On a beach in North Carolina, former FBI Director James Comey took a photo of seashells arranged to spell “8647.” He posted it on social media. That’s it. That’s the crime. On April 28, 2026, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment charging Comey under two statutes: 18 U.S.C. §871, which criminalizes threats against the president, and 18 U.S.C. §875(c), which covers interstate communications containing threats to harm others. If convicted, Comey faces years in federal prison for posting a picture of shells on a beach.
In restaurant and bar slang, “86” means to remove, reject, or get rid of something. “86 47” — remove the 47th president — became a common anti-Trump phrase after his second inauguration. It’s been printed on T-shirts, bumper stickers, and protest signs. Millions of people have used it. One of them was the former director of the FBI.
The Legal Case Is a Joke. The Political Case Is the Point.
Both statutes require prosecutors to prove that a statement constituted a “true threat” — not political speech, not protest, not venting, but a genuine, knowing expression of intent to harm. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who is nobody’s idea of a liberal activist, said the quiet part out loud: “If Comey is charged for the shell picture, it would face a monumental challenge under the First Amendment. In my view, the image itself is clearly protected speech. Absent some other unknown facts or elements, it would be unlikely to survive a threshold constitutional challenge.”
Prosecutors know this. The indictment acknowledges it indirectly by arguing that the post would be interpreted by a “reasonable recipient familiar with the circumstances” as a serious expression of intent to harm. Translation: we know the picture doesn’t say what we need it to say, so we’re going to argue that context makes it criminal. That’s the government saying that the political climate — a climate largely created by this administration — turns otherwise protected speech into a federal crime.
“If Comey is charged for the shell picture, it would face a monumental challenge under the First Amendment. In my view, the image itself is clearly protected speech.” — Jonathan Turley, George Washington University
The Timing Isn’t a Coincidence.
The indictment came days after the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting on April 25. Cole Tomas Allen, 31, fired a shotgun near the security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton while Trump, Vance, and the cabinet were inside. Trump was evacuated. One Secret Service agent was hit in his vest. The shooter had a manifesto listing Trump officials by rank.
Within hours, Trump allies were drawing a straight line from anti-Trump rhetoric to violence. Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, said: “The third assassination attempt against President Trump on Saturday made this crystal clear: The Justice Department must prosecute those who threaten to assassinate the President. No one has a First Amendment right to do this.” The problem is that Comey didn’t threaten to assassinate anyone. He posted a picture of seashells. But the WHCD shooting created the political cover the DOJ needed to turn a social media post into a federal prosecution.
This Is What a Weaponized DOJ Looks Like.
James Comey is not a random citizen. He is the former director of the FBI whom Trump fired in 2017 for refusing to kill the Russia investigation. Trump has publicly fantasized about punishing Comey for years. This is personal retribution dressed up as law enforcement. The case was filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, overseen by U.S. Attorney W. Ellis Boyle — a Trump appointee. The indictment was secured from a grand jury that heard only the prosecution’s side.
This is the same DOJ that is investigating reporters who write unflattering stories about FBI Director Patel. The same DOJ that has filed $250 million lawsuits against news outlets. The same DOJ that had to be told by its own career lawyers that going after a New York Times reporter for “stalking” was, in fact, retaliation. The pattern is unmistakable: if you criticize this president, the government will find a statute to charge you with. If the statute doesn’t quite fit, they’ll argue that “context” makes it work. And if a judge throws it out, they’ll have already accomplished the goal: the process is the punishment.
18 U.S.C. §871: Makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a threat against the president. Maximum 5 years. Requires proof of “true threat” — not protected political expression.
18 U.S.C. §875(c): Criminalizes interstate communications containing threats to injure. Requires proof the communication was transmitted with knowledge it would be viewed as a threat. Both require intent — not just that someone felt threatened, but that the speaker intended a threat. Posting seashells on a beach doesn’t meet that bar.
Sources.
- Fox News: Legal experts warn Comey '86 47' indictment faces First Amendment hurdles — April 28, 2026. Turley quote on “monumental challenge”; 18 USC §871 and §875(c) charges; E.D.N.C. filing; Mike Davis counterargument; U.S. Attorney W. Ellis Boyle.
- Wikipedia: 2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting — April 25, 2026. Cole Allen identified; shotgun and handgun; one officer hit in vest; Trump evacuated; manifesto listing officials; political aftermath and timing of Comey indictment.
- CBS News Panel: Two sides of Trump's reaction to the WHCD shooting — May 2, 2026. Analysis of Trump’s post-shooting unity rhetoric vs. Comey prosecution days later; pattern of using violence for political leverage; First Amendment implications.