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.

---

It was an incorrect belief. I already addressed that. Being incorrect about something doesn't make it "silly". Silly is when you know the truth or facts and choose to ignore them in a playful way. We are not discussing a silly subject. And I don't Google everything. Maybe that's wrong before posting but I simply don't have the time for that during every discussion. I'll keep doing what I do and have no problem admitting when I'm wrong about something when shown to be.

Kansas Kid said:

---

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

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!!!!

---

I stand corrected. Poor taste and a very poor choice of words.

---

So do you think Jack Poso should also be prosecuted to the max?

There are going to be a lot of similar examples without the justice department even opening an investigation which will be used by Comey's lawyers to demonstrate this is a strictly political prosecution.

---

I'm not sure prosecuting Comey or Poso or anyone is necessary at this point. Do I think he knew exactly what he was doing? Absolutely.
I think what's being done is an attempt to get people to tone down the rhetoric, step back from the edge and realize that talk like this isn't good for America. There are way too many emotionally and mentally unstable people out there. Allowing this to continue to occur, only encourages more of the same. At some point a statement needs to be made that this isn't ok and needs to stop. If prosecuting Comey achieves that so be it. Might not seem exactly fair but he knew what he was doing. Actions do have consequences.

If anything, this brought it back into the public perception, which is the exact opposite of what should be happening if you're wanting to turn down the heat, so to speak. This seems to have faded from the public, but now it's been brought back up again.

I'll try to better explain my point. The people selling 8646 tshirts, tweeting 8646, and putting 8646 windowstickers on their pickup trucks are Trump supporters who committed the exact same act of political speech as Comey.

It is pertinent to the Comey case because the Trump - Bondi - Blanche DOJ decision to not charge Trump supporters including a nationally known TPUSA show host for the exact same political speech is additional material evidence supporting the Comey defense team's assertion it was allowable political speech and the prosecution of Comey is being done purely for Trump's political and personal vengeance and for Blanche to please Trump.

Unless the DOJ prosecution team has some other evidence, it seems clear the Instagram post by Comey was allowable political speech. I'm not an attorney, but I presume the prosecution will need to submit more evidence to the presiding judge at the first preliminary case hearing than just the Instagram post.

RoadkillBBQ 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.

---

It was an incorrect belief. I already addressed that. Being incorrect about something doesn't make it "silly". Silly is when you know the truth or facts and choose to ignore them in a playful way. We are not discussing a silly subject. And I don't Google everything. Maybe that's wrong before posting but I simply don't have the time for that during every discussion. I'll keep doing what I do and have no problem admitting when I'm wrong about something when shown to be.

---

I was unduly harsh. I apologize.

FTR: Comey has been indicted in North Carolina, which is in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit does not allow pretrial dismissals on a facial constitutional challenge to the statute. The issue then becomes if the statute as applied to Comey is constitutional. And determination would be made by the judge after the state has presented its case at trial.

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

That's "diffeRent"....duh.

It was such a big deal that everyone was talking about Posibiec.

Oh, wait. Nobody was.

aggiehawg said:

---

FTR: Comey has been indicted in North Carolina, which is in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit does not allow pretrial dismissals on a facial constitutional challenge to the statute. The issue then becomes if the statute as applied to Comey is constitutional. And determination would be made by the judge after the state has presented its case at trial.

---

It's been done before, though never taken up on appeal. This was an "as applied" challenge to a statute that violated the First Amendment. It's not exactly on point, but it would certainly be raised in a MTD filing. https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/cassidy-order-121511.pdf
There will undoubtedly be a vindictive prosecution filing as well.

Quote:

---

The Fourth Circuit does not allow pretrial dismissals on a facial constitutional challenge to the statute

---

doesn't matter for this case because comey isn't going to make a facial challenge to the statute, but what is your source for this/

its doesn't logically make sense to me that a state could pass a law making it a felony to say "boo communism" in public and a person arrested has to wait until after trial to move to dismiss. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so don't know one way or the other.

Was watching Branca and he was showing that Andy McCarthy and Shipwrecked were having an argument about the rule in the 4th on the as applied test. It was Shipwrecked arguing that a pretrial dismissal was unlikely and a Rule 29 dismissal would come into play during a trial.

ETA: Start at about 40 minute mark.

there was discussion on that shipwrecked tweet some pages ago, I don't think he says a facial challenge can only be after trial. that just wouldn't make sense.

The statute under which Comey is charged is not itself contrary to the First Amendment, therefore the indictment is not subject to a "Facial" challenge as unconstitutional. There have been plenty of successful prosecutions on this statute.

The challenge would be "As Applied" --…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 29, 2026

as to when an as applied challenge is filed, it seems to me that would have to be after the evidence is heard, but would be surprised if that is a hard and fast rule as there are times when you wouldn't need a trial to make that determination. but not my area.

Quote:

---

as to when an as applied challenge is filed, it seems to me that would have to be after the evidence is heard, but would be surprised if that is a hard and fast rule as there are times when you wouldn't need a trial to make that determination. but not my area.

---

Defense is entitled to discovery of course. The grand jury had the instagram post from day one but as Branca noted, the grand jury investigation continued for several more months, so there is some other evidence they have.

I really don't care about this case to do a deep dive on my own so just watching these podcasts to get an overall view. Since this indictment is not a Jack Smith special, a/k/a a speaking indctment we don't know what else they may have against Comey.

Is it possible this is just a place holder with other charges to come?

Rockdoc said:

---

Is it possible this is just a place holder with other charges to come?

---

That's always a possibility!

Rockdoc said:

---

Is it possible this is just a place holder with other charges to come?

---

Possible but unlikely, IMO. He did this a year ago, plenty of time left on the SOL for charges arising from this incident.

Quote:

---

The Fourth Circuit does not allow pretrial dismissals on a facial constitutional challenge to the statute

---

I agree with BMX Bandit on this not being a correct statement of the law. And I highly doubt ship' said that!

aggiehawg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Is it possible this is just a place holder with other charges to come?

---

Possible but unlikely, IMO. He did this a year ago, plenty of time left on the SOL for charges arising from this incident.

---

Well was just wondering, because as much as I dislike the guy I can't see this seashells thing going anywhere.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It was such a big deal that everyone was talking about Posibiec.

Oh, wait. Nobody was.

---

Nobody was talking about this being a threat either, except for thin-skinned Trumpers.

i listened for about 15 minutes and didn't hear him say anything about facial challegnes only being allowed after trial.

if that is how branca always his, I would not call that a good place to get an "overall view." the part I heard was all "here is what my audience wants to hear"

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Fourth Circuit does not allow pretrial dismissals on a facial constitutional challenge to the statute

---

I agree with BMX Bandit on this not being a correct statement of the law. And I highly doubt ship' said that!

---

The lefty legal beagles -- and others -- decrying the merits of the indictment of Comey all realize one thing: the case is going to trial.

Not one yet has explained how it can be derailed pretrial in federal court.

That's why they are still harping on the merits.

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 29, 2026

BMX Bandit said:

---

i listened for about 15 minutes and didn't hear him say anything about facial challegnes only being allowed after trial.

if that is how branca always his, I would not call that a good place to get an "overall view." the part I heard was all "here is what my audience wants to hear"

---

Fine. I watch the entire streams but if you don't have the time, I understand. I don't have a dog in the fight between McCarthy and Shipwrecked. I just know there is one.

I just thought a potential twist in the 4th Circuit was noteworthy.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

as to when an as applied challenge is filed, it seems to me that would have to be after the evidence is heard, but would be surprised if that is a hard and fast rule as there are times when you wouldn't need a trial to make that determination. but not my area.

---

Defense is entitled to discovery of course. The grand jury had the instagram post from day one but as Branca noted, the grand jury investigation continued for several more months, so there is some other evidence they have.

I really don't care about this case to do a deep dive on my own so just watching these podcasts to get an overall view. Since this indictment is not a Jack Smith special, a/k/a a speaking indctment we don't know what else they may have against Comey.

---

I'll point out, again, that this was a public person who had just put out a book about inciting violence through coded language, and then a prosecutor going after the (right wing podcaster) for deliberate use of the coded language.

I'm not trying to trouble shoot/argue with you hawg, I just want folks to understand this: His communications around a plan to publicize this book/story, and timing of his use of this deadly threat language he was very familiar with, in a snarky way, are I am sure subject to scrutiny. The book was about 'indirectly inciting others to go commit violence.' "Oh but I would never do that!" It was published on May 20th, 2025, and he posted the image of the sea shell message on May 15th. He was on Colbert's TV show (puke) the evening of May 20th to promote the book.

Yes of course discovery will happen, but I would hazard a guess the FBI hasn't just done nothing since the first indictment was dismissed for procedural reasons. They very likely have much of his private communications around this incident, and with his publisher that are likely to be used as evidence.

there is definitely a argument between mccarthy and shipwrecked over when/what can be filed. but I don't have any idea who is right. they are both sharp guys.

All of that goes to "reckless" standard to show Comey had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the "86" message. That is the easy part though.

What additional evidence is going to show this was a "true threat"? Remember, the state of mind or intent of Comey is not relevant on that question.

HTownAg98,

I do not understand how that X post addresses what I posted here. Can you elaborate?

Andy McCarthy has the resume but he is BFF's with Comey (and Dan Richman, another scumbag) so I completely toss out his opinion when Comey is involved. He's never typed a single word that was negative about either, incredibly.

As an aside, another 'dirty cop' in the incestuous world of DOJ retirees, Patrick Fitzgerald is one to keep an eye out for if he jumps into this defense team (again). Thread:

Former US Attorney for the N. District of Illinois for Bush & Obama, Patrick Fitzgerald was Comey's co-council on the Gambino case.

Fitzgerald came out of retirement to defend James Comey. Will he do it again for the 86 Mafia case?

Check out his page.https://t.co/f0lR2mO2Ai pic.twitter.com/Q7mfTgJ6Hn

— Trump Szu (@TrumpSzu) April 29, 2026

Im Gipper said:

---

HTownAg98,

I do not understand how that X post addresses what I posted here. Can you elaborate?

---

It seems to me that if he's saying it's going to trial, that there isn't an avenue for a pre-trial motion to dismiss. He also doesn't address a vindictive prosecution claim, but that's not something that has to do with the merits (I don't think, not 100% sure about that).

Im Gipper said:

---

What additional evidence is going to show this was a "true threat"? Remember, the state of mind or intent of Comey is not relevant on that question.

---

Mens rea (and actus rea) always matter (well, almost always). Comey knew, imho, fully that some Cole Tomas Allen type would see his post, and then look into the language/intent in his new book, and 'take action' per his message. He was exposed to (speculating) thousands of serious plots to harm the President as FBI director, and other public officials, often triggered by crazed perceptions of justice/guidance/official statements/social media.

I think you may be confused about the charges here and what has to be proven

First, they have to show that Komi had a subjective understanding that what he was saying had a threatening meaning. The standard is reckless. That is extremely easy to show and I have no doubt that Comey was above that threshold.


Second, and most important, is they have to prove this was a true threat. That is based on the message that was conveyed, not what Comey intended or what Comey thought, etc. etc.

The issue of whether someone would act on that is not what he's charged with. He is charged with him making the threat. So his words would've had to convey the message that HE was going to do an unlawful violent act.

I agree with you in your assessment of what shipwreckedcrew is saying, but the point is he is not saying anything about a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute only being available post trial.

McCarthy is arguing that you can do a Rule 12 motion to dismiss which essentially is an "as applied" challenge, but also challenging whether a crime is even properly alleged.


In terms of procedure, I would say that they are both right! But until we see the substance of an actual motion, I don't believe we can say, which of them will be correct as it applies to this case!

aggiehawg said:

---

Defense is entitled to discovery of course. The grand jury had the instagram post from day one but as Branca noted, the grand jury investigation continued for several more months, so there is some other evidence they have.

---

This is what I have been wondering, too. Surely they have something additional that is substantive.

Quote:

---

...we don't know what else they may have against Comey.

---

If the FBI found a text or email or other form of electronic communication where Comey clearly stated the intent of posting 8647 is to call for people to target the POTUS and kill him, would that:

(1) justify the indictment and prosection?

(2) be a prima fascie piece of evidence establishing Comey's intent and a huge obstacle for the defense attorneys defending Comey?

871 is threats against the President. Posting it also involves 875. Respectfully disagree about 18 USC 875;

Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015) Held that 875(c) requires proof the defendant intended the communication as a threat or knew it would be seen as a threat; discussed postings that could encourage others and clarified mens rea (intent/knowledge). United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486 (6th Cir. 1997) Upheld conviction where defendant's communications urged third parties to harm a named victim; court treated solicitations to third parties as falling within threat/solicitation analysis. United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996) Affirmed conviction for transmitting threats where defendant's messages urged others to commit violence; court examined context and whether statements would be perceived as threats. United States v. Pridgeon, 765 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1985) Held that communications that incite or solicit others to commit kidnapping/violence can support 875 prosecution when transmitted in interstate commerce.United States v. Sines, 863 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2017) While primarily a civil case against extremist organizers, appellate discussion cites 875 prosecutions and addresses organizing/encouraging thirdparty violence as relevant conduct (illustrative of prosecutorial approach).

I guess we will see, but in this instance I don't want to be wrong.

I'm not real clear what you were disagreeing with, as even with 875 Counterman is going to apply regarding what is a true threat.

I would also think that the language of that case would also apply to the 875 charge meaning only recklessness has to be shown. Which, again, is easy to do.


ETA: it has been a while since I read Elonis, but Counterman actually cited Elonis for the reckless standard.

Quote:

---

Mens rea (and actus rea) always matter (well, almost always). Comey knew, imho, fully that some Cole Tomas Allen type would see his post, and then look into the language/intent in his new book, and 'take action' per his message. He was exposed to (speculating) thousands of serious plots to harm the President as FBI director, and other public officials, often triggered by crazed perceptions of justice/guidance/official statements/social media.

---

It is called Stochastic Terrorism. A term created in the 2000s, during a time Comey would be well aware of it given his position at DOJ.

ETA: That is a mechanism for a probabilistic assessment of a act occurring, not a crime in and of itself.