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.
Posted on 04/29/2026 12:10:46 AM PDT by Bullish
The line between protected political speech and an actionable threat is not blurry, Congress drew it
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stood at the Justice Department podium Tuesday and delivered a message as clear as the statute he cited: “You are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States. Full stop.”
In a Fox News clip that quickly went viral, Blanche announced that a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two felony counts stemming from a since-deleted Instagram post featuring seashells arranged on a beach to spell out “86 47.” Prosecutors say the post was no innocent beach art — it was a coded threat against the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
The charges are straightforward and rooted squarely in black-letter federal law:
Count One: Knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of, or inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871. Count Two: Knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce a threat to kill or injure the President, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
Each count carries serious penalties — up to five years in federal prison per count — because Congress drew a bright line decades ago. True threats are not protected speech. They never have been. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment does not shield statements where a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context, would interpret them as a serious expression of intent to inflict unlawful harm.
The Clip That Says It All
A Fox News segment captured the moment a reporter pressed Blanche on the inevitable pushback from critics: Where does free speech end and an actual threat of violence begin? Blanche didn’t hesitate.
“It’s not a very difficult line to look at,” he said. “You are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States of America. That’s Congress’ decision in statute they passed. That we charge multiple times a year.”
He continued, driving the point home: “You are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States. Full stop.”
It’s Happening! pic.twitter.com/I09guO0ouw
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) April 28, 2026
That line — now the title of this piece — is not rhetoric. It is the letter of the law.
Section 871 criminalizes any “threat to take the life of… or to inflict bodily harm upon the President.” Section 875(c) extends the prohibition to any threat transmitted through interstate commerce — including social media posts that cross state and international lines and reach billions.
Comey’s May 15, 2025, Instagram post showed seashells carefully arranged to read “86 47.” In restaurant and criminal slang, “86” means to eliminate, remove, or kill. The number “47” unmistakably referred to President Trump as the 47th President. Comey captioned it innocuously: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” He deleted it hours later, claiming he “didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and that he “opposes violence of any kind.”
Prosecutors say a reasonable person — especially one as savvy and reasonable as a former FBI Director and federal prosecutor— would have understood exactly how the post would be received. The Secret Service investigated it last year. Now a grand jury has spoken.
The Double Standard That Finally Ends
For years, Americans watched as celebrities, media figures, artists and politicians issued explicit or thinly veiled calls for violence against President Trump — and faced zero legal consequences. The DOJ looked the other way. “Free speech,” they called it.
After two prior assassination attempts and just two days before a Kamala-supporting gunman opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner — in what authorities are investigating as the latest assassination attempt on President Trump —Jimmy Kimmel joked on air that First Lady Melania Trump had “a glow like an expectant widow.” He later doubled down, calling it a “light roast” about the age difference.
No corporate reprimand. No visit from the Secret Service. Just laughs from the usual crowd. “It’s just a joke,” the talking heads on CNN chided, while threats and assassination attempts were smugly dismissed as prime-time and late-night punchlines.
The list goes on: Madonna openly mused about “blowing up the White House.” Kathy Griffin posed with a mock severed, bloodied head of Trump. Johnny Depp asked a crowd, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” Robert De Niro repeatedly raged that he wanted to “punch him in the face.”
Enter Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) who in 2020 appeared on national television with an “86 45” figurine prominently displayed, positioned perfectly in front of her computer camera during a Meet the Press interview — a not-so-subtle nod using the exact same coded language now at the center of Comey’s indictment. No consequences. No charges.
Not anymore. The rule of law does not bend for former insiders, late-night hosts, governors, or political opponents. The law applies equally — to everyone.
Comey’s defenders are already crying “political retribution” and “First Amendment violation.” They miss the point.
The indictment does not criminalize criticism of the President. It criminalizes a specific, contextual communication that a grand jury found crossed into a true threat.
The statutes have been on the books for decades. They are enforced routinely against ordinary Americans.
No one — not even a former FBI Director — gets a pass.
Acting AG Blanche made it crystal clear in the briefing: the line between protected political speech and an actionable threat is not blurry. Congress drew it. The DOJ enforces it. And today, James Comey is being held to it.
|
|
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. |
I'm posting this because I think it's interesting that they chose this as a charge when I think there should be other charges against Comey that have more merit. I think this case will go nowhere but I hope it puts Comey in a bad place and costs him a lot of money.
Do Jiminy Kimmel next.
No one is above the law!
Or so I’ve heard.
One simple phrase the democrats have to remember…
No One Is Above The Law..
I mean, isn’t that what they were saying, 6thousand times a day, on EVERY talk show, every day, when Trump’s home was raided????
Sucks when karma bites them in the ass.
Weak. He lied to Congress. But oh well. At least this isn’t in DC.
Or so I’ve heard.
Unfortunately, most democrats ARE. Not all, maybe, but most.
Anyone who uses the expression “full stop” is an idiot and a weirdo, full stop!
86” has always meant kick-out, expel, or otherwise restrict from premises as I understood it.
Yes it means that as well as to be 86’ed, that is eliminated.
When O'Bozo was President, didn't some rodeo clown get arrested for wearing an O'Bozo mask?
Sheesh... THAT was hardly a threat was it?!
(In a Fox News clip that quickly went viral, Blanche announced that a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two felony counts)
I hadn’t heard about this. Good!
The clown was banned and not arrested.
Next, go after that Wisconsin brewery owner who offered free beer if Trump is assassinated.
Doesn’t talking about a bomb while standing in line to board an airplane a law too?
“a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina”
A MUCH BETTER chance of getting an honest jury than say NYC or DC.
https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/eaw7fwy
See definition 2. It’s the sense that comes to my mind when I hear “86 someone”.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
But, can you make JOKES about it??
COPILOT: To be “86’ed” means to be removed, kicked out, cut off, or told you’re not allowed something anymore. It’s an old American slang term, and it shows up in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and even general conversation.
86 = you’re done / you’re out / stop that / not allowed.
There are several competing origin stories, and none is universally proven, but they’re all colorful:
Restaurant slang (most common explanation): “86” meant an item was out of stock — “We’re 86 on the meatloaf.” From there it expanded to mean removing a person.
Prohibition-era bars: If someone got too drunk or rowdy, the bartender would “86” them — cut them off or throw them out.
Military code theory: Some say it came from a code meaning “discard” or “eliminate,” though this is less documented.
Rhyming slang: “86” rhymes with “nix,” meaning cancel.
“He got 86’ed from the bar.” → kicked out
“They 86’ed the project.” → canceled
“The boss 86’ed that idea.” → rejected
“We’re 86 on fries.” → out of stock
It’s a sharp, punchy little phrase — part humor, part finality.
If Al Capone or John Ghotti were around, what would they say?
It needs to be done. Swiftly! Justice delayed is justice denied. Full stop. 😬
Seriously, dude. Even ‘I’ know 86 means TO KILL or END PERMANENTLY.
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.