In a case unrelated to James Comey’s, a judge said it’s “difficult to fathom” how a flag bearing those numbers could be seen as a “true threat.”
Ruling in ‘8647’ civil protest case signals strength of James Comey’s criminal defense
"In a case unrelated to James Comey’s, a judge said it’s “difficult to fathom†how a flag bearing those numbers could be seen as a “true threat.â€"
www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
— Karen (Harris/Walz Alaskan Democrat) (@danceswithseagulls.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T20:19:32.221Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/james-comey-seashells-post-instagram-8647-ruling-civil-case
The Trump Justice Department has alleged that when James Comey posted an image of seashells arranged as “86 47” last year, a reasonable observer familiar with the circumstances would have interpreted the former FBI director’s social media post as a serious expression of intent to harm the 47th president.
The indictment looked weak when the DOJ brought it in April. More than anything, it looked like the latest attempt to prosecute one of the president’s political targets, after a previous indictment against Comey was dismissed in Virginia.
Regardless of the administration’s motivations, a new ruling in an unrelated case shows the difficulty the DOJ faces in its latest Comey prosecution.
That ruling came Monday, when a federal judge in Washington sided with a group that wanted to protest the administration with a flag displaying “8647.” U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss wrote that it was “difficult to fathom” how the government “could have concluded that a reasonable observer would view the flag as a true threat.” The Obama-appointed judge noted that the “term ‘86’ is used far more often to mean ‘throw out’ than ‘kill.’”.....
He noted that the “86” term “comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out” and that it “may have been used because it rhymes with ‘nix.’”
The judge emphasized that context is key when evaluating whether the numbers can amount to a “true threat.” Analyzing the case before him, he wrote that “the relevant context makes clear that no reasonable observer could have viewed Plaintiff’s display of the flag as a threat to the President’s life or physical safety.”....
Viewed through that lens, it’s “difficult to fathom,” to use the judge’s phrase, how an Instagram post of seashells in the sand can clear the high bar of criminal culpability.
This case is not directly binding but will be cited in the Comey case. The Comey case will never make it to a jury. I was amused to see that the lead attorney on this case has resigned from this case.
= new reply since forum marked as read
