0

According to the Associated Press: The USA's Department of "Justice" (with the last word intentionally in quotes here), under direction of Donald Trump's new Attorney General Todd Blanche (technically "Acting Attorney General"), just indicted former FBI Director James Comey for posting an Instagram social media photo of seashells arranged on a North Carolina beach into the numbers "86 47".

This is likely because the well-known definition of "86", as defined by the reputable Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply:

1a. to refuse to serve (a customer)
1b. to eject or ban (a customer)
2a. to remove (an item) from a menu : to no longer offer (an item) to customers
2b. to reject, discontinue, or get rid of (something)

Moreover, according to the Associated Press:

The fact that the Justice Department pursued a new case months after a separate and unrelated indictment was dismissed could expose the government to claims of a vindictive prosecution and to arguments that it is going out of its way to target Comey, who as FBI director had overseen the early months of an investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of that year’s election.

Additionally, the Associated Press reports:

And in an effort to rebut claims that Comey was being selectively prosecuted, Blanche contended the case against the former FBI director was similar to other threats cases the department routinely brings against the lesser known.

A quick search of the internet shows literally hundreds of thousands of posts containing "86 47", "8647" or "86-47", photos of thousands of people wearing garments with those numbers (including fashion models), as well as many stores selling hats, t-shirts, and sweatshirts with those numbers.

To what legal cases does Attorney General Todd Blanche refer in which anyone has been prosecuted for displaying or sharing the numbers "86 47"?

If there have been any cases, what percentage of them have resulted in a conviction?

Improve this question
0

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

As a frame challenge and follow-up to Dale's answer. The similar cases being referred to are about threats to the president and not about the actual content in question.

During President Biden's time in office this same phrase was used in relation to President Biden as 86 46 and was even sold on t-shirts and other merchandise. From what I have heard based on having the news on in the background the DoJ has stated they don't plan on looking into any of the 86 46 statements.

James Comey’s Indictment Raises Double Standards Over ’86 46′ Posts

Social media users have since circulated examples of Republicans and conservatives posting “86 46” during Biden’s presidency, fueling debate over how such messages are interpreted and enforced.

Multiple social media users have pointed to past examples of conservatives and Republican figures using similar language about former President Joe Biden, particularly the phrase “86 46.”

Other users highlighted additional examples. A Substack writer known as “Outspoken” posted the same screenshot alongside images of merchandise bearing the “8646” slogan, arguing the phrase had been widely used without consequence. What About '86 46' Posts?

If you want to talk about similar cases it seems there are plenty of examples of the phrase being used about President Biden during his time in office and not being treated as a threat to the president.

Improve this answer
-1

He didn't say people had been prosecuted for displaying "86 47"

He said it was similar to other threats cases.

Depending on how much work you are allowing the word "similar" to do, this is correct: The DoJ does bring charges against people who threaten the lives of public officials, sometimes successfully.

Now, you may feel that these cases are not "similar" because "86 47" is not a threat, and you might be right. However, if it is a threat, the circumstances are "similar": a threat was made and communicated interstate via a telecommunications device.

Improve this answer
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. Commented yesterday
-3

According to the Justice Department:

This charge alleges that on May 15, 2025, by publicly posting an image over the internet via Instagram depicting “86 47”, which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.

They're apparently interpreting the "get rid of" sense of "86" in the most severe possible way, perhaps as a mob boss might use it when talking to a hired killer.

Most of the time, "86" is used more innocuously. But the DOJ claims that the environment of political violence supports this more extreme view.

“Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “The grand jury returned an indictment alleging James Comey did just that, at a time when this country has witnessed violent incitement followed by deadly actions against President Trump and other elected officials. The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.”
...
“James Comey disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump’s life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “As the former Director of the FBI, he knew full well the attention and consequences of making such a post. ...”

Regarding their claim that this is similar to other cases, that statement doesn't necessarily imply that all similar incidents will be treated the same. There are probably too many Internet posts that can be interpreted as threatening government officials to investigate and bring charges for all of them. The statement can be considered accurate as long as they've brought charges in a few previous incidents.

As an analogy, people often get away with speeding, because a cop can only pull over one car at a time. But if he pulls over other speeders at other times, you're being accused of a similar violation.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    "The statement can be considered accurate as long as they've brought charges in a few previous incidents." So, is there any history of that actually happening in which a reasonable person would find it to be similar to this case? That's the question asked. Commented yesterday
  • @AmazonDiesInDarkness I don't know how I can determine that. Most such cases wouldn't get much press, this one did because the defendant is famous. IANAL and don't have access to their search tools. Commented 21 hours ago

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.