Former FBI Director James Comey is asking a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case accusing him of threatening President Donald Trump, arguing that his now-deleted social media post featuring seashells arranged to read “86 47” was political expression protected by the First Amendment rather than a genuine threat of violence.
In court filings submitted Monday, Comey’s legal team contended that prosecutors cannot establish that the Instagram photo amounted to a “true threat” against the President. The filing argues that the post represented political speech, not an intent to encourage or commit violence against Trump, who dismissed Comey as FBI director in 2017 and has repeatedly called for him to face prosecution.
Comey’s attorneys noted that the phrase “86” has long been used to mean removing, rejecting, or getting rid of someone or something, adding that “86 47” has appeared on countless products sold online and has frequently been displayed during political demonstrations.
“But the government now singles out Mr. Comey to prosecute one of the President’s most prominent critics for publishing another person’s statement of political opposition,” his attorneys wrote. “That attempt to suppress core political speech contravenes both the statutes at issue and the First Amendment.”
The prosecution marks the second criminal case brought against Comey within a matter of months. He has remained a frequent target of President Trump, who has repeatedly denounced the former FBI director, once calling him a “corrupt piece of garbage.”
A separate prosecution in Virginia alleging that Comey lied to Congress was thrown out last November after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutor who brought charges against both Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James had not been lawfully appointed.
The longstanding conflict between Trump and Comey dates back to the early stages of the FBI’s investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign coordinated with Russia to influence that year’s election.
Federal prosecutors have charged Comey in a two-count indictment, alleging that he “knowingly and willfully” threatened “to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon” President Trump and that he transmitted a threat across state lines.
According to Comey’s lawyers, however, the indictment contains no evidence demonstrating that he intended to threaten the President. Instead, they argue, prosecutors rely only on the theory that “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret” the post as threatening.
The controversy began after Comey posted the seashell image on Instagram, prompting an interview with the Secret Service after Trump administration officials asserted that the message advocated the assassination of Trump, the nation’s 47th president. Comey later removed the post and explained his decision, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
“Even if ’86 47′ could implausibly be read to suggest violence, a reasonable observer would still understand Mr. Comey’s post as mere political hyperbole, not a true threat,” Comey’s attorneys wrote. “The Supreme Court has rejected threats prosecutions based on speech far more directly threatening than Mr. Comey’s seashells post here.”
The Justice Department has not publicly detailed the evidence it intends to use to establish Comey’s intent. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, however, said earlier this year that intent would be demonstrated through testimony, documents, and other admissible evidence.
“And that’s how we’ll prove intent in this case,” Blanche said in April after assuming leadership of the Justice Department following Pam Bondi’s dismissal.
President Trump has maintained that the meaning of the message was unmistakable. Speaking in a Fox News interview last year, he insisted Comey fully understood the significance of the numbers.
“A child knows what that meant,” Trump said. “If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.”
{Matzav.com}