There’s This: Comey’s Own Family Called His ’86 47′ Post a ‘Call for Violence’ — and Said He Belongs in Prison
COMEY'S WIFE TEXTED HIM THE MEANING OF '86' TWO MINUTES BEFORE HIS '86 47' POST — NOW A FAMILY TEXT IS PART OF THE FEDERAL CASE
A newly filed Justice Department brief has put two previously disputed pieces of evidence at the center of James Comey's federal threat case: a message from his wife about the meaning of “86” sent two minutes before his Instagram post, and a furious text from one of his own relatives calling the post a “call for violence.”
Those details do not prove that the former FBI director intended to threaten President Donald Trump.
But they make the timeline much harder to reduce to a simple story about an innocent photograph that nobody around Comey thought could be controversial.
Comey is facing two federal charges over the May 15, 2025 Instagram image showing seashells arranged as “86 47” on a North Carolina beach.
Prosecutors say the numbers could reasonably be understood as a threat against Trump, the 47th president, because “86” can mean to get rid of something and, in some slang sources, can also carry a violent meaning.
Comey has denied threatening Trump. He says he understood the image as a political message, did not realize people would associate it with violence and removed it after the controversy erupted.
Now the fight is increasingly about what Comey knew before he pressed “post” — and what happened in the hours immediately afterward.
The Justice Department laid out that sequence in an August 18 court filing opposing Comey's effort to suppress evidence and obtain a Franks hearing.
According to the government's filing, Comey was staying in Emerald Isle, North Carolina, while preparing for the release of his novel “FDR Drive.” He has said that he and his wife, Patrice, encountered the shell formation during a beach walk and interpreted it as a political message.
The most important new timing detail comes just before the image appeared online.
At 3:12 p.m., prosecutors say Patrice Comey sent her husband a screenshot containing a definition of “86” as meaning “to get rid of or refuse service.”
At 3:14 p.m. — two minutes later — James Comey posted the photograph to Instagram.
That detail matters.
But it also needs to be described accurately.
The screenshot cited by prosecutors did not define “86” as “kill.” It contained the ordinary, nonviolent slang meaning of removing, rejecting or refusing service.
So the text establishes that the meaning of “86” was being discussed immediately before the post. It does not, by itself, establish that Comey understood the phrase as a death threat.
The government argues that the broader context changes the meaning.
Prosecutors point to slang references in which “86” has been used to mean killing, to public concern over threats against Trump, and to Comey's own experience in federal law enforcement.
They have told the court there is “no serious dispute” that an objective viewer could read “86 47” as a threat to kill President Trump.
Comey's attorneys strongly disagree.
They argue that “86” is commonly understood to mean remove, eject or get rid of; that the phrase has appeared as anti-Trump political speech; and that investigators repeatedly failed to find persuasive evidence that Comey had previously used or encountered “86” as mob slang for killing.
That disagreement is not semantic trivia. It goes directly to the element prosecutors must prove: whether Comey's post crossed the line from political expression into a legally punishable true threat.
Then came the family message.
A few hours after the post went live, one of Comey's relatives sent Patrice Comey a blistering text message.
“86 47” is a call for violence no matter how you spin it.
The message went on to accuse the Comeys of hypocrisy, express embarrassment over James Comey and say the writer hoped he would go to jail.
The significance is obvious: one person within Comey's own family circle interpreted the post as violent almost immediately.
But there is an equally important fact that should not be omitted.
Patrice Comey responded by denying that the post was a call to violence.
James Comey deleted the image later that day and posted a follow-up saying he had assumed the shells represented a political message, had not realized some people associated the numbers with violence and opposed violence of any kind.
The prosecution says that sequence supports its case.
The defense says it supports the opposite conclusion: that once Comey learned other people were interpreting the message violently, he removed it.
The same facts are now being used by both sides to tell two very different stories about intent.
The federal indictment, returned in April, contains two counts.
The first accuses Comey of knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of or inflict bodily harm on the president, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871.
The second accuses him of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce, with prosecutors alleging that he consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the message would be viewed as threatening violence.
Comey has pleaded not guilty, and an indictment is an accusation — not proof of guilt.
That distinction is especially important in a case built around ambiguous language and political speech.
The government is not merely arguing that some people were offended by the post.
Its theory is that the context, the “47” reference to Trump, the possible violent meaning of “86,” Comey's background, and the surrounding communications together show that the post was at least reckless as to whether it would be understood as a threat.
The defense argues that this still falls short of the constitutional standard for criminalizing speech.
Comey's lawyers have also attacked the investigation itself, accusing agents of misleading judges and omitting information when obtaining search warrants.
Among the defense's points: investigators searched FBI records for evidence tying Comey to a violent use of “86” and did not find a clear link. Agents also revisited organized-crime files from Comey's earlier prosecutorial career.
Former mob figure Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano was interviewed as investigators explored whether the term had an established mob meaning Comey would have known.
But according to defense filings summarized in court reporting, Gravano did not recall discussing “86” with Comey, and other former law-enforcement officials questioned whether the phrase was actually used in organized crime to mean killing.
That evidence undercuts any simple claim that a former FBI director must automatically have known “86” meant murder.
Prosecutors respond that they do not need to prove Comey learned the phrase from organized crime.
They say the search warrants were designed to gather evidence about his state of mind and that an investigation is not required to possess final proof before seeking evidence.
The government has also introduced another unusual piece of context: Comey's own fiction.
His novel “FDR Drive,” released days after the Instagram post, centers in part on a far-right media personality accused of using coded or indirect language that inspires followers to attack political enemies.
Prosecutors argue the parallels are relevant to whether Comey understood how indirect words can be interpreted as encouraging violence.
Comey's defense says the comparison does not prove that his own post was a threat.
Again, the distinction is between evidence that may support an inference and evidence that proves criminal intent.
The government has also emphasized the reaction in Emerald Isle.
Its August 18 filing says at least two local residents, including one person employed by the police department, notified the Emerald Isle police chief after the post appeared.
That helps prosecutors argue that the violent interpretation was not invented months later for the indictment.
But a listener's interpretation alone does not resolve what Comey intended or consciously disregarded when he posted the image.
That is the core problem the jury — if the case reaches trial — will eventually have to decide.
There are facts that plainly help the prosecution.
Comey understood that “47” referred to Trump.
The meaning of “86” was discussed with him immediately before the post.
A relative interpreted the combined phrase as violent within hours.
Local residents also reported it as a possible threat.
And the post came against the backdrop of real assassination threats and attempts involving Trump.
There are also facts that plainly help the defense.
The definition Patrice sent before the post was nonviolent.
The most common dictionary meanings of “86” involve removing or getting rid of something.
Comey deleted the post after being told it was being interpreted violently.
And investigators have struggled to establish that he previously understood “86” as a specific code for killing.
Neither side gets to erase the facts that cut against its preferred narrative.
That is why calling the family text a confession would go too far.
The relative was expressing an opinion about the post, not describing a statement by Comey admitting violent intent.
And calling the prosecution obviously baseless would also go beyond what the current record establishes.
A federal grand jury found probable cause to indict, and prosecutors are now presenting a detailed theory tying together timing, language, context and Comey's own communications.
The strongest new fact is not that Comey's family “ratted him out.” It is that the government's timeline shows the meaning of “86” was actively being considered inside the Comey household immediately before the image was posted — and that the violent interpretation reached them almost immediately afterward.
What that proves about James Comey's state of mind remains contested.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has described threats against a president as a serious matter and defended bringing the case.
Comey's lawyers, meanwhile, are asking the court to dismiss the indictment on grounds that include free speech, lack of a true threat and alleged selective or vindictive prosecution.
So the case is no longer really about whether “86 47” can be interpreted as threatening.
Plainly, some people interpreted it that way in real time.
The harder question is whether prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey's own state of mind met the criminal standard when he posted it.
The new texts make that question more concrete.
May you like
They do not answer it.
