Prosecutors Weaponize Comey's Novel in Dubious 'Seashell Threat' Case
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.
Federal prosecutors in North Carolina are stretching legal boundaries by referencing former FBI director James Comey's crime novel to claim his Instagram post of seashells was a coded threat against President Trump.
Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina have taken the extraordinary step of using former FBI director James Comey's recently published novel, FDR Drive, as supposed evidence that a May 2025 Instagram post—featuring seashells arranged to read “8647”—was a veiled threat against President Donald Trump. The filing attempts to draw a tenuous parallel between the novel’s plot, where a prosecutor targets a far-right media figure and urges followers to confront political adversaries, and Comey's alleged intent, despite the clear distinction between fiction and reality.
The government’s case hinges on the post, innocuously captioned “Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” which was shared after Comey’s wife sent him a screenshot defining “86” as “to get rid of.” Prosecutors, relying on a slang dictionary that includes “kill” as a meaning for “86,” argue that the context transforms a harmless post into a so-called “true threat.”
"On May 15, 2025, a charismatic leader named James Comey, through the wonder of the internet, posted a coded message to his followers meaning ‘kill’ or ‘get rid of’ (a euphemism for ‘kill’) President Trump," the filing claims, blurring the line between creative expression and criminal intent.
Comey faces two felony counts for allegedly threatening the president’s life, charges he vigorously denies. He explained that he deleted the post after learning “86” could be misinterpreted. The filing also reveals that Comey and his publishing agent discussed the post’s impact on book sales, with the agent noting the incident might make the book go viral—a far cry from evidence of violent intent.
Prosecutors dismiss Comey's assertion that the case is politically motivated, insisting that U.S. Attorney W. Ellis Boyle acted independently, without pressure from higher-ups. Boyle’s affidavit claims the acting attorney general was unaware of the prosecution until the last minute, raising questions about transparency and oversight.
The filing further argues that even if the president had directed the prosecution, such interference would be constitutionally permissible, normalizing executive overreach and undermining the separation of powers. This case exemplifies the dangerous politicization of the justice system and the criminalization of dissent.