By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted again, this time over a social media photo of seashells arranged in a specific number sequence that officials allege constituted a threat against President Donald Trump. This second indictment, secured by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, a Trump loyalist, follows an earlier dismissed case and intensifies accusations of vindictive prosecution against a political opponent. Comey maintains the numbers were not intended as a threat and denies any wrongdoing, asserting his innocence and belief in the judiciary. His legal team plans to vigorously contest the charges, arguing they infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Read the original article here
The news that former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted over an online post, which officials are claiming constituted a threat against former President Trump, has sparked widespread disbelief and criticism. The sheer repetition of such legal actions is being met with incredulity, painting a picture of a system seemingly caught in a loop of retaliatory proceedings. It’s being framed as an almost absurd level of overreaction, especially when contrasted with what are perceived as more serious transgressions. The underlying sentiment is one of profound disappointment with the direction of these investigations, which many view as a colossal waste of taxpayer money destined to be dismissed by the courts.
The crux of the controversy appears to hinge on the interpretation of the phrase “86,” as used in Comey’s post. For those questioning the indictment, the term, when looked up in a dictionary, signifies actions like refusing service to a customer, ejecting someone, or removing an item from a menu. It’s a term denoting exclusion or getting rid of something, not inherently violent in its common usage. This distinction is central to the argument that the post, when understood in its widely accepted context, does not carry the weight of a credible threat.
This leads to a stark comparison with the perceived leniency shown towards former President Trump himself. The argument is being made that while Trump has allegedly issued pronouncements that could be construed as threats to entire cultures or civilizations, any perceived slight or mockery directed at him, even in jest or through a pseudo-threat, is met with severe legal repercussions. This perceived double standard is a significant point of contention, highlighting a perceived imbalance in how dissent and criticism are treated depending on who is the subject.
The indictment is being characterized not just as legally tenuous, but as a deliberate maneuver designed to inflict hardship on Comey. The narrative suggests that this is a calculated effort to drag him through the justice system, incurring significant costs in terms of money, time, and emotional distress. Lawyers involved in prosecuting this case are being called out, with the suggestion that their actions are so egregious that disbarment should be considered. This perspective frames the indictment as a vindictive act, fueled by a desire for retribution, particularly given that Comey has faced numerous calls for his indictment from Trump himself.
The notion of “freedom of speech” is being brought into question by these developments. The idea that individuals can face arrest or indictment for social media posts, especially when those posts are interpreted through a lens of what some see as hyper-vigilance against any criticism of a former president, is seen as a perversion of this fundamental right. The comparison is drawn to a situation where a simple refusal to serve someone, a common interpretation of “86,” could now lead to legal entanglements, which is viewed as an alarming prospect.
The meaning of “8647,” the specific posting by Comey, is also being dissected. It’s pointed out that “86” refers to the agent number of a well-known spy character in the television show “Get Smart,” and “47” is an agent number from the popular “Hitman” video game series. The argument is that Comey, as a former FBI agent, was simply referencing famous agents in media, a harmless act of cultural allusion rather than a coded threat. This interpretation underscores the perceived absurdity of the charges, suggesting a fundamental misunderstanding or willful misinterpretation of the post.
There is a palpable sense that these legal proceedings are being driven by a personal vendetta, rather than by substantive evidence of wrongdoing. The narrative suggests that the former president, with access to high-level legal resources, is using the justice system to pursue personal grievances. This is seen as a deeply troubling development, especially when contrasted with the lack of similar prosecutions for statements made by Trump that are perceived as far more threatening, such as his past rhetoric regarding entire nations.
The legal bar for a credible threat is often described as requiring specificity and a clear intent to cause harm. The argument is being made that simply wishing for someone to be removed from office, or using colloquialisms like “86,” does not meet this threshold. The defense is expected to highlight the absence of any specific, actionable plan for harm, contrasting this with Trump’s own alleged pronouncements of annihilation, which are being presented as far more serious and deserving of legal scrutiny if social media posts are to be taken literally.
The question is also being raised about the potential for a wider net to be cast, questioning if “half the internet” could face similar indictments if such a literal interpretation of social media posts is applied broadly. The ongoing political climate and the perceived emotional immaturity of some political figures are also cited as contributing factors to what is viewed as a descent into petty and vindictive legal actions, diverting attention from more pressing issues. The sheer cost of these investigations, which are seen as meritless and likely to be dismissed, is a recurring theme, further fueling the frustration.
The indictment is being framed as yet another distraction, a tactic to shift public attention away from other controversies or perceived failures. The underlying frustration stems from the belief that while individuals are being pursued for seemingly innocuous online expressions, more significant transgressions, including past events like the “hang Mike Pence” rhetoric, go unaddressed. The perception is that the legal system is being weaponized for political purposes, leading to a situation where perceived slights are met with disproportionate legal force, while genuine threats are overlooked. The sheer pettiness of the situation is a sentiment that resonates deeply, painting a picture of a system under immense strain, being manipulated for personal retribution.