By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Federal prosecutors contend that James Comey’s use of “86” on Instagram constituted a threat, interpreting it as an intent “to do harm” to President Trump. However, individuals within the food service industry widely regard “86” as common slang meaning an item is out of stock or unavailable. This term has a long history in hospitality, with various theories on its origin, but its everyday use primarily signifies depletion rather than malice. Despite the legal interpretation, those familiar with the term in restaurant and bar settings find the accusation of a death threat “ridiculous,” emphasizing its common, non-violent application.
Read the original article here
The term “’86 it’,” which has found itself at the center of a rather unexpected indictment, is apparently just everyday lingo for those who have spent time in the restaurant industry. It seems the prevailing sentiment among those familiar with the culinary world is that this phrase is so common, so ingrained in the daily operations, that its inclusion in a legal indictment feels utterly baffling, if not outright ridiculous. People who have worked in kitchens and on the front lines of service for decades recall using “86” as standard communication, a quick and efficient way to convey crucial information without missing a beat, especially during the chaotic rush hours that define restaurant life.
For many, the immediate reaction to hearing “’86 it'” in such a serious context is one of bewilderment. They explain that in the restaurant biz, “’86′” simply means something is no longer available. It’s a signal that a particular dish has run out, or perhaps a key ingredient has been depleted. A line cook might shout, “’86 meatballs!'” and instantly, the entire back-of-house team understands that meatballs are off the menu. This information is then relayed to the servers, who can inform customers directly, preventing the awkward situation of taking an order for something that can’t be fulfilled. It’s a term designed for clarity and speed, a vital tool in a fast-paced environment.
The term isn’t confined to just food items either. Restaurant workers also mention that “’86′” can be used to signify that a particular patron is no longer welcome in the establishment. Think of it as a polite, though perhaps sometimes stern, way of saying someone has been banned. However, even in this context, the implication is far from criminal. It signifies removal from the premises, not physical harm or death. The idea that using such common industry jargon could be misconstrued as a threat, especially one serious enough for an indictment, strikes many as patently absurd, a testament to what they perceive as politically motivated charges.
Digging a little deeper, the origins of the term are not entirely clear, but its widespread use in the restaurant and bar industry is undeniable. People recount learning it as far back as the late 1970s and early 1980s. Whether it’s used to indicate an out-of-stock item or to ban a difficult customer, the meaning has always been firmly rooted in the operational realities of hospitality. The notion that this well-established idiom could be twisted into something nefarious, especially by individuals who have worked with it for forty years or more, is seen as a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate distortion, of its meaning.
There’s a distinct sense of exasperation that such a mundane phrase has become the focal point of serious legal proceedings. Many express the belief that these charges are entirely fabricated, designed to target political opponents rather than address any genuine wrongdoing. The speed at which the indictment was brought forth, or conversely, the delay in bringing it forth, is also cited as evidence of its questionable nature. If the alleged threat were truly imminent or significant, one would expect a swifter response. The fact that the individual in question reportedly removed the post in question immediately upon realizing it was being misunderstood further undermines the severity of the charges.
The comparison to a “ham sandwich” – a phrase often used to illustrate how easily someone can be indicted if the will is there – seems particularly apt here. If a simple, everyday restaurant term can be weaponized in this way, it raises serious concerns about the integrity of the justice system and its potential for political manipulation. The idea that an arrangement of seashells, or indeed the phrase “’86 it'”, could be considered a genuine threat that warrants a year-long investigation and subsequent indictment, speaks volumes about the priorities and motivations behind these legal actions, according to those familiar with the industry’s lexicon.
Furthermore, the argument that this is an everyday term extends beyond just the food service sector. Some mention that similar phrasing is used in retail, where “’86′” might mean to remove an item from sale or display. This suggests a broader colloquial understanding of the term as signifying removal or discontinuation, not violence. The disconnect between this common understanding and its interpretation in the indictment is what fuels the widespread disbelief and the perception of a politically charged prosecution, where the intent is to embarrass and harass rather than to seek justice based on established facts and meanings. The ease with which people outside the industry seem to grasp the term, once explained, only highlights the perceived overreach of the indictment.