Prosecutors Defend Case Against Comey Over Seashell Post
DOJ says no serious dispute that Comey's seashell post could be read as a Trump threat; defense calls case vindictive.
The Justice Department has pushed back against efforts to dismiss the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, arguing that a social media post he made last year could reasonably be interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump.
In court filings, prosecutors said there is "no serious dispute" that an objective viewer of the Instagram post — a photo of seashells arranged to resemble the numbers "86 47" — could read it as a call to kill the president. Trump is the 47th president, and the number 86 is commonly understood to mean "get rid of" or "throw out."
The government also cast doubt on Comey's account that he stumbled upon the shells while walking on a beach in North Carolina. Prosecutors noted the shells were found roughly four miles from the beachfront property where Comey was staying, in an area separated from the ocean by a sand dune, and said there was no evidence anyone else saw or arranged them.
According to the filings, Comey's wife texted him a screenshot of the definition of "86" just two minutes before the post went up. The post was deleted shortly after it appeared, with Comey saying he did not realize how it might be interpreted.
The case is set against a backdrop of multiple assassination attempts or plots against Trump in the months surrounding the post. Prosecutors also pointed to Comey's forthcoming novel at the time, "FDR Drive," which features a social media personality whose words inspire violence against his critics.
Text messages cited by prosecutors show Comey's publishing agent noting the post had "gone viral," to which Comey replied that selling books would be acceptable. The agent responded, "Music to an agent's ears."
Comey's defense team has called the indictment part of a retribution campaign by Trump against a vocal critic. They argue the post did not constitute a true threat and that investigators misled judges and withheld key facts.
The Justice Department denied allegations of vindictive prosecution, saying the decision to indict was made by the local U.S. attorney and did not stem from direction by the president or attorney general.