Federal prosecutors urged a judge to reject former FBI Director James Comey’s bid to dismiss criminal charges over a social media post featuring seashells arranged to read “86 47,” arguing the message could reasonably be interpreted as a call to kill President Donald Trump.
In a court filing, the US Department of Justice contended that Comey both transmitted a threat and sought to capitalize on the ensuing controversy to promote his forthcoming novel, framing the case around the interpretation of the now-deleted image.
“There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey’s post could read it to mean ‘Kill President Trump,'” prosecutors wrote, referencing the numeric shorthand in which “86” is slang for eliminating something and “47” denotes the 47th president.
Comey has maintained that the post was protected political expression and never intended as a threat. His legal team has previously asked the court to throw out the charges as constitutionally shielded speech, arguing the government is criminalizing commentary.
The former FBI chief deleted the image shortly after posting it last year, saying he had not understood its violent connotation. Prosecutors, however, pointed to the timing and Comey’s public profile, asserting the episode was leveraged for personal and commercial gain.
The dispute over intent sits at the center of the case. Defense attorneys have accused the government of mischaracterizing the evidence, and in a separate filing they alleged prosecutors misled the court about the sequence of events surrounding the post.
Comey, who was dismissed by Trump in 2017, has remained a prominent critic of the president and a frequent target of his allies. The prosecution marks an unusual instance of a former senior law enforcement official facing threat-related charges tied to online activity.
Legal analysts note that threat cases often hinge on whether a reasonable person would perceive genuine intent to cause harm, a standard courts weigh against First Amendment protections for hyperbole and political speech.
The judge is expected to rule on the motion to dismiss in the coming weeks. Should the case proceed, it would test the boundaries between protected expression and criminal threats in a highly charged political environment.