DOJ Says Comey’s ‘86 47’ Seashell Post Could Be Read as Threat to Kill Trump
The Justice Department is pushing back against James Comey’s attempt to have a criminal case against him dismissed, arguing that “there is no serious dispute” that the onetime FBI director’s controversial “86 47” seashell post could reasonably have been interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump.
Federal prosecutors are also challenging Comey’s claim that he simply stumbled across seashells arranged to display “86 47” during a walk on a North Carolina beach. In court filings Tuesday, the government suggested that the May 2025 Instagram post may also have been connected to efforts to generate attention for Comey’s then-upcoming novel, which centers on a social media figure whose rhetoric inspires followers to attack his enemies.
The filings offer the government’s most extensive explanation to date of the allegations underlying Comey’s indictment. They came in response to multiple defense motions seeking dismissal of the charges, including arguments that Comey is the target of a vindictive prosecution and that his social media post did not constitute a legally actionable threat.
Comey’s attorneys have accused investigators of misleading judges, including false information in documents, omitting important facts and repeatedly failing to uncover evidence establishing that Comey intended to threaten Trump physically or understood the number 86 as a reference to violence.
Merriam-Webster defines “86” as meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” Trump is the 47th president of the United States.
Prosecutors, however, contend that the image of seashells displaying “86 47” amounted to a threat against Trump. Comey removed the Instagram post shortly after publishing it and said he had been unaware that the numbers could be viewed as encouraging violence. His attorneys maintain that the expression has long been used to mean to “get rid of” or “eject” someone and has appeared widely on merchandise and signs at political demonstrations.
The Justice Department argued that the post should also be considered in the context of assassination attempts and alleged plots targeting Trump during the period surrounding Comey’s post. According to prosecutors, just two minutes before Comey published the image, his wife sent him a screenshot containing a definition of “86” that said “to get rid of or refuse service.”
“There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey’s post could read it to mean ‘Kill President Trump,’” prosecutors wrote.
The government also highlighted the timing of the controversy, noting that Comey was only days away from releasing his novel “FDR Drive.” The book features a prosecutor pursuing a far-right social media personality who publicly identifies his enemies and whose followers are inspired to commit acts of violence against them.
According to the government’s filings, Comey’s publishing agent texted him after the Instagram controversy erupted and observed that he had “gone viral.” Comey replied that that was “not my intention, but I’ll be OK if it sells books.” The agent responded, ”Music to an agent’s ears.”
Prosecutors further questioned whether Comey actually discovered the seashell arrangement by chance. They said there was “reason to doubt” his account because the shells were found roughly 4 miles from the beachfront property where he was staying and in a location separated from the ocean by a sand dune. Investigators also said there was “no evidence that anyone else arranged, photographed, or even saw the shells.”
Comey’s attorneys have characterized the prosecution — his second indictment within a year — as part of a campaign of retaliation by Trump against a prominent critic. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 while the bureau was investigating possible connections between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, and the two have remained bitter adversaries in the years since.
The Justice Department rejected the claim that Comey was prosecuted out of political revenge, maintaining that the decision to bring charges was made by the local U.S. attorney and was not the result of instructions from either President Trump or the attorney general.
