Full Breakdown
Legal Challenge Over James Comey’s Threat Indictment
9/2/2026, 8:43:39 PM
Recent Court Filing Raises Question of Proper Charge
Attorneys representing former FBI Director James Comey have filed a motion asserting that federal prosecutors have charged their client under an inappropriate statute. The filing, submitted on Tuesday, argues that the Department of Justice’s indictment, which alleges Comey threatened President Donald Trump by posting a photo with the phrase “86 47,” cannot survive the legal theory on which it rests.
Defense’s Argument: Misapplication of Threat Law
Comey’s lawyers contend that the government is attempting to prosecute an alleged incitement through a “threats” indictment, a strategy they say violates settled precedent. Citing Fourth Circuit case *United States v. White*, the defense maintains that public statements calling for violence can be deemed “political hyperbole” rather than true threats. They further argue that the indictment’s reliance on a slang definition of “86” stretches the ordinary meaning of the term beyond what the charge permits, thereby breaching constitutional limits on the scope of conviction.
DOJ’s Position and Evidentiary Basis
The Department of Justice maintains that an “objective viewer” could interpret “86 47” as a coded directive to “kill President Donald Trump.” To support this reading, prosecutors reference a 2005 edition of *Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang* and a 1991 *New York Times* article that described “86” as military jargon for “killed in action.” The filing notes that the government believes this definition establishes the requisite intent for a threat.
Potential Consequences if the Motion Succeeds
If the court agrees that the indictment misapplies the threat statute, the case against Comey could be dismissed, setting a precedent for how coded language is evaluated in future threat prosecutions. Legal analysts note that the outcome may influence the DOJ’s approach to interpreting slang and symbolic expressions in criminal charges.
