Posted on 05/02/2026 6:44:05 AM PDT by MtnClimber
James Comey, former FBI director, former deputy attorney general, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, is a friend of presidents and kings, an admired figure who presents himself as a voice of reason and morality, and a pillar of the Washington establishment — or, as the Mafia would put it, a made guy. Surely he would never do something so lawless and undemocratic as threaten the president of the United States, would he?
That’s what Comey contends in response to charges that he was issuing a veiled threat to the president when he posted on his Instagram account a photo of seashells arranged to say “86 47.” “86” is a well-known expression for getting rid of someone, and whether or not Comey meant that Trump should be gotten rid of by assassination, it was an extraordinarily irresponsible statement for him to make at a time when leftist calls for violence against Trump and his supporters are distressingly common.
Those calls have now resulted in three assassination attempts against Trump, and no one knows how many more there will be, but in this climate, only a fool would say that the president will finish out his term without any more attempts to kill him. Comey took the photo down on the same day that he posted it, and explained: “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down.”
However, the idea that the former director of the FBI actually “didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” strains credulity well beyond the breaking point. That is clear from a potboiler crime novel, FDR Drive, that Comey wrote, or that was more likely ghostwritten for him.
In an unwittingly revealing May 2025 interview with NPR to plug the book, Comey explained that his novel was “about a right-wing podcaster who is trying to motivate his followers to engage in acts of violence against the targets of his vitriol. And it’s about my protagonist, Nora Carleton, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, trying to figure out, how do we stop the violence? And is there a way to hold this podcaster criminally accountable for what he clearly knows he’s doing? And that’s the trick because the line between speech and crime is – it should be clear, but it’s fuzzy.”
All right. So here’s the intrepid FBI director explaining that he wrote a book about a “right-wing podcaster” (after all, who else do leftists think is evil these days?) who “is trying to motivate his followers to engage in acts of violence against the targets of his vitriol,” but he is apparently doing so in a veiled manner, because Comey adds that “he clearly knows” what he’s doing. Comey’s novel, he says, is all about “the line between speech and crime.”
And then Comey would have us believe that he posted a photo on his Instagram account that many of his followers would understand as a call to engage in an act of violence against the target of his vitriol, but that poor, naïve Comey himself didn’t know what he was doing? Sell me a bridge while you’re at it, why doncha?
This becomes all the clearer when the NPR interviewer asks Comey about the “line between free speech and violent incitement and domestic terrorism, ideologically motivated violence,” and Comey says he has had to “grapple with that very issue throughout my career.” Yet he expects us to believe that he didn’t pause to ponder even for a moment whether posting “86 47” might constitute violent incitement and domestic terrorism.
That’s what he’s insisting: “I took a picture and posted it ’cause I thought it was a clever political thing. Never occurred to me that someone would try to say it was associated with violence. I actually still don’t see that. But I took it down because I don’t want – I mean, this is my Instagram account, for God’s sakes. I don’t want anything on there to be associated with violence, even if I don’t get it.” And he didn’t think anyone else would get it, either: “Yeah, I'm not worried, ‘cause there’s no world in which this is an actual threat.”
Of course. So here is a guy who published a novel about veiled calls to violence, claiming that he didn’t know what he posted was a veiled call to violence, despite the fact that it's common parlance. Sure, Comey. I’ll bet you would still insist you were acting in good faith regarding the Russia hoax, too.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Unfortunately for all of us, we will now have to subjected to hearing Comey’s voice. He has this sickening thing in his voice; he uses it to try to convey how pure, righteous, and innocent he is, in all things, and it is grating when you reflect that he is just a nasty, conniving whore for the deep state.
It is a weak case. I believe the real reason the Attorney General pursued it is to send a message to the other TDS traitors trying to stir up enough hate to get Trump killed . The message is ‘I will come after you’. I think Pam didn’t pursue many cases because she believed they were not strong enough to survive a court battle. We finally got a take no prisoners kind of REPUBLICAN in charge of the Department of Justice.
I think it’s an argument worth having. I had a member of my inner circle say after the WHCD attack say, ‘well, they missed him again’, which I took as a statement of regret. Naturally, I got angry. I don’t believe this person is a terrible person, but it’s perfectly acceptable to let one’s TDS trend towards statements of violence. We all know this. Why? Just read the Internet, or listen to our elected political leaders. Maximum Warfare!
I, for one, am sick of it. Charlie Kirk is dead! And what lesson has the left learned? Assassination works! An effective voice for us has been silenced. I brought this issue up to an independent friend. He mumbled something about both sides do it, and whattabout the guy in Minnesota (a talking point he’d clearly gotten from the liars at CNN, as they guy in Minnesota was an associate of Tim Walz, not a Republican). I want our side to make the argument both sides DON’T do it. The violence is coming from the left.
Comey is a liar. A weaponized RAT liar.
Put him in the general population of a supermax.
Unfortunately, both assassination and terrorism work. The latter a lot more effectively than the former, because if you look at a lot of assassinations, the aftermath is kind of like starting a war. Sometimes you don’t know where events are going to lead you. The killing of Archduke Ferdinand and Abraham Lincoln are prime examples.
But you’re right that taking a player off the field often does work for the left, and the right is just not willing to go there, nor should they.
Biden was a good example of somebody who should have been impeached or subject to the 25th amendment.
I'm wondering. Would you have used the same wreckless phrase with double meaning that Comey used, to express your opinion about Biden?
I think Comey is a scumbag. That doesn't mean that what he did rises to the level of a criminal act. As I said, "86" essentially a shorthand for "get rid of". How many times have you heard people on Free Republic say that we need to get rid of some Democrats or get rid of some people, etc? Should all of those people have been prosecuted for advocating murder?
I'm just telling you what the law is, whether either of us agree with it or not. This is a guaranteed fail prosecution. To be honest, the part of this that's most disturbing to me is that I am sure the Acting Attorney General absolutely knows that, but the DOJ feels compelled to push a doomed prosecution to avoid angering Trump so he doesn't throw a temper tantrum and start firing everybody again.
As a former AG, lawyer, and prosecutor, he knew exactly what it meant.
He did it for the reasons I stated. The are all valid and verified, especially the ‘burn bag’ records.
Legally, it might be a hard conviction, but every single Traitor and ‘real’ insurrectionist needs to be pursued. I don’t believe it should be dropped, even if he ‘wins’ he loses and Karma visits.
Really? After all the bogus prosecutions by Biden's DOJ?
And BTW, why wouldn't you use such a phrase?
Wouldn't it be because it has a reckless double meaning?
“So obviously. you can advocate for impeachment even if you think the likelihood of success is negligible.”
I have posted many times that impeachment is a waste of time.
An example:
We can’t successfully impeach judges, but a Republican Congress and President can removal their tools of obstruction.
The Congress has Article I, Section 8 power to make rules for the government.
....
No ruling or decision by a federal district or appellate court judge on a case against a government, a governmental agency or governmental person shall be applicable beyond each entity or private person individually listed within by name or personal particulars by the judge personally.
No federal judge who has or has possessed foreign citizenship may adjudicate an immigration, asylum or removal case.
No district court federal judge shall work on a case who has a parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, child, grandchild or known partner of such close relative or a personal partner with any case related interest.
The following district and appellate court judges are hereby barred from hearing cases where the federal government is a party or federal funding is in contention:
....
If judges don’t want to be shaking their fists instead of gavels, they need to behave and know their place.
If judges don’t want to have to wear fools’ caps as Congress may require under Article I, Section 8, they need to behave and know their place.
******
“How about making a wager on this one? I’m willing to permanently ban myself from Free Republic if Comey gets convicted. If y He doesn’t, all you would have to do is a 1-month self ban.”
I post for the record and on a timely basis.
Note my tagline. A month from now the ~$166 billion in tariff refunds will be in the bank accounts of Corporate America and not in the bank accounts of ordinary American drivers.
I wrote fairly recently:
The 62-day clock is running out. Ceasefires don’t slow or stop it.
I work vigorously to help make FR a reference source for proper government.
Trump only has to push aside his NYC disdain of gunowners and read FR.
“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message.”
Why would he assume that it was a political message, unless he understood the political message?
“How many times have you heard people on Free Republic say that we need to get rid of some Democrats or get rid of some people, etc? Should all of those people have been prosecuted for advocating murder?
“I’m just telling you what the law is, whether either of us agree with it or not. This is a guaranteed fail prosecution. To be honest, the part of this that’s most disturbing to me is that I am sure the Acting Attorney General absolutely knows that, but the DOJ feels compelled to push a doomed prosecution to avoid angering Trump so he doesn’t throw a temper tantrum and start firing everybody again.”
Throw a “temper tantrum”?
What an odd choice of words for an FR poster.
Utterances that might lead to the death of a president are held to a very strict standard. That’s the law, and you know it. Why? Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy.
“This is a guaranteed fail prosecution.”
Lawyers typically say things can go either way (for good reason) (and that you best pay their fees).
I agree the prosecution is a stretch. However, I believe he knew exactly what he was saying, and probably he hoped that some nut job would try to kill the President.
Constantly. It’s called projection.
Because there were literally hundreds of thousands of times that various people said we need to "get rid of" Biden, or words to that effect, and they weren't prosecuted for saying it. Because everyone knew they couldn't be. It's a very easy case that never even gets to trial.
And BTW, why wouldn't you use such a phrase?
Because I think it is performative and stupid. I don't talk like that.
Wouldn't it be because it has a reckless double meaning?
No.
There is a basic legal presumption that if something has both an innocent and malevolent interpretation, you presume the innocent interpretation. That general rule is strongest in the context of First Amendment rights.
There is very well-developed case law about when speech crosses the line between being permitted, including how likely it is to imminently incite someone to violence. Burning or hanging somebody in effigy is even considered protected expressive First Amendment speech. If that is protected, then certainly something far less violent and more ambiguous like Comey's statement is as well.
This isn't even a close legal case. It will be thrown out and never even get to trial, which just hands the Democrats. Another unearned propaganda victory.
I call them as I see them. Trump does not like to be told no, and everybody knows it. I don't see what good it does for us to pretend that isn't the case. Trump has a lot of strengths, but he also has some weaknesses, and this is one of them. Along with overvaluing personal relationships, And being too easy to trigger with insults.
Utterances that might lead to the death of a president are held to a very strict standard. That’s the law, and you know it. ,
It isn't true, so I don't "know" any such thing. But if you're claiming that it is, please name for me the successful prosecution of people for saying things equivalent to what Comey said.
As I've said, you could likely find hundreds of thousands of examples of other people making equivalent statements about we need to "get rid" of a President. That kind of rhetoric is common. Then there was the whole target "crosshairs" controversy when Sarah Palin ran ads against Democrat members of Congress.
No prosecutions.
The abortion drug Comey favors (demands!) is RU-486. Long named for the question “Are you for 86’ing the baby?”
Here’s a Grok conversation about the Comey post. Too long to post here, but it analyzes context. I suspect that the prosecuting attorney presented more info to the Grand jury than is public right now, to get the indictment - although what we already know is plenty.
It would be hilarious if Comey’s own book was used as the pattern to convict him, though I definitely hope this is not the only charge he will be facing. Comey’s story is different than his own, though, because a right-wing podcaster doesn’t have the same level of institutional rot that the Deep State/leftist funders have.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/7f003ee79df74cbcafa826ce5c2ccaf5
“There is a basic legal presumption....”
And there many exceptions in the law that go beyond what is basic.
In my youth, defendants could deny alleged wrongdoing without getting sued for millions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.