Did the former FBI Director really threaten to kill Trump? | Planet America

Key Concepts

• "86": A slang term historically meaning to refuse service or eject someone; controversially interpreted by some as a synonym for "to kill."
• "8647": The specific numerical sequence posted by James Comey, interpreted by critics as "86" (kill) and "47" (the 47th President, Donald Trump).
• Reasonable Person Standard: A legal threshold used to determine if a communication constitutes a "true threat" based on how a reasonable recipient would interpret it.
• True Threat Doctrine: A legal principle where speech is not protected if it expresses a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.

---

Analysis of the James Comey "8647" Controversy

The Origin of the Allegation

The controversy stems from a social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, which featured a photograph of seashells arranged on a beach. The image included the numbers "47" and "86." Critics, including supporters of Donald Trump, have alleged that this was a coded threat against the President. The interpretation posits that "47" refers to Donald Trump (as the 47th President) and "86" is a colloquialism for "to kill."

Linguistic and Legal Interpretations of "86"

• Dictionary Definition: According to Merriam-Webster, "to 86" traditionally means to refuse service to a customer or to eject/ban someone.
• Contested Meaning: While some argue "86" is mob slang for "to kill," the transcript notes that this usage is not formally recognized in standard dictionaries due to its "relative recency and sparseness of use."
• The "8647" Theory: Proponents of the threat theory have attempted to decode the numbers further, suggesting "8 miles out, 6 feet down" as a secondary interpretation of the number 86, implying a burial plot.

Legal Framework and Prosecution Challenges

The investigation into Comey, initially handled by the Secret Service and placed on the "back burner," gained momentum following the appointment of Todd Blanch as Acting Attorney General. However, legal experts suggest the case faces significant hurdles:

1. The Reasonable Person Standard: To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove that a "reasonable recipient" familiar with the context would interpret the image as a "serious expression of an intent to do harm."
2. Ambiguity as a Defense: The transcript argues that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the meaning of the numbers, the prosecution will likely fail. The lack of historical evidence—such as film or literature examples where "86" explicitly means "to kill"—weakens the prosecution's ability to establish a clear, universally understood threat.
3. Intent vs. Interpretation: The core legal challenge lies in proving that Comey intended the post as a threat, rather than it being an ambiguous or innocuous image.

Notable Statements

• On the Prosecution's Burden: "To succeed, prosecutors are going to need to be able to prove somehow that a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret that sea shell pick of Comey's as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of United States."
• On the Definition of 86: "It doesn't matter what the mob or Republicans or any group in particular think the phrase means. If any reasonable person, any non-specific person would think there is doubt about the meaning of 8647, then this prosecution is going down."

Synthesis and Conclusion

The case against James Comey regarding the "8647" social media post appears to be a highly speculative legal matter. While the political climate has pushed the Department of Justice to treat the post as a potential threat, the lack of a definitive, widely accepted definition for "86" as a death threat creates a significant evidentiary gap. Because the legal standard for a "true threat" requires a clear, objective interpretation of intent, the ambiguity of the post makes a successful trial outcome appear highly unlikely. The situation highlights the tension between interpreting cryptic digital communication and the strict legal requirements necessary to prosecute speech as a criminal act.