Ex-Federal Prosecutor Torches Trump DOJ Case Against James Comey
A former federal prosecutor sharply criticized the Justice Department's case against former FBI director James Comey, calling it legally weak and constitutionally vulnerable as the Trump administration presses charges over a social media post prosecutors say amounted to a threat against the president.
The case against Comey centers on a single 2025 Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to read "86 47.” Critics say the prosecution risks criminalizing ambiguous political expression protected by the First Amendment.
Former assistant U.S. Attorney Elie Honig said Monday on CNN News Central that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's insistence on Sunday that the case involves more than the Instagram post signaled weakness, not strength. He argued the prosecution appears to hinge almost entirely on the interpretation of the phrase itself, rather than any broader pattern of conduct.
Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.
What To Know
Trump and Comey have been political adversaries since 2017, when Trump fired the FBI director amid the bureau's investigation into Russian election interference and possible ties to his campaign. Trump has since repeatedly attacked Comey as dishonest and politically motivated, while Comey has warned that Trump poses a threat to democratic norms.
On Thursday, Trump attacked Comey on Truth Social over the Instagram post, writing: “86′ is a mob term for ‘kill him.’ They say 86 him! 86 47 means ‘kill President Trump.’ James Comey, who is a Dirty Cop, one of the worst, knows this full well! EIGHT MILES OUT, SIX FEET DOWN! Didn’t he also lie to the FBI about this??? I think so!”
Comey, who appeared in court on Wednesday, has denied any intent to threaten violence, saying he deleted the post after learning some people associated the phrase with harm and that violence "never occurred" to him.
Blanche rejected claims that the prosecution hinges on a single social media post, arguing the grand jury reviewed a broader body of evidence over an extended period. Blanche said investigators examined Comey's post in context, including how the phrase "86 47" has been used historically and how it would be interpreted by those responsible for protecting the president.
Appearing on CNN, Honig said the Justice Department's case is "sorely lacking and deeply problematic," arguing that prosecutors overstated its strength because they recognized its weaknesses. The case, he said, ultimately turns on how a court interprets the meaning of "86," which he described as ambiguous at best for criminal prosecution.
Honig acknowledged that "86" has occasionally been used to mean killing, but said those examples are rare and outweighed by far more common meanings, such as removing or shutting something down. He noted that major English‑language dictionaries reflect those broader, non‑violent definitions.
Honig also pointed to Supreme Court precedent, citing a 1969 case involving Vietnam War protester Robert Watts, who said that if drafted, "the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ," referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court ruled the remark offensive and aggressive but protected political speech. Honig argued that if that statement did not constitute a criminal threat, there was "no conceivable way" Comey's seashell post could meet the legal standard.
Honig added that he was "highly skeptical" that the Justice Department possessed undisclosed evidence that would significantly strengthen the case, saying the indictment itself made clear that the Instagram post was central to the prosecution.
Separately, Dave Aronberg, a former state prosecutor and legal analyst, echoed those concerns during a Monday interview on MS Now, warning that the case risks failing because prosecutors must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt in matters involving protected speech. He argued the ambiguity surrounding "86 47" makes that standard difficult to meet.
Republican Senator Thom Tillis also cast doubts on the DOJ's case. Appearing on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, he said he does not support what he called a "vindictive prosecution" of Comey, even though he regretted voting to confirm him as FBI director.
What Happens Next
The case now moves toward preliminary court proceedings, where Comey's legal team is expected to challenge the indictment on constitutional grounds, including First Amendment protections.
Further hearings will determine whether the prosecution can proceed or whether a judge dismisses the charges before trial, a possibility multiple legal analysts have raised amid growing debate over the scope of federal threat statutes.
2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
This story was originally published May 4, 2026 at 4:14 PM.