The Comey “86 47” Message , Why Posting a Math Equation Became a Federal Crime

There is a certain type of news article that appears ridiculous at first but turns out to be quite serious. One of those tales is the criminal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, which followed an Instagram post that featured nothing more than seashells piled on a seashore to make the numbers 8-6-4-7.

On the surface, the post appears to be the kind of casual political shorthand that has grown commonplace in American social media, something that thousands of people share every day, frequently without giving it much thought. A different stance has been adopted by the Department of Justice. Now that Comey is facing federal charges, the matter is quickly rising to the top of the year’s most keenly followed free-speech disputes.

One bit of American slang is crucial to the understanding. For the majority of native English speakers, “86” refers to the removal or rejection of something in the restaurant sector. When a customer has had too many drinks, a bartender may 86 them. When a menu item runs out, a line chef may 86 it. According to Merriam-Webster, this is the main definition of the phrase, which has been used in American English since at least the 1930s.

However, the dictionary also cautiously observes that the term has taken on a secondary meaning in law enforcement and military parlance, where it can refer to killing or removing a target. Merriam-Webster admits that this secondary meaning is too recent and too infrequently used to be officially included in the dictionary’s main entry.

Now, a federal case revolves around that grammatical uncertainty. According to reports, the DOJ claims that Comey’s combination of 86 and 47—the latter being a common abbreviation for Donald Trump as the 47th president—constituted a subtle but clear demand for harm. Shortly after the post started to receive notice, Comey removed it, and he has publicly claimed that he was not aware of the violent interpretation.

As expected, Trump has dismissed that explanation, claiming that Comey was making “loud and clear” calls for his killing.” The dynamic will be familiar to anyone who has observed the larger political conflict between Trump and Comey over the course of almost ten years. Every move made by one guy is seen negatively by the other, and there is a genuine history underlying this mistrust.

The political narrative misrepresents the complexity of the legal landscape. Threats against the president are illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 871), although the act has traditionally been read narrowly to require a “true threat” that a reasonable person would regard as a serious indication of intent to inflict harm. Political exaggeration, vagueness, and slang have typically crossed the line.

The government must demonstrate that the speaker had at least a reckless comprehension of the menacing nature of their statements, according to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Counterman v. Colorado. Defense lawyers are expected to take advantage of the precise type of evidentiary doubt created by Comey’s deleted tweet and his purported justification. Anyone who has worked on First Amendment matters will understand how challenging it is to establish criminal intent by interpreting various slang meanings.

A portion of the story is revealed by the cultural context. Since Comey’s dismissal from the FBI in 2017, which contributed to the early months of the first Trump administration, Comey has been the focus of Trump’s ire. In her own wrongful termination lawsuit against the Justice Department, which has been subtly escalating tensions within the federal civil service for months, his daughter Maurene Comey recently obtained a procedural victory. Observing the accumulation of these tales gives the impression that the Comey family has turned into a specific type of political flashpoint, with federal agencies caught in the middle and legal actions flowing in both directions.

This case may be more significant than its peculiar surface aspects indicate because of the broader ramifications. The DOJ’s readiness to file federal charges in connection with a removed social media post that used unclear lingo is a significant extension of the interpretation of threat statutes. Anyone who has spent time on American social media has witnessed the daily posting of significantly more hostile content without a federal inquiry.

The standards for what constitutes a criminal threat against a public figure may be discreetly revised if “86 47” is deemed actionable. Aware that any precedent created in the Comey case might have far-reaching effects, civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have started to carefully consider their options.

It’s difficult to ignore how ridiculous the case’s literal contents sound to anyone who isn’t involved in the current political situation. Shells were photographed by a man. The shells resembled numerals. A coded message was deciphered from the numbers. A federal indictment resulted from the communication. The next few months will decide whether the case ends with a quiet plea deal, a conviction, an acquittal, or a dismissal.

It’s already evident that the distinction between political speech and federal crime has gotten more difficult to make, and that those who will eventually need to do so are seated in courtrooms rather than newsrooms or social media offices. For years to come, Americans’ perceptions of and interactions with their politicians may be altered by the seashells in a minor but significant way.