By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article discusses the deposition of Pam Bondi, former Florida Attorney General, with the House Oversight Committee. Bondi refused to testify, citing her departure from office, which sparked criticism from committee Democrats regarding Chairman James Comer’s handling of the matter. The deposition is related to the DOJ’s alleged mishandling of Jeffrey Epstein files during Bondi’s tenure, an issue currently under investigation by multiple government bodies and the subject of a recent lawsuit.
Read the original article here
The recent legal entanglements surrounding former FBI Director James Comey have taken a rather peculiar turn, especially with the former President himself expressing uncertainty about whether Comey was actually trying to end his life. This particular admission, or lack thereof, has significant implications, potentially undermining the very foundation of the Justice Department’s indictment against Comey. It’s a situation that seems to stretch the bounds of what constitutes a prosecutable offense, leaving many to question the logic and evidence underpinning the charges.
The indictment itself appears to hinge on a rather unconventional piece of evidence: a photograph posted by Comey on Instagram. In this image, seashells were arranged on a beach to spell out “86 47.” The Justice Department has interpreted the term “86,” commonly used in the culinary world to signify removing an item, as a mob-associated term meaning “kill ’em all.” This interpretation forms a central pillar of their case, suggesting a direct threat to the former President’s life.
When directly questioned about whether he genuinely believed Comey was threatening his life with this seashell arrangement, the former President’s response was notably hesitant. He offered that if one knows about crime, they know “86” is a “mob term for ‘kill ’em.'” He recalled seeing it in movies, associating it with the mafia. However, when pressed further, his definitive stance wavered.
When asked if he truly thought his life was in danger, the former President’s reply was, “Probably, I don’t know.” This admission of uncertainty is the crux of the issue. If the accuser, the alleged target of the threat, cannot confidently state that he believed his life was in danger, it significantly weakens the prosecution’s argument. A credible threat often requires the belief of imminent danger, and wavering on that point casts doubt on the severity and intent behind the action.
This uncertainty directly impacts the Justice Department’s case. The legal system relies on demonstrable facts and reasonable interpretations, not on vague suspicions or the admission of ambiguity from the alleged victim. For an indictment to stand, there needs to be a clear showing of intent to threaten or cause harm. The former President’s own expressed doubt about the threat’s reality makes it exceptionally difficult to establish that intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, the defense will likely seize upon this admission. Comey’s legal team could argue that if the former President himself cannot confirm a genuine belief of being threatened, then the charges are baseless. They might further contend that the seashell arrangement could be interpreted in numerous ways, including a desire to simply “get rid of” or “cancel” the president’s policies or presence, which falls under protected free speech. The First Amendment protects the right to express dissatisfaction and advocate for political change, even if forcefully worded.
The argument that “a desire to evict or defeat an elected official is not a death threat” becomes particularly potent in this context. The term “86” can indeed have multiple meanings, and its application as a direct death threat, especially when originating from a former FBI Director and based on a photograph, requires substantial corroborating evidence. The former President’s own hesitant acknowledgment of a “mob term” and his subsequent uncertainty about personal danger do not provide that strong evidentiary support.
The situation also raises broader questions about the weaponization of the Justice Department. Critics have suggested that such an indictment, based on such tenuous grounds, appears to be more about political retribution than about upholding the law. The notion that a vague suspicion is sufficient for an indictment, as one observation puts it, echoes the cynical joke that “you can indict a ham sandwich.” This suggests that the prosecution may be aware of the weak foundation of their case, possibly seeing it as a performative act rather than a serious legal endeavor.
The potential for this case to be thrown out of court, much like a previous attempt to prosecute Comey that was dismissed due to procedural issues with the prosecutor’s appointment, highlights a pattern of questionable legal strategies. The reliance on an interpretation of a seashell arrangement as a death threat, coupled with the former President’s own ambivalence about its seriousness, makes the indictment appear exceptionally flimsy. It’s a situation where the prosecution’s case appears to be self-undermining, leaving the Justice Department in a difficult position. The lawyers involved in defending Comey are likely to find ample grounds to challenge the charges, potentially turning this legal action into a public spectacle of prosecutorial overreach.