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.”
And thus the Turley blog “lawyers,” if we do say so ourselves, have conjured “plausible deniability” for the so-far unconvicted felon and bottom-feeding “deep deep state” denizen, aka traitor, co-conspirator in the Obama Coup D’etat in America, and Hillary defender, James Comey.
Wiki: 86 (term)
James Comey
In May 2025, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey posted a photo on Instagram that prominently displayed the numbers “86 47” with some arranged seashells on a sandy beach.[30] Some Republicans said that Comey’s image was a threat directed at the life of the 47th president, Donald Trump.[30][31] Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier that Comey was “calling for the assassination of the president.”[32] The Trump administration said the Secret Service was investigating Comey’s “86 47” social media post.[33] Many of the Republicans, including Matt Gaetz and Jack Posobiec, who said they were enraged by Comey’s use of “86” in reference to Trump, had previously directed the term at their own political opponents. …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86_(term)#James_Comey
Google AI Mode (String: ‘8647 meaning’)
8647 is a coded anti-Trump slogan meaning to “get rid of” Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States. It gained significant attention in April 2026 after former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on charges of making a threat against the president’s life for posting a picture of seashells arranged in that number.The meaning is derived from two parts:86: A slang term used in the service and hospitality industries to mean “remove,” “throw out,” or “cancel” an item or person. It originated in the 1930s as soda-counter shorthand for an item being sold out.47: A reference to Donald Trump, who returned to office in January 2025 as the 47th U.S. president.Context and ControversyAnti-Trump Slogan: The code has circulated since early 2025 on social media and at protests (similar to “8645” used against Trump’s first term or “8646” used against Joe Biden).James Comey Indictment: In May 2025, James Comey posted a since-deleted image of seashells spelling out “8647”. While Comey claimed he viewed it as a non-violent political message, federal prosecutors and Trump supporters interpreted it as a coded call for assassination, leading to his indictment in April 2026.
The question behind Comey’s cryptic message is:
Why would a Director of the FBI want to get rid of the President (Trump)?
(Rephrase: Comey wanted to get rid of him (Trump), but WHY? or for WHO?)
Whom
^ Thnx ^
AS more info comes to light, Comey was motivated to further suppress the Russian Collusion (and manufactured Impeachment) origins. “Whom” et.al.
Comey is clearly advocating for getting rid of our President. This is quite rightly considered a violation of the law. I know if someone published a threat like this against my family I would take it very seriously. This kind of murderous incitement needs to be stopped now. Oh, and the Jew hating and hatred of Republicans in thees comments is very troubling. So, it would be okay to publish praise of the Nazis such as Mandami has spoken or the Maine candidate for the Senate?
Advocating for the killing of a person is not a threat, and it is protected speech under 1A. If the defendant “advocates” in the sense of soliciting someone else to do it, that’s different. But just advocating in the abstract, as this Instagram post appears to have been, does not rise to that level. Comey did not threaten that he himself would take any action, and unless the government can supply evidence it was a secret message soliciting someone in particular with whom Comey had a prior arrangement, the prosecution will not survive a pretrial motion to dismiss.
I’m not endorsing Comey or his Instagram post, both of which I find repulsive. I’m just describing the state of the law.
This seems absolutely right. And this true even if 8647 is about killing. Comey isn’t threatening to kill Trump himself. Nor is he soliciting anyone else in particular to do so.
And yet a democrat teacher tried to do just that a few days ago. Serendipity, right?
OMFK
How would this be any different than inciting a riot? The Democrats have for nine years attacked Trump smearing him as a vile criminal, worthy only of execution and life imprisonment. They have set the stage and their little antics such as Comey’s continue to incite violence against him by the gullible crazies. There is nothing more evident and clearly visible as the truth of this matter. I fail to see how this would fall under free speech as it is clearly intended to incite violence and cause harm to the President.
Eightball – you ask a good question. The Supreme Court case on this topic is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). To fall outside of 1A protectoins, the speech has to be an incitement to “imminent lawlessness” which is different than “mere advocacy” of violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
“will not survive a pretrial motion to dismiss.”
Oldman, you seem definite in that prediction, but though I agree with everything you said, I am questioning your conclusion. I see two tracks for Comey’s prosecution. The inadequate threat of the shells, and the law about threatening the President. I’m not sure how these things operate in a courtroom. I can see a dismissal of the latter claim, but the former is a law and though unconstitutional, requires a trial as to its constitutionality in this particular case. Therefore, if both tracks are used, I don’t think there will be a dismissal.
You are the lawyer, so I will listen to your legal logic.
Turley giveth and Turley taketh away. Even Turley has to admit that Comey posting an “86/47” shell design created by someone else, and which he discovered on a NC beach and posted to his account, is not a crime. Comey had no intent to assassinate anyone, and no reasonable person would understand “86” to equate to murder. According to Merriam-Webster: “Eighty-six is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of,” or “to refuse service to.” It comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out. There is varying anecdotal evidence about why the term eighty-six was used, but the most common theory is that it is rhyming slang for nix.” That term is not synonymous with “threaten to assassinate” by any stretch of the imagination.
However, Turley just HAS to get in some MAGA licks: “It will undermine the legitimate objections to the lawfare waged under Comey.” WHAT “legitimate objections”? There aren’t any. There wasn’t any “lawfare” either. Trump’s campaign DID have connections with Russians, who DID try to help him. That was the conclusion of a Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.
However, the larger, overarching issue that would be proper for a law professor to address is the DOJ continuing to go after Comey solely because Trump told them to do so, AND following the dismissal of a previous effort to prosecute Comey that was thrown out of Court because Lindsey Halligan misrepresented herself as a “US Attorney”.
ABA Rule 3.8–Special Duties of a Prosecutor:
“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;”
There is no “probable cause” to charge Comey with a crime under these facts, but not only that, the reason for bringing the charges is political, which is a further violation of the ethical rules for prosecuting attorneys. From “Just Security”, citing the ABA:
“The American Bar Association’s (ABA) Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function likewise contain multiple provisions that counsel prosecutors not to act – or appear to act – based on the political views, associations, or beliefs of a subject, or their own (or those of their political superiors). These include the overarching admonition that: “A prosecutor should not use . . . improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion.” The ABA’s standards also condemn prosecutors making, causing, authorizing, or condoning “public statement[s] that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a criminal proceeding or heightening public condemnation of the accused.””
“…and no reasonable person would understand “86” to equate to murder.”
========
I have to agree, 100%. How the term “86” could ever be taken for the act of killing/murdering the President is laughable…. Sure, Comey is an Ass Klown, that is a given, but when we start going after our political enemies with pure fabrications of criminal acts we have effectively turned into a North Korea, China, Iran or Russia. We’re above that. This is a Nancy Pelosi political stunt. We do NOT want to turn into the Nancy Pelosi’s of America. We’re better than that.
While you and anonymous are correct HIS case should not be prosecuted.
The claim that “86” is not understood in the context of law enforcement and crime as “kill” is obsurdly stupid.
More nonsense from John Say.
The term to 86 someone is standard terminology in Las Vegas casinos, when card counters and cheats are trespassed from the premises.
It is also standard terminology when a drunk is ejected from a bar.
It is also standard terminology in restaurant kitchens when they run out of an ingredient or a menu item.
There is no possible way that the DOJ can prove that Comey had the intent to threaten Trump.
This indictment is nothing more than the DOJ stooges acquiescing to Trump’s demands for prosecution.
The term “8645” and now “8647” have gained widely understood meaning expressing a wish that Trump would be killed, regardless of what 86 means in other contexts. With that said, you’re right in saying the DOJ cannot prove Comey issued a true threat. As I noted below, expressing a wish that someone would die, or even a more specific wish or recommendation that somebody kill that person, are not true threats, as they only express the speaker’s desired outcome and do not threaten any action on the speaker’s part. That makes such speech protected under 1A.
So you agree that this indictment is nothing more than Trump’s lackeys and stooges at DOJ acquiescing to his demands for a prosecution, while knowing perfectly well that there is no possibility of proving the allegations.
I smell disbarment proceedings in the future for these incompetent stooges at DOJ.
What I “agree” with is that this case will not survive a pretrial motion to dismiss. The rest of what you said is mere spin.
And you have know idea what the standards are for disbarment. Simply being wrong on the law is not grounds to disbar.
Given your somewhat ridiculous response to my comment, I will consider anything further from you to be sealioning and will not respond.
What is ridiculous about my response?
I am simply making a logical conclusion from facts that we both agree upon.
You explicitly state, in agreement with me, that “the DOJ cannot prove Comey issued a true threat”.
You also explicitly state “that makes such speech protected under 1A.”
Both of these statements are obvious to any competent, ethical attorney. The fact that this indictment was brought simply proves that the DOJ prosecutors, by definition, are not competent, ethical attorneys. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the prosecutors are nothing more than unethical stooges willing to forgo ethical considerations to satisfy Trump’s demand for a prosecution.
It is not simply a matter of “being wrong on the law” as you claim.
It is a matter of being wrong on the ethics, which is a violation subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Oh, and by the way, your statement condemning me and saying that you will no longer respond, is just an admission that you know that I am right.
I have noticed from your past comments that this is a trick that you try to pull with regularity when you know you are wrong.
By the way, your statement condemning me and saying that you will no longer respond, is just an admission that you know that I am right.
I have noticed from your past comments that this is a trick that you try to pull with regularity when you know you are wrong.
So, you agree. Good you goofball.
Shill, Comeys a shill and possibly for monyee.
Agree which means he lied under oath and no doubt there are witnesses regarding Mr. Comey’s understanding. New evidence, JS. possibly.
Unbelievable. so what DOES 86 mean then?
First while Turley is correct that this prosecution is unlikely to survive a first amendment challenge – see VBrandenburg and Elonis.
Most everything else you are arguing is irrelevant or wrong.
It does not matter who place the shells on the beech – Comey Published them – he is Liable.
They ARE a Threat, they are a threat to kill. They are also an instruction to kill.
But they Still do not meet the Brandenburg Test allowing Comey’s speech to be treated as a crime.
“Comey had no intent to assassinate anyone,”
BZZT Wrong. While you can not glean from Comey’s post that HE intended to assassinate Trump.
You can Easily glean that he Wanted Trump assassinated.
“and no reasonable person would understand “86” to equate to murder”
BZZT Wrong. No 86 does not mean “throw out” – it means MURDER
Just like interpretting the constitution words must be interpretted as the meant at the time they were written.
Unless we are trying to understand writings from the 1930’s the meaning of 86 in 1930 is irrelevant.
The meaning of 86 in 2025 in the context of a social media post by the former head of the FBI is what matters.
In the world of law enforcement “86” means kill. Comey’s meaning is not unclear.
Webster does not matter, the origen fo the term does not matter.
What matters is what 96 would mean in the context of a former law enforcement officer.
And there is only one meaning in that context – kill.
“That term is not synonymous with “threaten to assassinate” by any stretch of the imagination.”
Of course it does – that is exactly what mob bosses mean when they say “86 him”.
It is exactly what the term means in the context of law enforcement.
Comey is not a 1930’s soda jerk.
““It will undermine the legitimate objections to the lawfare waged under Comey.” WHAT “legitimate objections”? There aren’t any. There wasn’t any “lawfare” either. ”
ROFL
“Trump’s campaign DID have connections with Russians,”
False
“who DID try to help him.”
False
” That was the conclusion of a Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.”
Both false and the committees conclusions were universally disproven later.
It took 5 different congressional hearings to get to the bottom of Benghazi.
The prior 4 hearings and reports were WRONG.
“However, the larger, overarching issue that would be proper for a law professor to address is the DOJ continuing to go after Comey solely because Trump told them to do so,”
DOJ is required to “go after” Comey at the direction fo the president – so long as there is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed.
That standard is trivially met.
YOU rant about the collusion delusion nonsense – but the ACTUAL fact is that,
there was briefy reasoable suspicion – when it was alleged that Popaldoulus had told Downer that Russian hackers were going to realease Hillaries bathroom basement email server emails.
But when interviewed by the FBI both Downer and Papa denied that Russian Hackers releasing Hillary emails was part of their conversation.
There was BREIFKY reasonable suspicion when the Steele Dossier first dropped.
But by late December 2017 Danchenko the actual author of the Steele Dossier admitted in interviews with the FBI that it was all gossip – mostly from the DNC and that there was no substance to any of it.
At that point the FBI no longer had reasonable suspicion and the investigation was required to close.
BTW this was the conclusion of Horowitz as well as Congress after hearing from Horowitz.
There is also LOTS of evidence that those in the FBI – including Comey had also concluded that they no longer had reasonable suspicion.
Strzok contacted an administrator in the FBI and asked him to keep Crossfire Huricane open for a few days After the Danchenko interview – so that he could intgerview Flynn where he hoped that he would be able to manufacture new reasonable suspicion.
The reason that the DOJ under Bar dropped the prosecution of Flynn was because Strzok did not have reasonable suspicion at the time he interviewed Flynn – therefore there was NO LEGITIMATE investigation, therefore it is irrelevant what Flynn said to Strzok. 18 US 1001 does not make any false statement to an FBI agent a crime.
If you tell an FBI agent you had eggs for breakfast and you actually had cereal – that is not a crime. If you meet an FBI agent for lunch in DC and mislead them – even intentionally, that is not a crime – there MUST be a legitimate investigation going on and your misrepresentation must result disruption of that investigation.
All of this was covered in tedious detail years ago. Anyone posting here should KNOW this.
“following the dismissal of a previous effort to prosecute Comey that was thrown out of Court because Lindsey Halligan misrepresented herself as a “US Attorney”.”
The investigation and prosecution of Comey is ongiong – the court you cite merely tossed the indictment and Haligans status as a US attorney – and that rulling is still being appealed.
If that appeals succeeds – and there is a reasonable chance of that – the Haligan indictment is vindicated and calid and Comey will be prosecutied for Perjury.
“There is no “probable cause” to charge Comey with a crime”
Of course there is – with respect to the Haligan indictment – whether you like the GJ’s conclusion or not they found probable cause that Comey had lied under oath and that he had illegally leaked. With respect to “86 47” – there is zero doubt that Comey posted “86 47”. There is absolutely probable cause.
The only question is whether Comey’s threat is protected speech. Turley is correct that it is protected speech and Dthe DOJ should not be prosecuting Comey for publishing it.
But trying to claim there is no probable cause is ludicrously stupid. The fact that DOJ will lose – either in court or on appeal, does not mean there is no probable cause.
“the reason for bringing the charges is political, which is a further violation of the ethical rules for prosecuting attorneys. ”
False, investigations where politics may be a motive for the investigation or prosecution are perfectly legal – so long as there is reasonable suspicion for the investigation and probable cause for the prosecution.
BTW – while the ABA provides guidance to attorney’s – they ARE NOT government, they are NOT the law.
Regardless – if political prosecution was barred all you would have to do to avoid prosecution would be to pi$$ off those with the power to prosecute.
The problem with the lefts prosecutions of Trump is they were PURELY political. There was no actual crime.
Threatening people – is a crime, sometimes it is protected by the first amendment.
Perjury is a crime.
Absolutely prosecutors should not appear to act based on political motivations. But the left has sailed that ship already. Turn about is fair play.
Further, once one party has abused power in baseless political prosecutions – Trust in justice suffers until there are consequences.
The rule of law REQUIRES the prosecutiions of those who baselessly prosecuted Trump – but ONLY for actual crimes.
Separately you cite a provision regarding Prosecutorial discretion. and I would note that it advises not just against prosecuting politially, but also not prosecuting politically.
Regardless – Prosecutorial discretion is only legitimate – with respect to:
Choices of prosecutions when the prosecutor has limited resources.
Choices of prosecution when a case is weak and likely to lose.
None of the cases against Trump ever should have been prosecuted.
The “86 47” case against Comey should not be prosecuted.
JS, Comey dropped the bomb of, oh btw there are the HC, 38 000, deleted emails, in testimony that was very interesting.
I’m taking a whole different tack here.
There was a time when politicians, public officials, Hollywood, MEDIA, law professors or legal journalists, and of course, gag-order likelies, respectfully refrained from speaking or publishing their opinions on PENDING cases–until a verdict (or a 12(b) dismissal) was in.
Then they would let loose with their “I knew this would be….” or “I didn’t think this case would….” or “I agree (or disagree) with the verdict,” etc.
In today’s age of ubiquitous media influence, -social media in particular, one cannot count on a juror not being- at a minimum -subliminally influenced by hourly/daily information that the pending case is stupid, a no-brainer judgment, or a no-brainer acquital, etc. Nor can you always count on voir dire getting honest answers from a jury pool about whether anyone was familiar with the case or the parties or had preconceived feelings about the case. Serving on a HIGH PROFILE case often subdues honest responses.
(I am mindful that the good professor at least had the providence to include in his opinion today a caveat/condition/tempering with his statements, e.g., “…absent some unknown new facts” and, “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.”
SO I only offer my opinion that I consider Comey a pompous, exploitative cad, and I wish that there were a sure way to knock him down a few rungs. But let the chips fall where they may.
lin: I must disagree. Turley knows that at the time of seeking an indictment, a prosecuting attorney is supposed to have enough facts to conclude that a crime was committed BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There aren’t any facts to conclude that any crime was committed, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. The claim, in the criminal indictment, that “reasonable people” would conclude that 86/47 was an assassination threat, is absurd. So, it doesn’t matter if, later on, they dig up some “unknown new facts”–what they could possibly be is beyond imagination but that doesn’t change the analysis. The KNOWN facts are insufficient to bring charges, and that is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, especially in view of the glaringly obvious political motivation, which is another violation. Prosecuting attorneys take an oath to the profession, and are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct that forbid abuse of the legal system to appease the whims of a politician seeking retribution against someone they dislike. You know that they’ll be looking, hard, for something, anything, to mitigate this utter disaster and the all but certain dismissal that will be forthcoming (along with potential sanctions and a potential disciplinary complaint) but this is just another example of the joke that the DOJ has become. Trump is using the DOJ to harass Comey–and the implications of lawyers going along with using their license in this manner should be the topic of today’s piece.
The claim, in the criminal indictment, that “reasonable people” would conclude that 86/47 was an assassination threat, is absurd.
==
Agree 100%. We’re better than the Nancy Pelosi’s out there. To consider the term “86” as a “death threat” is laughable. Nancy Pelosi is “laughble”, a joke. We do NOT want to be another version of Nancy Pelosi.
Say what you will about Nancy, she is one rich shrew. I’ll happily take her money, influence, connections and California vineyard. And yes, Comey was advocating for the killing of President Trump. To think otherwise is a sign of bêtise.
He deleted his IG post about the seashells. That indicates regret. Let the jury decide. What does he have to fear or hide? Why did he delete the evidence hours after posting it?
Additionally, if you look at the comments on his IG account that preceded and followed the seashells post, now deleted, he had volition and full knowledge of connecting 86 to murdering an individual, just as the first IG post reflected.
Even if the indictment does not result in imprisonment, hitting him in the pocket book shouldn’t be a problem for a wealth white dude like him.
Karma is back and she is eyeing Comey.
Besides, you all are convinced that we are not ruled by religion. And yet you all sound like a bunch of sanctimonious prigs….just like Nancy Pelosi.
What did Comey’s deleted post say, Esto? My copy vanished.
stitchy, the indictment DOES NOT SAY anything about death threats or assassination. It contains the language of the cited18 USC, ‘to do harm’ to the President. Calm down.
?????
What are you disagreeing with???? I expressed NO opinion on Comey’s guilt or innocence for any crime.
My comment is 110% about respectfully refraining from opinion by those in the public eye who get much media coverage.
Further, I’m quite sure that you are in error. Proving probable cause for an indictment does NOT mean proving beyond a reasonable doubt. They are two different standards applied at two different times. “An indictment need only contain those facts and elements of the alleged offense necessary to inform the accused of the charge so that he or she may prepare a defense and invoke the Double Jeopardy Clause when appropriate.” DOJ CRM 1-222
Gigi, you are not really a lawyer are you? thanks anyway
Lin – Unlike Gigi, I understood your meaning. You were not at all confusing as to what you were opining about.
But moving to substance, I predict this will be dismissed on a 12(b) motion. If the judge has any brains, he or she will know it was 1A protected speech.
Lin, what impact if any does it make if the person charged was the most highly placed government official?
It should have a life as long as the Trump russion collusion claim championed by Comey. And it should have the same fate.
It should have a life as long as the Trump russion collusion claim championed by Comey. And it should have the same fate.
===
That would be Karma, for sure. But if we stoop that low, we’re just another version of Nancy Pelosi. We do NOT want to be another version of Nancy Pelosi. We’re better than that.
Two things:
First, there’s no way Comey thought the shells were a political message but was clueless as to the meaning of the message. He would have been much more credible to say it never occurred to him that some seashells arranged in four digits was a political message. Even that would have strained credulity, as he was head of the FBI, but whatever. It’s just plain idiotic to say, “Yeah, I interpreted some seashells as a political message, but d’oh, I have no idea what the message was.”
Second, there’s no way that was a true threat. It’s my understanding that even saying, “I wish someone would kill so-and-so” or “I advocate that somebody kill so-and-so” are not true threats. Neither message threatens any action; they just express the speaker’s state of mind of wanting someone else to do something.
Second, there’s no way that was a true threat.
==
Agreed. No reasonable person is going to view “86” as an intent to threaten the President with death or GBI.
DJT has avoided sleeping with the fish several times.
Excellent post.
Comey may have been sending a warning to DJT. Comey may be privy to some rank inside tracks.
Only an idiot would believe that a completely embarrassed, arrogant, and condescending former aristocrat, James Comey, did not mean and would not have thoroughly enjoyed an assassination.
There is no election imminent, and no impeachment is possible with a Republican Congress.
Not a fan of Comey and he is done some pretty rotten stuff, but I can’t see a conviction on this either.
Anon– “i can’t see a conviction on this”
Nor can I. I would not like to see this as a precedent for future prosecutions. It seems too much like something Democrats would do…overreach. i would prefer to see him in prison for a more blatant crime. He is scum.
So is Jimmy Kimmel, who will likely make expensive fodder of this, as related to his own travails..
Is anyone paying any attention to Kimmel ?
Gutfeld has 1M more viewers.
I’m paying attention to Kimmel. DJT and Melania have been through many attempted assassinations now and the latest is hideous. CONTEXT matters.
Kimmel sought to emotionally abuse Melania and most likely succeeded. He’s an abuser of women much the same as the hideous beaters in the elevator and hotel hallway. I wonder if Kimmel is a wife beater.
It’s not humor, it’s emotional abuse and he should be fired. If this culture were moral and educated NO ONE would watch the program. Half of this culture are uncivilized brutes of the worst kind.
CONTEXT matters. 8647 in light of several attempts makes it very serious and Comey is dangerous. I’d charge him and convict him of perjury and whatever else I could get.
I would not like to see this as a precedent for future prosecutions. It seems too much like something Democrats would do…overreach.
===
This⬆is the general consensus among the majority, if not all, of the Professors readers and commentators here. I think it is safe to say that if these comments are the general consensus among pretty much ALL of the readers on this page, then it is a bad charge. Very bad overreach and detrimental to the truth and values that our nation stands for. We’re better than the Nancy Pelosi’s of America, and this Comey indictment is just that: a Nancy Pelosi stunt. Nothing more. It harms the country. Someone has to stand up for what is right, for what our country stands for, for what is righteous, and it is not a revenge indictment….Even for Dirtbags like Comey.
consensus? sure, a mob of people could never be wrong, only individuals are wrong. mobs are always right.
I want a jury to decide comeys fate because i want everyone who threatens a president to be prosecuted, I don’t care if “we win”. So I must be wrong?
how many republicans think it wasn’t a threat? none. No one can argue it wasn’t a real threat because there is no reason to post it otherwise.
Comey’s minimization and justifications for his crime are expected, it’s who he is. let’s hear these rinos defend comey some more.
Stitch..,
Thank you for that. I don’t want to be a Democrat “by any means necessary” type. I oppose them because I think law and due process are worth preserving and I don’t want to abandon that just because I want very much to see Comey in prison because he has abandoned respect for law. The “by any means necessary” crowd are dangerously close to becoming Berias of the “show me the man and I will show you the crime” type. Indeed, that has been the method of the attacks against Trump over the years. Only Trump or maybe Churchill could have endured it. We can’t stop that evil by imitating it.
Really? Like anyone cares what Anonymous thinks. We’re here to get Turley’s take you fool.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN 1963
“The dog will keep biting you if you only cut off its tail” — Louisiana Mafia boss Carlos Marcello allegedly used this analogy in 1962 to explain that targeting Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the “tail”) was useless while his brother, the President (the “head”), remained in power.
“When you cut down the tree, the branches fall with it” — Jimmy Hoffa reportedly told a federal informant that removing the President would naturally neutralize Robert Kennedy’s crackdown on organized crime.
“Take that stone out of my shoe!” — Marcello was overheard using this traditional Sicilian curse in September 1962, which is interpreted as a call to remove a persistent and painful annoyance—in this context, the Kennedy administration.
“Kennedy is in trouble… he is going to get what is coming to him” — Florida mobster Santo Trafficante Jr. reportedly used this vague warning in 1962, suggesting the President was on an unavoidable path toward a “hit” without detailing a specific plot.
“The word in the underworld” — Rose Cheramie, a woman with mob ties, told police days before the event that the underworld knew the President was going to “take a mob bullet,” reflecting a general atmosphere of expectation rather than a direct confession of a plan.
In May 2025, Trump had been in office for only 4 months of a 4-year term. No election was scheduled for a full 3 1/2 years. Comey had no possible way to “get rid of” Trump other than assassination; Congress was a republican majority and manifestly not inclined to impeach. The only way to understand his—and no one else’s—”8647″ is to grasp that Comey was the nascent element of a conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States, causing Comey to be guilty of conspiracy.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
A person can be guilty of conspiracy if they agree with one or more people to commit a crime and at least one of them takes an overt act to further that plan, even if the crime is never completed. A person can be convicted if they acted with intent, and the agreement can be implied, not necessarily explicit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
86
Eighty-six or 86 is American English slang, generally meaning to “get rid of” someone or something.
– Wiki
Shell sounds like shill.
Sure he knew, he agreed to walk on the beach while buying tomatoes that morning at the market as a spook walked by him.
Eighty-six or 86 is American English slang, generally meaning to “get rid of” someone or something.
==
So, lt me explain this to you, so you understand. “Get Rid Of” is vague and ambiguous, meaning to can have many different interpretations, but MURDER or KILLING THE PRESIDENT is NOT one of those interpretations. And NO reasonable person, much less a 12 person unanimous jury, would ever conclude the term “86” was meant to convey to kill, or murder, or cause GBI to the President.
stitchy, the indictment DOES NOT SAY anything about death threats or assassination. It contains the language of the cited18 USC, ‘to do harm’ to the President. Calm down.
The Supreme Court couldn’t understand the wording.
It formally allowed the abridgment of speech and press in the form of defamation, such as slander and libel, as early as 1798.
The relevant portion of the Sedition Act of 1798 must have been struck down.
No power to legislate or amend is vested in the judicial branch.
Defamation is fully constitutional speech and press and may not be abridged.
It’s the law.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
See if you can understand the unqualified English language in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….
People must adapt to freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Dictatorship does.
Ok, anon, and if an educated, moral population existed those engaging in defamation, libel, slander, gossip etc would be rejected.
Injured parties enjoy the full freedom of speech and press to quell and quash false accusations.
Cleanup on Aisle 3!
The limits of free speech, would this not be akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater? The left has smeared the President with lie after lie devoid any evidence or due process. With their accusations of rapist and pedophile they have prosecuted Trump in the Democrats court of public opinion. They have continued their course as they are complicit in fraud, bribery, treason and other crimes that when convicted could result in their death or life imprisonment.
Comey posting this with the public atmosphere the left has expertly created is EXACTLY the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
The limits of free speech, would this not be akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater?
==
Well, and this is a very common mistake, yelling FIRE in a CROWDED THEATER is NOT unlawful. Not a good analogy, if that is what you were aiming for…..
Stitch…
With all due respect you are 100% wrong. Knowingly spreading false information to incite a harmful outcome is legally defined as Incitement and is not covered as protected speech. Making the argument that is what Comey was doing is where it would take some scrutiny to establish.
His use of Social Media to promote a dangerous or false panic is actionable. Was Comey’s intent to incite violence against the President of the United States? IMO given all the other evidence of his misdeeds, it was without a doubt.
Maybe add to the list death threats, defamation, slander, libel, perjury. Specifically death threats veiled or not to highly placed officials?
Given the potential applicability of free speech protections in Comey’s case, it may be more appropriate to examine whether any broader patterns of coordinated political activity meet the legal threshold for investigation under RICO statutes. Such an inquiry would require clear evidence of organized efforts involving fraud, improper financial arrangements, or unlawful coordination for political or financial gain. Any claims of incitement or corruption should be evaluated based on verifiable facts and the established legal standards for those offenses.
Try getting RICO on the mob. The top is unkn.
“Michigan Gov. Whitmer In The Crosshairs? ”
“DOJ Could Probe Into Her “86 45” Display”
– AOL News
https://www.aol.com/news/michigan-gov-whitmer-crosshairs-doj-142954478.html
If you think Patient Number 9 Comey’s antics in the media are significant, CNN features Andrew McCabe frequently, and he should have been Drawn and Quartered already with Obama and the rest of the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
____________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
_____________________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_____________________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
You really need to get new material.
– Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter
Are Obama and his co-conspirators in jail yet, Einstein?
In a political rally Trump told his supporters to “beat the hell out of them” literally instructing his supporters to physically assault legal First Amendment exercises of his political opponents.
This is a much stronger case for the federal Attorney General to prosecute.
Remarks in an Exchange With Reporters Prior to Departure for New York City
September 11, 2025
The President: Hello, everybody.
Q: Are you concerned for your own safety, Mr. President? Are you concerned for your own safety?
The President. Not really. I’m really concerned for our country. We have a great country. We have a radical-left group of lunatics out there—just absolute lunatics. And we’re going to get that problem solved. I’m only concerned for the country.
Yes.
Q: Mr. President, how do you want to see your supporters respond to this? Charlie Kirk was a big advocate of nonviolence and free speech on campus. How do you want your supporters to respond, sir?
The President. I think that way. He was. He was an advocate of nonviolence. That’s the way I’d like to see people respond.
Q: Did you speak to his family? Did you speak to his family this——
The President. Say it?
Q: Did you speak with his family this afternoon?
The President. I did. I spoke to Erika, his wife. And we had a long talk, and she’s devastated. She’s absolutely devastated, as you can imagine.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q. Great speech today. What is your message to other conservative influencers, podcasters, TV hosts that they might be targeted by some of these radical groups?
The President. Well, we have to be brave in life. You know? In all fairness, we have a life, and we have to be brave. I probably shouldn’t be out here talking to you, in all fairness. But we will be brave.
And we have a great country. We have radical-left lunatics out there, and we just have to beat the hell out of them.
…
Depends who’s listening. The AG or Luca Brazzi.
“86” is a term restaurants use to say something is out of inventory like “86 the avocados”, so the waitress won’t sell avocados.
In this context “86” could mean a lame duck president that can no longer run for re-election or the perfectly legal process of impeachment. It’s likely Trump has violated this so-called free speech violation himself.
The judge should throw out the case. Then make the AG and U.S. Attorney reimburse us taxpayers using their own “personal” funds for professional malpractice of law. They should be disbarred from practicing law in a first-world nation.
I agree 100% with your assessment of both Comey and his right to be stupid and childish with sea shells.
Thankfully, though, that issue will soon be buried by the SCOTUS ruling on Louisiana v. Callais.
Professor Turley has long predicted this will be the most consequential ruling of 2026, and it’s far enough ahead of the mid-terms to hopefully be just that.
Be afraid, Dems. Be very afraid. 😉
https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/29/supreme-court-smacks-down-rampant-race-based-gerrymandering/?fbclid=IwY2xjawRfCbxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeyni-OIzcRTAotsk_Uuee6zC4S4GRKlZuTBN7glilZIvMfE7t2IH4IpwVeBE_aem_CNSQJ9cYYG-uPZWMp9jmMQ
The ruling will be too late to do anything about the midterms. Which is not a good thing for republicans.
Cliff, if partisan gerrymandering stands then people will move to red or blue states and divide is accomplished. I think a clear case of partisan gerrymandering can be defeated.
Compact is mathematical and the organic shapes were a result of the chaos after the Civil War. A reimplementation of compact is sufficient although states can choose to be ultra liberal or conservative and that may be a good idea. It would result in poverty states otoh.
Yes, ‘86’ is a signal to the bouncer to gently remove from the tavern premises a customer who is becoming unruly.
And be sure he has paid his bill!
Or in restaurant parlance to “get rid of” or “throw away”…….and also take off menu. Nothing burger bigtime
Comey may be an outrageous scoundrel, but 1A protects the speech of scoundrels and saints alike.
Where I live, getting “86d” is a drunk getting thrown out of a bar and banned from coming back, or “trespassed.” Comey may be a dishonest putz who broke security laws, but it is a stretch to interpret the shells this way and vindictive to pursue this route.