DOJ says Comey’s own novel may contain evidence that ‘86 47’ seashell post belongs before a jury

BS BULLETIN

DOJ says there is “no serious dispute” that a reasonable viewer could interpret Comey’s “86 47” post as “Kill President Trump,” and argues a jury should decide whether it was a true threat.
Prosecutors now point to Comey’s own thriller, FDR Drive, which features a media figure whose suggestive rhetoric inspires followers to commit violence.
DOJ also challenges Comey’s story that he simply stumbled across the shell formation and says evidence suggests he knew the controversy could help sell his book.

James Comey’s infamous beach walk may be heading all the way to a jury box.

And the Justice Department just added a fascinating new character to the “86 47” seashell saga: James Comey, novelist.

Federal prosecutors filed their most detailed defense yet of the criminal case against the former FBI director, arguing that a judge should reject Comey’s attempt to have the indictment dismissed before prosecutors can present their evidence at trial. Comey is charged over his May 15, 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to form “86 47.”

Trump is America’s 47th president. The argument ever since has been over those other two digits. Comey says “86” meant “get rid of” Trump politically. The government says that, viewed in context, the message could reasonably have meant something considerably darker.

Prosecutors put it plainly:

“There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey’s post could read it to mean ‘Kill President Trump.’”

The government’s larger argument isn’t that the judge must decide right now that this interpretation is correct. It’s that Comey shouldn’t be allowed to have the judge decide that it’s impossible before a jury even hears the government’s case.

Comey’s attorneys have attacked the prosecution on multiple fronts. They argue the indictment criminalizes constitutionally protected political expression, doesn’t establish the “true threat” required by the First Amendment and represents vindictive prosecution by a president who has publicly feuded with Comey for years.

Their linguistic argument is simple. “86” ordinarily means to throw something out, reject it or get rid of it — not murder it. Combine that with “47,” they argue, and a reasonable person would understand the message as: Get rid of President Trump. Politically.

Comey’s attorneys wrote:

“‘86’ simply means ‘get rid of’ or ‘eject.’”

They argue that the violent definition is rare and that “no reasonable observer” would conclude from Comey’s Instagram post that the former FBI director was personally threatening to kill the president. Comey himself deleted the post after the controversy erupted, saying at the time that he hadn’t realized people might interpret the message violently.

He said:

“It never occurred to me.”

And he added that he opposes violence. His lawyers now say that reaction supports their argument that this was political expression gone spectacularly sideways, not a criminal threat.

The Justice Department says Comey’s defense is trying to leapfrog the entire trial. The government argues it doesn’t have to lay every piece of evidence and every contextual detail inside the indictment itself. That’s what trials are for.

Prosecutors wrote:

“No authority supports his attempt to shortcircuit these proceedings.”

And then they made an interesting point about Comey’s own explanation. Comey acknowledged when he deleted the post that other people could interpret “86 47” as violent. So prosecutors argue it would be extraordinarily strange for the court to rule before trial that the message couldn’t possibly constitute a threat when Comey himself acknowledged that people were interpreting it that way.

Their position is essentially: Fine. Comey says it meant one thing. The government says the context shows it meant another. Put witnesses and evidence in front of twelve Americans and let them decide.

But, Comey published a crime novel called FDR Drive shortly after the seashell controversy. And prosecutors believe the book undercuts his defense.

Reuters reports that the government is pointing to a storyline involving a right-wing media personality whose public rhetoric inspires followers to engage in violence. The government’s theory is that Comey himself wrote fiction exploring precisely the phenomenon at issue in his criminal case: a public figure communicating indirectly in language capable of inspiring somebody else to commit violence.

Prosecutors argue that the book could help demonstrate Comey’s awareness of the power and danger of coded public messages.

That doesn’t prove the seashell post was a threat. Writing a murder mystery doesn’t make the author a murderer. But as circumstantial evidence about what Comey understood concerning suggestive rhetoric?

Especially because we’re not talking about somebody unfamiliar with threats, coded communications or federal criminal investigations. We’re talking about a former director of the FBI.

Prosecutors are also challenging Comey’s description of how this entire episode began.

Comey’s original Instagram caption was:

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”

The implication was that he happened upon the arrangement. According to the latest government filing, prosecutors aren’t necessarily buying that account. The Associated Press reports that investigators are questioning whether the shells were actually found that way and are pointing to evidence they say could undermine Comey’s explanation. That’s potentially important because intent is the heart of this case.

A man randomly discovering “86 47” on a beach and posting a photograph because he interprets it as anti-Trump political commentary is one scenario. A man deliberately creating or knowingly promoting the formation while understanding that “86” could carry a violent meaning is quite another. The jury may eventually have to determine which version it believes.

Then things get even more Comey-esque. The Washington Post reports that prosecutors contend Comey may have recognized that the enormous controversy surrounding his Instagram post could help generate publicity for FDR Drive, which was about to be released. The government points to communications it says show Comey discussing the viral attention and its potential effect on book sales. Again, that isn’t proof that the original post constituted a threat.

People capitalize on unexpected publicity every day. But prosecutors apparently intend to use it as another piece of the broader context surrounding the post. And suddenly this case is no longer merely: What does the slang term “86” mean? It is becoming a case about Comey’s knowledge, intentions, experience, subsequent reaction, private communications and his own writing.

Comey’s claim of political retaliation isn’t appearing out of thin air. President Trump has made his hostility toward his former FBI director extraordinarily public. The history between the two men stretches back nearly a decade, through the Russia investigation, Comey’s firing and years of bitter accusations.

Comey was previously indicted in 2025 on charges related to congressional testimony, but that prosecution collapsed after a court found that the prosecutor who brought the case had been improperly appointed. The Justice Department appealed.

Then, in April of this year, a North Carolina grand jury returned this separate indictment involving the seashell post. DOJ charged Comey with knowingly and willfully threatening the president and with transmitting an interstate communication containing a threat. That history will undoubtedly fuel Comey’s argument that he’s being singled out because Trump wants revenge. The government says political hostility doesn’t magically immunize Comey from prosecution if prosecutors have evidence that he committed a crime. And that is another issue the courts will have to untangle.

There has already been some turbulence on the government’s side. Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Petracca, who signed the indictment, abruptly left the Comey case in May without a public explanation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Severo replaced him. The case is now scheduled for trial on October 21 in New Bern, North Carolina, before U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan. Comey’s arraignment is scheduled for Sept. 30. Unless, of course, his lawyers persuade Flanagan to kill the case first.

And that’s precisely what DOJ’s newest filing is designed to prevent.