The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over a social media post featuring seashells spelling '86 47' has drawn scrutiny regarding the consistency and legal basis of the prosecution. Critics argue that the standard being applied appears selective, potentially targeting political opponents rather than adhering to uniform legal principles.
The Allegation and Legal Basis
- The Incident: Comey allegedly posted an image of seashells arranged to spell "86 47." The term "86" is slang interpreted as eliminating or discarding, and the number 47 references Donald Trump, the 47th U.S. President.
- The Prosecution's Stance: The Trump administration initially argued that the post constituted a threat against Trump.
- The Indictment: The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a three-page indictment, though details regarding the evidence proving Comey understood the post as a genuine threat remain limited.
Concerns Over Selective Prosecution
Skepticism surrounds the charges, with critics pointing to instances where similar language was used by others without resulting in investigation or indictment.
- Political Parallels: Several figures, including pro-Trump influencer Jack Posobiec (who posted "86 46" referencing Joe Biden) and Scott Adams, have used similar numerical formats in political commentary. These individuals have not faced similar threat-related investigations.
- State Officials: Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was observed displaying "86 45" in 2020, an instance that has not been subject to comparable legal action.
- Merchandise Evidence: The existence of numerous commercially available items (e.g., on Amazon) featuring "86 47," "86 46," and "86 45"—often marketed as calls to remove presidents from office rather than threats of violence—raises questions about the scope of the alleged threat.
Official Responses and Legal Hurdles
When questioned about these inconsistencies, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the mere existence of similar posts does not equate to an indictment, emphasizing that the outcome "depends on the facts of every case." However, Blanche admitted to having no clear information regarding whether investigations into other instances of the post were conducted.
Broader Context of Political Targeting
Legal observers note that the focus on Comey's post mirrors a pattern of scrutiny applied by the administration to political adversaries. Previously, the DOJ scrutinized figures like Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James for potential fraud, while similar scrutiny has reportedly not been applied to certain Republican figures.
Furthermore, critics point out that the standard being applied to Comey could potentially be applied to Donald Trump himself, given his own history of making vaguely threatening statements.
