Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey are seeking a federal court to dismiss an indictment that accuses him of threatening President Donald Trump’s life. They argue his Instagram post featuring seashells spelling “86 47” constituted protected political speech.
The indictment, filed in April, relates to a post published in May 2025 and later deleted. Prosecutors claim the post amounted to a threat against the president. In a Monday filing, Comey’s legal team described the case as an assault on the First Amendment, asserting the phrase referenced a widely circulated political slogan expressing opposition to the President.
The defense stated: “Mr. Comey, an outspoken critic of President Trump, posted a photograph of seashells spelling out ‘86 47,’ a well-known political slogan that expresses opposition to the President.” They noted thousands of items bearing the phrase have been sold online and it was common at demonstrations in months prior.
Comey’s attorneys accused the Justice Department of singling out Comey “to prosecute one of the President’s most prominent critics for publishing another person’s statement of political opposition,” calling the effort an unconstitutional attempt to suppress speech. Prosecutors, however, contend the phrase has a widely understood meaning as coded language for killing the president—a reading that influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict one of Trump’s most vocal law enforcement critics.
Comey has denied any intent to threaten Trump and is scheduled to plead not guilty at an arraignment in North Carolina next month. His lawyers argue that even a trial resulting in acquittal would constitute unconstitutional punishment and could lead to future prosecutions of the president’s perceived political opponents, noting officials have warned they would pursue anyone attempting to “copycat” Comey’s post.
The filing also disclosed that after deleting the image, Comey reached out to his local police chief to flag the controversy and later agreed to sit for an interview with Secret Service agents. His lawyers say these actions undermine claims of intent to threaten Trump. They contend prosecutors have not met the Supreme Court’s standard for proving a “true threat,” which requires evidence Comey meant to incite violence.
Comey’s team further compared the situation to President Trump’s own rhetoric, highlighting that the president previously described lawmakers who urged troops to disobey unlawful orders as committing “treason” punishable by death. However, Trump allies noted the distinction: the president was addressing lawmakers accused of encouraging service members to defy the commander in chief—a scenario different from a former top law enforcement official publicly signaling hostility toward a sitting president.
This case marks the latest development in the long-running feud between Trump and Comey, who was fired as FBI director in 2017 and has repeatedly been accused by the president of politicizing the bureau’s Russia investigation into his 2016 campaign.
