Justice Department Escalates Political Retaliation Against James Comey Over Instagram Seashell Post
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Justice Department continues its pattern of targeting dissenters, defending its prosecution of former FBI director James Comey over a benign Instagram post. The government claims Comey's photo of seashells arranged as “86 47” is a threat to President Trump, dismissing arguments that the case is politically motivated.
The Justice Department has filed extensive motions defending its controversial indictment of former FBI director James Comey, asserting that his Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to read “86 47” could be interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump. Prosecutors, stretching the bounds of reason, argue that an objective viewer could see the image as a call to “kill President Trump,” referencing the Merriam-Webster definition of “86” as “to throw out” or “to get rid of.”
The government’s filings attempt to place the innocuous post in the context of recent assassination plots against Trump, and even point to a text from Comey’s wife defining “86” minutes before the post. In a further reach, prosecutors question Comey’s explanation that he found the shells on a beach walk, noting the location was miles from the shore and offering no evidence anyone else arranged or photographed the shells.
Comey’s attorneys have rightly argued that the indictment is part of a vindictive campaign by the Trump administration, especially given his 2017 firing after the FBI’s Russia investigation. Yet the Justice Department, desperate to appear impartial, claims the decision to charge Comey was made by the local U.S. attorney without presidential interference.
“There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey’s post could read it to mean ‘Kill President Trump,’” prosecutors wrote, ignoring the obvious political undertones of the prosecution.
“No Government theory was disproved at that time, or now. No intentionally false omission exists, much less one made with reckless disregard for the truth,” the filing added, sidestepping the defense’s concerns about misleading the court.
The defense maintains that investigators misled the court, submitted false statements, and failed to produce any evidence that Comey intended a physical threat. The case remains pending as both sides continue to argue, but the prosecution’s actions highlight the ongoing weaponization of the Justice Department against political opponents.