By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article excerpt highlights Donald Trump’s assertion that the term “86” is a mob slang for “kill him.” According to Trump, the mafia uses this phrase specifically when intending to eliminate someone. He further elaborated that “86 the son of a gun” is the colloquial expression employed by mobsters to convey such a lethal intent.
Read the original article here
The recent news surrounding former FBI Director James Comey’s surrender over a charge of threatening Donald Trump’s life via an Instagram post has certainly sparked a wide range of reactions and interpretations. It’s quite the turn of events, isn’t it? The idea of such a prominent figure facing accusations for something posted online, especially a threat of violence, immediately brings to mind a flurry of questions about intent, interpretation, and the very nature of online communication.
One of the most prominent sentiments circulating is the sheer incredulity regarding the timeline of events. The fact that it allegedly took a year to arrest Comey after the post was made, and after he had already been interviewed by the Secret Service, raises eyebrows. This delay has led many to question the seriousness of the alleged threat itself, with some speculating that the charges might be more about appeasing a certain political figure than about genuine legal grounds. It’s hard not to wonder if this is all a bit of a charade, a way to create some sort of action when perhaps there isn’t a substantial case.
Adding another layer of complexity to this situation is the perception of irony by some. It’s noted that Comey, who is described as being Republican, is seen by some as having played a role in what they term “institutional rot” by not pursuing further investigations into Trump. This perspective suggests that Comey might now be facing consequences for actions that indirectly contributed to the very circumstances he now finds himself in. There’s a sense that he might be regretting certain past decisions, particularly his handling of investigations that were perceived as influential in the 2016 election.
The legal underpinnings of the charge are also a major point of discussion. The interpretation of the phrase “86 47” is central to the defense, with many arguing that “86” in this context refers to removal or dismissal, not violence. Examples from the service industry are frequently cited, where “86” means to get rid of something from the menu or remove a patron, not to harm them. The idea of a judge dismissing the case based on the First Amendment is a recurring thought, suggesting that the charge might be legally flimsy. The notion that this case even made it past a grand jury is baffling to some with legal backgrounds.
There’s a strong feeling among many that this entire situation is politically motivated. The accusation is seen by some as a tactic to harass and embarrass Comey, rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. This sentiment is amplified by the perceived pattern of “lawfare” directed at political opponents. The argument is made that in an era where political discourse is already highly charged, pursuing charges for what appears to be a misinterpretation of an online post could exacerbate tensions and be counterproductive to reducing political violence.
Furthermore, the focus on this particular charge seems to overshadow other significant issues. The stark contrast between this legal action and the lack of indictments in the Epstein files, for instance, is highlighted by some as indicative of a skewed justice system. This leads to a broader concern about the weaponization of the Department of Justice against political adversaries, which some believe has eroded the United States’ moral standing on the global stage. The idea that a president might be less scrutinized for threatening global destruction on social media, while a former FBI director faces charges for a potentially ambiguous post, strikes many as deeply problematic.
Despite the legal complexities, there’s a palpable sense that Comey, while perhaps legally surrendering, may not feel truly defeated. The perception is that he’s not one to admit fault easily. The broader narrative for many is one of Comey reaping what he sowed, a consequence of his past actions. The humiliation for the U.S. legal system is also a frequently expressed concern, with the hope that cooler heads will prevail and this “thin-skinned hypocritical overreaction” will be dismissed. The potential for Comey to pursue legal action against the government for vindictive prosecution is also a thought that crosses some minds.
Ultimately, the situation is viewed by many as a clear example of political gamesmanship. The intention, according to this viewpoint, is not necessarily conviction, but rather to cause Comey significant inconvenience, public embarrassment, and financial harm. It’s a strategy to throw mud and see what sticks, even if the underlying accusation is perceived as baseless. The hope from some quarters is that Comey will emerge from this with a successful counter-suit, turning the tables on those who initiated the charges. It’s a situation that, for many observers, feels less like justice and more like a political spectacle.