DOJ’s Bogus Threat Case Against James Comey Collides With First Amendment Reality

The Justice Department’s latest stunt targeting former FBI Director James Comey is a textbook example of weaponizing law enforcement to settle political scores. Prosecutors are charging Comey for a social media post that showed an arrangement of seashells spelling out “8647,” which they bizarrely interpret as a coded threat against President Trump.

Comey’s post was innocent on its face—a simple photo of shells on a beach with the caption, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” He promptly removed it and apologized when some misread it as violent. But the FBI insists “86” means “kill” or “get rid of,” and “47” refers to Trump as the 47th president. This strained interpretation ignores common uses of “86” in restaurant slang meaning “cancel” and the fact that political speech is heavily protected under the First Amendment.

Legal experts, including Ken Paulson of the Free Speech Center, highlight three reasons this case is doomed:

1. The post does not meet the legal standard of a “true threat” meant to instill fear of serious harm. This was a public, ambiguous image, not a direct or menacing communication.

2. Political speech about public figures is the most protected category of speech. Hyperbolic or symbolic expressions, no matter how distasteful, cannot be criminalized simply because they involve a president.

3. Comey did not create the display; he merely documented something he encountered in public, akin to a journalist reporting on a protest sign. This is protected newsgathering, not a threat.

This prosecution reeks of political vendetta. Trump fired Comey in 2017 amid the Russia probe, and the FBI’s investigation into the seashell photo dragged on for nearly a year before charges were filed. Meanwhile, violent threats against Vice President Mike Pence by January 6 insurrectionists were pardoned by Trump himself.

The Justice Department is wasting resources on a case that should never have been brought. Comey’s defense will rest on the First Amendment, and courts are likely to dismiss this politically motivated prosecution quickly. This episode underscores the ongoing danger of a politicized DOJ weaponizing the law to intimidate critics and undermine democratic norms. We will be watching closely as this case unfolds.