Legal analysts are raising eyebrows over the Department of Justice's latest move to prosecute former FBI director James Comey for an Instagram post showcasing seashells, labeling the effort as “absurd” and “vengeful.”
The DOJ claims that Comey's May post, which depicted shells arranged to spell “8647” on a North Carolina beach, signifies a serious intent to harm the president. This arrangement has been interpreted as a coded message to “86” (slang for removing) Donald Trump, the 47th president.
In a video shared on Substack, Comey dismissed the allegations, asserting, “Nothing has changed. I’m still innocent; I’m still not afraid. I still believe in an independent justice system.”
Former federal officials and legal experts quickly rallied to Comey's defense, criticizing the DOJ's case as politically motivated. Ty Cobb, a former attorney for Trump, described the indictment as “specious” during an appearance on CNN, asserting it would likely be dismissed as mere revenge.
Cobb elaborated, “This document holds no value beyond the public relations stunt aimed at intimidating Comey and others who might oppose the president. It’s a vindictive prosecution; previous attempts to indict Comey only strengthen that claim.”
He pointed out that merchandise featuring the slogan “8647” is widely available online, with demonstrators sporting it at protests without facing legal repercussions.
On the same network, Tom Dupree, a former deputy assistant attorney general, remarked that this prosecution ranks “not in the Top 10 of the best cases they’ve ever filed.” He attributed the case to pressure on Todd Blanche, Bondi’s acting successor, to deliver results against perceived enemies.
Dupree characterized the case against Comey as “skeletal,” suggesting it could be dismissed before reaching a jury. He speculated that recent events surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner may have emboldened the Justice Department to proceed.
Collins reported that one former DOJ official remarked, “This might be the worst case the DOJ has filed in my lifetime.”
Laura Coates, another anchor on CNN, expressed disbelief at how officials could maintain composure while drafting such an indictment.
Andrew McCabe, former deputy FBI director, shared his astonishment with Anderson Cooper: “It boggles my mind that they’re still able to find people inside the department and the FBI... who would actually spend their time working on this thing.”
McCabe questioned the legitimacy of viewing Comey as a threat, noting that if there were any credible concern, the Secret Service would not have allowed him to live freely for a year following the alleged threat.
Elie Hoenig, CNN’s senior legal analyst, expressed skepticism about the indictment's viability: “I think this indictment is deeply flawed. I think it’s probably fatally flawed.” He emphasized that ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the numbers would pose significant challenges for prosecutors.
On MS NOW, Chris Hayes labeled the situation “ludicrous,” highlighting that even conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley acknowledged on Fox News that he viewed the case as a non-starter.
Turley remarked, “I think that just showing the picture is going to be a weak case in terms of a threat. In my view, it would very likely be viewed as protected speech if it was the basis of a criminal indictment.”
During a news conference announcing the indictment, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated: “How do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent it’s appropriate. And that’s how we’ll prove intent in this case.”
Blanche maintained that while this case is unique due to Comey's identity, his alleged conduct falls within behaviors that will not be tolerated and will always be investigated and prosecuted.
The DOJ has yet to respond to requests for further comment regarding this controversial indictment.
