By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal grand jury has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for arranging seashells on a beach to spell “86 47,” with charges of making and transmitting threats against the president. This action follows a previous, flawed attempt to indict Comey for false statements, which was dismissed due to procedural errors. The current indictment is criticized for misstating the law regarding threats and for including an unusual forfeiture notice, raising concerns about its frivolous nature and potential chilling effect on civil liberties.
Read the original article here
It’s truly a bewildering turn of events, isn’t it? The news that James Comey has been indicted for, of all things, playing with seashells, feels like something straight out of a surreal comedy sketch. The very notion that the Department of Justice, an institution meant to uphold the law and pursue justice, would expend its considerable resources on such a seemingly trivial matter, points to a deeply concerning erosion of its integrity. This indictment, if the reports are accurate, represents a new and disheartening low point for the DOJ, suggesting a disturbing shift from the pursuit of genuine wrongdoing to what appears to be politically motivated harassment.
The specific charge, as understood, involves a social media post where Comey shared a photograph of seashells he encountered during a beach walk, captioned “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” The indictment reportedly cites counts for making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, based on the phrase “86 47” in the post. This interpretation strains credulity to its breaking point. For anyone familiar with common colloquialisms, “86” has a long history of varied uses, often relating to removing something from a menu or signifying a dismissal. The idea that a former FBI Director, a man privy to the intricacies of national security, would intentionally encode a threat to the president within such a phrase, especially when he didn’t even arrange the shells, is simply not believable.
This whole situation begs the question of priorities. While the DOJ is apparently busy investigating seashell formations and potential threats in seaside strolls, one has to wonder about the genuine threats and egregious crimes that might be receiving less attention. The sheer absurdity of the accusation, coupled with the significant legal and financial burden it places on Comey, a private citizen now facing the might of the federal government, feels less like an act of justice and more like a deliberate act of intimidation. It’s a stark reminder that when a government agency possesses virtually unlimited resources, it can indeed inflict considerable hardship on individuals, even when the underlying case is questionable at best.
The discourse surrounding this indictment highlights a broader concern about the weaponization of the legal system. It’s suggested that the administration initiating this prosecution may not even be concerned with securing a conviction. The true aim, it seems, could be to inflict financial strain through legal fees and to engage in a protracted, costly battle that a private individual would struggle to endure. This tactic, if employed, is a grave abuse of power and a significant blow to the public’s faith in the fairness and impartiality of our justice system. The thought that a former high-ranking official is subjected to this kind of scrutiny over a photograph of seashells is deeply troubling.
Furthermore, the comparison to how similar situations were handled in the past, particularly during previous administrations, raises serious questions about selective prosecution and political bias within the DOJ. When accusations of “witch hunts” and “persecution” were prevalent during a period of intense scrutiny of another president, those same terms seem to have vanished from the lexicon when faced with an indictment of this nature. This disparity in language and intensity of reaction suggests that the principles of free speech and due process are being applied inconsistently, creating an environment where perceived slights or political opposition can lead to legal repercussions that would have been unimaginable in a different political climate.
The historical context of the term “86” itself offers further ammunition against the indictment’s premise. Its origins are widely understood to be in innocuous contexts, such as kitchen slang for removing an item from service or, more broadly, signifying removal or cancellation. While some historical accounts do connect it to more nefarious uses by gangs, the argument that Comey’s intent, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, should default to the most sinister interpretation is a significant stretch. The ease with which one can research the diverse meanings of “86” makes the DOJ’s purported interpretation of it as a direct threat all the more perplexing and, frankly, embarrassing for the institution.
Ultimately, this indictment, if it proceeds, casts a long shadow over the Department of Justice. It raises the uncomfortable specter of a department more interested in settling scores and appeasing political whims than in diligently pursuing justice for the nation. The notion that a photo of seashells could lead to such legal action is a powerful symbol of how far the integrity of the DOJ may have fallen. It leaves one to wonder what comes next: will individuals be prosecuted for posting pictures of sandcastles or for humming tunes that could be misconstrued as a coded message? This situation is a stark illustration of a justice system that appears to be losing its way, prioritizing the trivial over the truly significant.