge it directly. If not, then this is still lawfare dressed up as creativity, and betting on “maybe they’ll catch him in a process crime later” is exactly the abuse of process we’ve been complaining about for years.
What-about Hakim Jefferies threat – maximum warfare? Is that on par with Comey’s?
Calling all libs to code “maximum warfare”, kill, destroy, hurt Americans any way you can? That’s what I hear?
Context is important. Can’t shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Comey’s “speech,” it could be argued, might incite to some degree more violent rhetoric. The air is saturated with gasoline vapor. Words are like small sparks and we are all in a crowded theater, like it or not. Free speech must be balanced with common sense.
FYI, the “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” line was written by Oliver Wendall Holmes in Schenk v U.S. Schenk was telling people to resist being drafted in WWI.
Schenk has not been “good law” since Brandenburg vs Ohio overturned it in 1969.
Holmes himself, who wrote the censorious opinion, began distancing himself from it after he wrote it.
Aspiring censors love the “can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” line. It has not been “good law” for over half a century. But like a zombie, it just won’t die.
“Holmes himself, who wrote the censorious opinion, began distancing himself from it after he wrote it.”
Yep, Holmes should have stuck to writing amusing poems about Americana (e.g. The Wonderful One Hoss Shay). As a SCOTUS justice, he sucked, big time.
You can shout fire in a crowded theater – the claim that you cant is an incredibly popular myth. But it is still protected speech.
However if you shout fire in a crowded theater you can be banned for life by the theater.
“if you shout fire in a crowded theater you can be banned for life by the theater.”
I strongly suspect that if you did that, and it could be demonstrated afterwards that you knew that there was no fire, you could have your pants sued off by anyone injured in the resulting panic. But it cannot be a criminal offense.
Death to MAGA.
:* I’m Jane Smith and I’m 23 years old. I am an aspiring model who is at least 18 years old. I enjoy having my photo taken in the sun. Please rate my photographs using this link.
➤ https://datewithmehere10.netlify.app/
Gotta admit this pursuit of Comey is one oof the DUMBEST things I have seen come out the DOJ Political Machine. This thing is going to get tossed faster than the Sandwich Boy case. Comey should sue for harassment and ALL HIS LEGAL FEES to put a nail in the DOJ Dumbest Case Team.
This guy went to jail about a meme
Douglass Mackey, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly to 7 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to interfere with potential voters’ right to vote in the 2016 election for the Office of the President of the United States. Douglass Mackey, also known as “Ricky Vaughn,” was previously convicted of the charge of Conspiracy Against Rights at trial by a federal jury in Brooklyn. Mackey was convicted of the charge in March 2023 following a three-week trial.
That is a lie. You have zero proof.
LOOK IT UP BOZO
Are you left wing nuts that disconnected from reality ?
Are you gay MAGAgots that disconnected from reality ?
I am straight – but why does that matter at all ? I thought that in left wing idiocy being gay meant you were immune to criticism ?
I am neither MAGA nor conservative, nor republican – I am libertarian.
But again what does that matter.
Regardless absolutely Douglass Mackey was prosecuted by the left and convicted for internet memes.
It is trivial to look this up.
Your level of denying reality is incredible
John Say,
To declare anything a lie, when we all know it is real, is their default. Just goes to show their lazy thinking and delusions.
Why would going after Comey be dumb ?
The man is amoral, and certainly a criminal.
While Turley is correct this particular charge is a loser.
It is stronger than the nonsense that the left ran up the pole against Trump or against J6’ers.
We have listened to YOU rant that “hang mike pence” is not merely a crime but insurrection
Then you repeatedly had judges Silence Trump from speaking about his own cases. .
The Garland DOJ went after THOUSANDS criminally – for free speech – not just at J6 but at abortion clinics and churches and online.
No the Trump DOJ should not have brought this case.
They should have refused to do so – because they are not the lawless and unconstitutional left.
It is disappointing that they have. But it still does not bring them close to your level of lawlessness
Good thing you hide behind a meme.
Because what ?
Your posting as anonymous – that is your right. But it undermines your credibility.
Regardless, I have posed under my name and initials here and anyone who wishes can trivially find out my identity.
Regardless what has using a pseudonym got to do with this ?
Publishung 86 47 is revolting, it is threatening, it is also free speech.
Comey is a crook and a thug and he deserves to be fitted for an orange jump suit – but not for free speech.
I hope and expect the idiotic ruling throwing out his perjury indictment will be tossed eventually.
He should go to jail as a perjurer.
But not for protected free speech
He may not lose. We will just have to settle with bankrupting him.
It seems to me like the Justice department is not picking and choosing it’s battles carefully. I think this indictment is a waste of time and money, and it makes Trump appear to be the tyrant so many have accused him of being.
Dems did it, right? That was okay, you think? If Trump does it it bad orange man?
Its a matter of appearance, that MAGA they will use the power conferred on it. Its what America wants.
I am sorry but Tippy is correct.
Absolutely scum like Comey should be fitted for an orange jump suit.
But this is not how. This is free speech. This is no different than the lawless nonsense they left used to go after Trump, J6ers catholics, and pro life protestors.
This is free speech? I’ll bet you are not a lawyer; your comments prove that. Well, then prove it, lay out the argument.
Honestly ?
No I am not a lawyer – but I likely know more about free speech constitutional law than 95% of lawyers.
I have with near certainty read more law on the first amendment than 99% of lawyers.
There are many cases on this
The most recent that is almost directly on point is Elonis.
But the seminal case that lays out the reuirements to criminally prosecute speech is brandenburg.
This is free speech.
The remarks of people supporting attempted assassinations of Trump or Kirk or others are free speech.
“hang mike pence” is free speech. Gallows and Guilotines are protected free speech.
Trump’s speech from the Elipse was protected free speech.
Protesting at an abortion clinic is free speech.
Trump criticising Judges is free speech – gag orders are unconstitutional.
Comey is scum – but going after him in the same lawless way that democrats have gone after Trump is still wrong and lawless.
It is not as bad as what democrats have done.
But is “we are only half as lawless as democrats” what you want as a battle cry ?
Yes. No. Yes.
I didn’t like it when the Dems did it, and I don’t like it when the Reps do it.
You may be confusing vengefulness with tyranny.
May? Not at all. Its actually revenge that is being called for by MAGA. Yet dems took revenge on Trump/MAGA for 8 years, they upended the justice system, you have no issue with that?
I have ZERO issue with Republicans going after democrats with a vengance.
But do so lawfully.
Comey richly deserves this.
But that does not make violating the first amendment to try to get him lawful
How is this any different than State statutes that criminalize “written threats to kill/do bodily harm” to which in my case, my ex went to prison?” Surely Comey should have known that he was calling a foot soldier of the psychotic left to come forth?
Because advocacy is not a threat.
Even if he had explicitly written “KIll Trump”, that would not have been a threat. Nor would it have been solicitation or incitement It would have been “mere advocacy”, and that is absolutely protected by the first amendment.
It’s settled law that a government entity can’t even fire an employee for expressing a wish that the president would be assassinated, let alone prosecute someone for it. In America we have the right to advocate anything we like, no matter how evil. We can even preach the necessity of violently overthrowing the government of the United States, and any so-called “sedition” law that purports to ban such preaching is automatically invalid.
A threat must first and foremost be a threat. It must say or imply “I will do this thing”. And it must be expressed in such a way that an ordinary person would be concerned that the speaker has both the means and the intent of carrying it out. (He doesn’t have to actually have the means or the intent, but it must be that an ordinary person would seriously fear that he has both.) Anything that doesn’t do that is not a threat.
100% correct (this time).
That is all true, but a guy like Comey, with his deep bench of connections, has much more means to carry out any threat that you or me. I don’t expect him to be convicted, but the point is deterrence. Lots of people have been prosecuted for threatening presidents over the years. Usually they just get a visit from the Secret Service, but sometimes they go to jail.