Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Does the law treat threats to POTUS differently if you whisper it to your friend over a glass of whiskey or if you blast it over the airwaves to millions?

---

The former could never be a threat.

---

Being serious here, so bear with me as it is not my normal manner. But when does it cross the line (which I understand is sort of the root of the issue here)?

If I whisper it to my friend over whiskey every week, start talking about how I would do it, when, that I bought a gun, etc, then at some point it becomes a crime, no? Looking for the lawyer take but with a layman's explanation of where the line is or what elements the law requires here. Much preesh.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What in the world are you pretending to think the guy meant?

---

What did the guy who designed this mean? When does his trial start?

And my best Ellis Wyatt impersonation: "wElL, oBvIoUsLy, tHaT wAs wRiTtEn iN mAyOnNaIsE".

---

I condemn that shirt. It shouldn't exist.

This thread is about James Comey, the guy who entrapped General Flynn and bankrupted him. The guy who ensnared Donald Trump with a fake investigation.

---

But you've been here for the better part of two days claiming that Comey was calling for murder, so why is Comey doing it in his instance but this shirt is not calling for Biden's murder? If "86" implies murder for one, why doesn't for all? If we're indicting for one, indict for all.

Regardless of who's saying it, the message is the message...unless it's Trumpland, where, "well, what he really meant to say was...." rules the ****ing day.

nortex97 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What in the world are you pretending to think the guy meant?

---

What did the guy who designed this mean? When does his trial start?

And my best Ellis Wyatt impersonation: "wElL, oBvIoUsLy, tHaT wAs wRiTtEn iN mAyOnNaIsE".

---

Did the shirt designer prosecute the mafia in NY and just release a book about a celebrity inciting political violence with coded language?

---

Another thing that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter who said it.

Rockdoc said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is word salad of nonsense. Try some decaf.

---

Typical lib response. Try harder.
What do you not understand about the statement? I'll try to help you.

---

No, I understand it completely. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, and derailing.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is word salad of nonsense. Try some decaf.

---

Typical lib response. Try harder.
What do you not understand about the statement? I'll try to help you.

---

No, I understand it completely. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, and derailing.

---

It's exactly relevant. You said it was word salad. Try being honest for once.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

You should ask Jack Posobiec that very question, because he actually did it.

---

Posobiec was never head of the FBI, nor did he entrap people and attempt to ruin their lives.

---

What you are saying then is that this is a case of arresting political opponents.

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What in the world are you pretending to think the guy meant?

---

What did the guy who designed this mean? When does his trial start?

And my best Ellis Wyatt impersonation: "wElL, oBvIoUsLy, tHaT wAs wRiTtEn iN mAyOnNaIsE".

---

I condemn that shirt. It shouldn't exist.

This thread is about James Comey, the guy who entrapped General Flynn and bankrupted him. The guy who ensnared Donald Trump with a fake investigation.

---

But you've been here for the better part of two days claiming that Comey was calling for murder, so why is he doing it in his instance but this shirt is not calling for Biden's murder? If we're indicting for one, indict for all.

---

I have not spent a second defending Posobiec's shirt. Also, this thread is not about Posobiec.

HTownAg98 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What in the world are you pretending to think the guy meant?

---

What did the guy who designed this mean? When does his trial start?

And my best Ellis Wyatt impersonation: "wElL, oBvIoUsLy, tHaT wAs wRiTtEn iN mAyOnNaIsE".

---

Did the shirt designer prosecute the mafia in NY and just release a book about a celebrity inciting political violence with coded language?

---

Another thing that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter who said it.

---

At his trial, out of court statements and his writings/book(s) (including his most recent 2025 one) will be quite relevant evidence I believe. It doesn't concern me that you don't agree.

Watts v United States: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ." SCOTUS' ruling: 1st amendment protected political speech.

Any argument that 8647 written in seashells on a beach is more threatening than that has got a high bar to clear.

Well, now you were talking about potentially a different crime! Like conspiracy to commit an assassination under 18 USC 1751.

We were talking about a threat here.

For a threat to exist it must be conveyed to the recipient of the threat.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What in the world are you pretending to think the guy meant?

---

What did the guy who designed this mean? When does his trial start?

And my best Ellis Wyatt impersonation: "wElL, oBvIoUsLy, tHaT wAs wRiTtEn iN mAyOnNaIsE".

---

I condemn that shirt. It shouldn't exist.

This thread is about James Comey, the guy who entrapped General Flynn and bankrupted him. The guy who ensnared Donald Trump with a fake investigation.

---

But you've been here for the better part of two days claiming that Comey was calling for murder, so why is he doing it in his instance but this shirt is not calling for Biden's murder? If we're indicting for one, indict for all.

---

I have not spent a second defending Posobiec's shirt. Also, this thread is not about Posobiec.

---

No, but it is about a message being spread. JP's message is just as threatening as the sea shells by the sea shore...and if I'm being honest, those shirts were marketed on the internet, so more people likely saw them than Comey's post.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Does the law treat threats to POTUS differently if you whisper it to your friend over a glass of whiskey or if you blast it over the airwaves to millions?

---

The former could never be a threat.

---

Being serious here, so bear with me as it is not my normal manner. But when does it cross the line (which I understand is sort of the root of the issue here)?

If I whisper it to my friend over whiskey every week, start talking about how I would do it, when, that I bought a gun, etc, then at some point it becomes a crime, no? Looking for the lawyer take but with a layman's explanation of where the line is or what elements the law requires here. Much preesh.

---

My understanding is that there are several stages that must be cleared. The threat must be clear to a reasonable audience, it must have specifics on the actions you will be taking, and it must be realistic. Here's what the Google robot says about it:

Quote:

---

Key Elements of a Threat
Intent and Subjective Understanding:
The speaker must have a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statement (recklessness is often enough, based on Counterman v. Colorado (2023)).

Objectively Reasonable:
The communication must be one that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to harm.

Specific and Credible:
The threat must be specific regarding time, location, or manner, suggesting a real possibility of action rather than hyperbole or vague anger.

Communication:
The threat can be verbal, written, or non-verbal (e.g., body language, online messages)

---

Roger that. Is there a requirement that to be considered a threat, the recipient / target has to believe the threat is serious? Whether initially or by the time the threat was converted to them?

What I am clumsily getting at… if by the time Trump "receives" the threat James Comey has already clarified he meant nothing and removed it, does that still potentially meet the requirements of the crime?

Tl;dr - Do you think Comey met the standard of a threat here in regarding to conveyance of the threat?

The library of congress also has a page on "true threats"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-6/ALDE_00013807/#:~:text=In%20a%202023%20decision%2C%20Counterman,cause%20harm%20to%20another.'%2013

This is the video I am getting this from, but will TLDW below.

1. SCOTUS case Couterman v. Colorado 2023 KAGAN(7-2). What is a true threat and unprotected by the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

The government must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements' threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.

---

The recklessness mens rea(mental state) is a fairly low bar to overcome. The mental states from the most culpable to least:
1. Purposely - The actor specifically wanted to achieve the illegal outcome.
2. Knowingly - The actor is aware that their actions are practically certain to cause harm, but they do it anyway.
3. Recklessly - The actor knew there was a high risk of harm but chose to ignore it. The law defines this as a "gross deviation" from how a normal, law-abiding person would act.
4. Negligently - The actor failed to perceive a risk that a "reasonable person" would have recognized.

Word of advice, I wouldn't put much stock into that guy. It's been a while since I listened to him, but he was just so consistently wrong on basic aspects of the law when he first came on the scene. I don't think he has any experience at all in actually prosecuting or defending any criminal case

flown-the-coop said:

---

Roger that. Is there a requirement that to be considered a threat, the recipient / target has to believe the threat is serious? Whether initially or by the time the threat was converted to them?

What I am clumsily getting at… if by the time Trump "receives" the threat James Comey has already clarified he meant nothing and removed it, does that still potentially meet the requirements of the crime?

Tl;dr - Do you think Comey met the standard of a threat here in regarding to conveyance of the threat?

---

The answer to your question lies in Counterman v. Colorado.

Quote:

---

In a 2023 decision, Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court held that, to convict a person of making true threats, a state must show that the speaker had a subjective understanding as to whether the person to whom his words were directed would perceive them as threatening.

---

It's my understanding this all falls under the reasonable person standard, in that would a reasonable person had a subjective understanding, etc.

To add to your question, if Comey removed it before Trump received the message, then that would seem to negate the true threat part, because Trump would never have known about it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Does the law treat threats to POTUS differently if you whisper it to your friend over a glass of whiskey or if you blast it over the airwaves to millions?

---

The former could never be a threat.

---

Being serious here, so bear with me as it is not my normal manner. But when does it cross the line (which I understand is sort of the root of the issue here)?

If I whisper it to my friend over whiskey every week, start talking about how I would do it, when, that I bought a gun, etc, then at some point it becomes a crime, no? Looking for the lawyer take but with a layman's explanation of where the line is or what elements the law requires here. Much preesh.

---

As Gipper said, your scenario here is getting into conspiracy to commit a crime area, which requires an overt act in furtherance of a crime. Buying a gun would certainly be an overt act.

Quote:

---

Do you think Comey met the standard of a threat here in regarding to conveyance of the threat?

---

No.


I think this whole argument asked to what he thought it meant is completely irrelevant.


The bigger question is what message was conveyed. And I haven't heard anyone say and doubt anyone thinks that Comey was conveying a message that would make Trump think Comey intended to kill him or harm him.


Most of the discussion here deals with whether it was appropriate to do. Any normal person would say it was extremely inappropriate.


There's also lots of talk about what Comey said could inspire others to harm Trump. I agree that is true, but it's not what he has charged with.

Im Gipper said:

---

Word of advice, I wouldn't put much stock into that guy. It's been a while since I listened to him, but he was just so consistently wrong on basic aspects of the law when he first came on the scene. I don't think he has any experience at all in actually prosecuting or defending any criminal case

---

I wasn't endorsing him or anything, and I posted the relevant portion of the recent SCOTUS ruling on what a "True Threat" was which I researched myself after him noting the case.

He is a bit sensationalist, and obviously Trump supporter. But does a decent job of reading and breaking down actual court filings. But IANAL and could be really stupid to these things and he is just blowing smoke up peoples arses.

I just did a little research on him, and it doesn't seem like there are really any glaring red flags in his legal history. But again, what do I know.

Thanks Gipper.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you think Comey met the standard of a threat here in regarding to conveyance of the threat?

---

No.


I think this whole argument asked to what he thought it meant is completely irrelevant.


The bigger question is what message was conveyed. And I haven't heard anyone say and doubt anyone thinks that Comey was conveying a message that would make Trump think Comey intended to kill him or harm him.


Most of the discussion here deals with whether it was appropriate to do. Any normal person would say it was extremely inappropriate.


There's also lots of talk about what Comey said could inspire others to harm Trump. I agree that is true, but it's not what he has charged with.

---

Thank you for posting this. For the record, I think what Comey posted was in poor taste, but it's not something he should be under federal indictment for. Same goes for Posobiec, or anyone else that posted an 86 46 or 86 47 message.

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Interesting that when brain dead Biden was in office, conservatives used the term; "Invoke the 25th". Not once do I remember seeing anyone say to 8646. The left knows EXACTLY what they are insinuating and to let them play stupid and get away with it only encourages more of the same.

---

Rightwing podcaster guest / TPUSA propagandist Jack Posobiec tweeted 8646 3.5 years ago. The tweet was still online a week ago.

Rightwing Trump supporters sold windowstickers, bumperstickers, embroidered patches, tshirts, and hats with "8646" on them. I've seen a few of the windowstickers on pickup trucks. I just assumed it was another example of political speech.

But if I understand it correctly, you and Ellis Wyatt and some others in the thread are saying TPUSA's Jack Posobiec (the same guy who did the disgusting false-flag "Rape Melania" hoax) and thousands of other Trump supporters committed a serious federal crime?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

twelve12twelve said:

---

Guess 86 can only mean hold the mayo or KILL THE PRESIDENT. Nothing in between.

---

Interesting that when brain dead Biden was in office, conservatives used the term; "Invoke the 25th". Not once do I remember seeing anyone say to 8646. The left knows EXACTLY what they are insinuating and to let them play stupid and get away with it only encourages more of the same. This rhetoric is a big part of why there have been 3 attempts on Trumps life. And that's just the ones we know about.

---

A Google Image Search of "86 46" will show you this is a silly assertion.

---

I have a friend that bought a t-shirt with an American flag on it and 86 46 below it. I joked with him that an indictment will be coming for him.

---

Is he a former FBI director and posted a pic of him in the shirt to his millions of followers on social media? Because then it would make sense to compare.

Does the law treat threats to POTUS differently if you whisper it to your friend over a glass of whiskey or if you blast it over the airwaves to millions? Serious question. Seems to me there would be a difference but maybe not.

---

The problem for those who want this prosecution is it isn't because of this message otherwise anyone saying 86 46 or 86 47 should be similarly prosecuted. A threat is a threat whether it is made to one other person or millions. There are multiple cases where people have been prosecuted for making real threats in a small group.

The reason you and many others want him prosecuted is because you don't like what he did as FBI director and he doesn't like Trump. It is this logic that will get this case thrown out because the only reason this prosecution is being made it for political retribution.

I am not saying Comey was a good guy. He wasn't but that doesn't mean he can be prosecuted for a message that most people would say means remove the current President (46 or 47) and not kill him.

Im Gipper said:

---

Word of advice, I wouldn't put much stock into that guy. It's been a while since I listened to him, but he was just so consistently wrong on basic aspects of the law when he first came on the scene. I don't think he has any experience at all in actually prosecuting or defending any criminal case

---

Gouveia is a criminal defense attorney in Arizona. He doesn't wing it usually, he does his research and can defend his analyses, much better than say Nate the Lawyer or Uncivil Law, in my view. The latter two lawtubers change their minds on a dime.

What you posted is accurate, but I don't think it's what the key question here is. Showing it was reckless is a pretty easy standard to overcome.

The bigger problem the government has here is showing this was a "threat" regardless of what Comey thought.

In Counterman the Court held:

Quote:

---

True threats are "serious expressions " conveying that a speaker means to "commit an act of unlawful violence." Black, 538 U. S.,
at 359. Whether the speaker is aware of, and intends to convey, the threatening aspect of the message is not part of
what makes a statement a threat, as this Court recently explained. See Elonis v. United States, 575 U. S. 723, 733 (2015). The existence of a threat depends not on "the mental state of the author," but on "what the statement conveys" to the person on the other end.

---

To take this a bit further, Trump reposted a video that had this image in the video:



Does anyone think Trump or the person who owns that vehicle should be charged? Of course not. It's inflammatory and disgusting, but it doesn't rise to the level of a true threat.

DeschutesAg said:

---

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Interesting that when brain dead Biden was in office, conservatives used the term; "Invoke the 25th". Not once do I remember seeing anyone say to 8646. The left knows EXACTLY what they are insinuating and to let them play stupid and get away with it only encourages more of the same.

---

Rightwing podcaster guest / TPUSA propagandist Jack Posobiec tweeted 8646 3.5 years ago. The tweet was still online a week ago.

Rightwing Trump supporters sold windowstickers, bumperstickers, embroidered patches, tshirts, and hats with "8646" on them. I've seen a few of the windowstickers on pickup trucks. I just assumed it was another example of political speech.

But if I understand it correctly, you and Ellis Wyatt and some others in the thread are saying TPUSA's Jack Posobiec (the same guy who did the disgusting false-flag "Rape Melania" hoax) and thousands of other Trump supporters committed a serious federal crime?

---

You seem to have a real issue with TPUSA. Jack Posobiec is a contributor to TPUSA but I do not believe he is exclusive to them. The information regarding any false-flag "Rape Melania" hoax is based on unproven allegations repeatedly denied by Jack. Given how the left has treated Melania, I think I am inclined to believe it was NOT a hoax. Seems middle of he fairway for typical lib hate speech.

twelve12twelve said:

---

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

twelve12twelve said:

---

Guess 86 can only mean hold the mayo or KILL THE PRESIDENT. Nothing in between.

---

Interesting that when brain dead Biden was in office, conservatives used the term; "Invoke the 25th". Not once do I remember seeing anyone say to 8646. The left knows EXACTLY what they are insinuating and to let them play stupid and get away with it only encourages more of the same. This rhetoric is a big part of why there have been 3 attempts on Trumps life. And that's just the ones we know about.

---

Woah he wanted to KILL Biden!!!!

---

Whatboutism.

Poso is a worthless conservative pundit, not the former FBI Director who tried to overthrow a duly elected president and was fired by that president. Context.

Meanwhile….
Lindsey Graham: pic.twitter.com/ADJwxkI2PN

— Joe G (@EastEndJoe) April 30, 2026

That's worse. Now that image is stuck in my head.

This seems like a pretty weak charge and case. If the intent is to legally harass Comey, though it might be well deserved, I am not sure how it plays politically given how much Trump complained about similar treatment. I don't see how it can meet all the hurdles to survive an a risk prosecution and trial.