Don’t ask @grok though, equivocation is a prime directive there. Wish Elon would do something about that bullsh!+.
…Ha…
…I asked ChatGPT if a former head of the FBI would know what 86 meant…
The odds of the former Director of the FBI, James Comey, genuinely not knowing what “86” means—especially in a potentially violent context—are extremely low, though not zero. Here’s why:
1. His Professional Background
Comey served as:
• U.S. Attorney • Deputy Attorney General
• FBI Director (2013–2017)
Throughout his career, he would have been deeply involved in criminal investigations, intelligence briefings, and counterterrorism operations. Slang like “86” is widely known in law enforcement and criminal justice circles. It appears in:
• Police reports
• Criminal wiretaps
• Interrogations
• Intelligence assessments
2. Cultural Awareness
Even beyond law enforcement, “86” is common in pop culture—films, TV shows, and books—especially in crime dramas and gangster contexts. Someone of Comey’s education and media savvy would likely have encountered it.
3. Possible Alternative Explanations
Given the backlash and investigation:
• It’s plausible he’s downplaying awareness to defuse accusations.
• It’s also possible he intended a clever or ambiguous reference but misjudged how it would be interpreted.
4. A Margin of Benefit of the Doubt
Despite all that, it is technically possible he was unfamiliar with the term in the specific “violent” context. “86” has different meanings—like canceling an order—which could be the frame he had, especially if he genuinely saw “8647” as just numbers.
Conclusion: It strains credibility to believe Comey never encountered the phrase “86” in a law enforcement or violent context. The odds of his ignorance being genuine are very slim, unless it was a rare blind spot or an honest misstep—but many observers are skeptical for good reason.
I never use @grok. I don’t even really know what you mean here so @grok would be beyond me I’m sure.
No clue what it is really.