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

by | Aug 19, 2026 | Politics

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

The Department of Justice filed motions defending its prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey on charges related to a social media post featuring seashells arranged in the pattern “86 47.” Prosecutors stated that “there is no serious dispute” that the May 2025 Instagram post could be interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump, whose presidential number is 47. The post was deleted shortly after being uploaded.

Comey’s legal team has challenged the indictment on multiple grounds, including arguments that it represents vindictive prosecution and that the post does not constitute a true threat. Prosecutors countered that Comey claimed to have discovered the seashells while walking on a North Carolina beach, but they expressed skepticism about this account, noting the shells were located approximately 4 miles from where Comey was staying and in an area separated from the ocean by a sand dune. The government also noted the post came shortly before Comey’s scheduled release of a novel titled “FDR Drive,” which centers on a social media personality whose rhetoric inspires violence among his followers.

Defense attorneys contend that investigators provided misleading information to judges when obtaining search warrants and withheld key facts from magistrates. They argue that an FBI search of internal databases found inconclusive results regarding any connection between Comey and the term “86,” and that a key government witness, Salvatore Gravano, stated he had no recollection of discussing the term with Comey. Comey’s lawyers note that the numerical slogan has long been used to mean “get rid of” or “eject” and appears on thousands of items sold online and at protests.

The Justice Department denied allegations of political retribution, stating the decision to indict Comey was made by the local U.S. attorney rather than stemming from presidential or attorney general directives. Prosecutors maintained that no government theory in the case was disproved and that no intentionally false omissions occurred in their filings.

Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source

Article summary produced by Claude AI