By John Q. Hosedrinker 
CBS’s chief Washington correspondent questioned acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, highlighting a similar social media post made by MAGA influencer Jack Posobiec in 2022 that did not result in prosecution. The comparison arises because Comey was indicted by the Trump Justice Department for a post interpreted as a threat to President Trump, while Posobiec’s post, seen as a similar threat to President Biden, went unaddressed by the Biden Justice Department. Blanche defended the indictment, asserting that each case is investigated independently and that a similar post does not automatically lead to charges.
Read the original article here
The question of why the Department of Justice, under the Trump administration’s influence, pursued James Comey over a seemingly innocuous Instagram post featuring seashells while a strikingly similar post from a MAGA pundit went unaddressed, has ignited a firestorm of criticism and exposed what many perceive as a blatant double standard. Todd Blanche, representing the DOJ’s stance, found himself squarely in the hot seat, attempting to defend an action that strikes many as politically motivated persecution rather than impartial justice. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the phrase “86 47” posted by Comey, which the DOJ alleged was a threat against the 47th president, Donald Trump.
However, a stark parallel emerged with a 2022 post by MAGA influencer Jack Posobiec, who shared “86 46” on X, a number sequence interpretable as a threat against the 46th president, Joe Biden. This nearly identical act, made by someone deeply entrenched in right-wing circles, has led to pointed questions about the DOJ’s selectivity. When pressed on this disparity by CBS’s chief Washington correspondent, Blanche struggled to provide a convincing justification, relying on broad statements about grand jury investigations and the individuality of each case.
Blanche’s argument that grand juries don’t simply indict based on a single image and that “every investigation is different” rings hollow to many observers, especially when a comparable instance from the other side of the political spectrum has been entirely overlooked. The implication is that the “investigation” into Comey was perhaps more of a predetermined outcome, driven by a desire to retaliate against a vocal critic of Trump, while Posobiec’s post was conveniently ignored. This selective enforcement fuels the perception that the DOJ is being weaponized to target political adversaries, while allies receive leniency, regardless of the nature of their actions.
The common understanding of “86” in restaurant lingo refers to items being out of stock or people being barred from a venue for bad behavior. The input suggests “86” in Comey’s context was meant to signify keeping a problematic individual out, aligning with the idea of preventing someone like Trump from returning to power, not as a call for assassination. Conversely, the term “deep six,” often associated with murder in gangster films, is presented as a more sinister implication that some seem to be incorrectly associating with the “86” number. This fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps deliberate misinterpretation, by the DOJ, is seen as a key indicator of the investigation’s flawed premise.
The very act of prosecuting Comey for his seashell arrangement, while ignoring Posobiec’s similar digital expression, underscores a deep-seated inconsistency in how the legal system is being applied. Critics argue that this isn’t about seashells or the true meaning of “86”; it’s about sending a message. The message, they contend, is that the Biden Justice Department, or rather, the Trump-influenced elements within it, can go after anyone they deem an enemy, no matter how flimsy the pretext, while simultaneously allowing their own supporters to engage in conduct that is arguably just as, if not more, provocative.
The defense offered by Blanche that one cannot simply compare cases and that “a lot of factors go into whether someone should or should not be charged” is perceived as an evasion. If the actions are genuinely comparable in their potential implications of threat, then the legal response should also be comparable. The inability to draw parallels, according to this line of reasoning, suggests that the “factors” at play are not legal merits but political loyalties and grudges. The input highlights how this selective application of justice breeds cynicism and makes it difficult for the country to move forward, as fundamental principles of fairness appear to be abandoned.
The notion that Comey’s post is being framed as more than just “seashells” and that “you cannot threaten the president of the United States” is met with skepticism. Many believe this is a classic tactic to justify an otherwise indefensible action, a way to obscure the politically motivated nature of the indictment. The input paints a picture of a Justice Department being used as a tool for personal vendettas, with former Trump attorney Todd Blanche at the helm, raising significant concerns about corruption and the erosion of democratic norms. The absence of consistency, the input suggests, is a hallmark of a “fascist mind,” one that prioritizes the elimination of dissent over the rule of law.
Ultimately, the core of the outrage stems from the perception that the rules simply do not apply equally to everyone. When former officials who have been critical of Trump face prosecution for actions that are mirrored by his supporters without consequence, it erodes faith in the justice system. The comparison to tailgate decals featuring bound and gagged presidents, or the existence of “roving bands of immigrants eating pets” and “Democrats putting litter boxes in schools” as examples of fabricated narratives used to incite anger, further illustrates the disconnect between legitimate legal concerns and politically manufactured outrage. The DOJ’s actions in the Comey case, juxtaposed with the silence on Posobiec’s post, serve as a potent symbol of this perceived two-tiered justice system, leaving many to question the future of fairness and impartiality in the United States.