‘No serious dispute’ that Comey’s seashell post could be read as a Trump threat, prosecutors say

In court filings submitted this week, federal prosecutors argued there is “no serious dispute” that Comey’s May 2025 Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to read “86 47” could be viewed by an objective observer as a message calling for violence against the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump.

The case centers on a photograph Comey claimed he discovered while walking along a North Carolina beach. After posting the image, Comey later deleted it, saying he was unaware some people interpreted the phrase as a threat. But Justice Department attorneys are challenging that explanation.

Prosecutors point to evidence showing that just minutes before the post went online, Comey’s wife texted him a screenshot containing a definition of the term “86,” including the phrase “to get rid of.” Investigators argue that, given the political climate and repeated threats against President Trump, Comey either knew or should have known the message would be interpreted as promoting violence.

The government’s case also highlights the timing of the post. It appeared just days before the release of Comey’s novel, “FDR Drive,” which features a social media figure whose inflammatory rhetoric inspires supporters to attack perceived enemies. According to court documents, Comey’s literary agent later told him he had “gone viral” following the controversy. Comey reportedly replied that although it was not his intention, he would be fine if the incident helped sell books.

Federal prosecutors say that exchange raises questions about whether the post was designed to attract attention and generate publicity.

Investigators are also disputing Comey’s claim that he simply stumbled upon the shell arrangement during a beach walk. Court filings note that the shells were allegedly found several miles from where Comey was staying and that investigators uncovered no evidence anyone else arranged or photographed the display.

Comey’s defense team argues the prosecution is politically motivated and part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to target one of the president’s most outspoken critics. They contend investigators failed to find evidence showing Comey intended to threaten the president and accuse the government of withholding information and misleading judges during the investigation.

But the Justice Department rejects those claims. Prosecutors insist the indictment was approved independently by federal authorities and was not ordered by President Trump or Attorney General officials.

The government also notes that investigators explored several avenues that defense attorneys cite as favorable to Comey, including interviews and reviews of old FBI records, but found nothing that disproved their central theory.

At the heart of the case is a question many Americans may find straightforward: Should a former FBI director, with decades of law enforcement experience, have recognized that “8647” could be interpreted as a threat against a sitting president?

For supporters of President Trump, the answer is clear. They argue that public figures, especially former top law enforcement officials, have a responsibility to avoid language that could encourage violence or be seen as endorsing it. A federal court will now decide whether the government’s case against James Comey moves forward.

PHOTO- AP