Rockdoc said:

---

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

---

SCOOP: DOJ prosecutors in Virginia are pursuing separate charges against James Comey for allegedly leaking classified info.
Blanche's DOJ, not satisfied with just '86 47' case, in recent weeks revived nat sec probe that stalled out last year. https://t.co/ibQslBkAQO

— Ben Penn (@benjaminpenn) April 30, 2026

Hmm. Giving Comey the old Mueller two step like Manafort received. Battles on two fronts of two different federal courts.

aggiehawg said:

---

Hmm. Giving Comey the old Mueller two step like Manafort received. Battles on two fronts of two different federal courts.

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

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.

---

When your deranged moron comrades keeping trying to murder the president, with actual real bullets, people have a reason to be concerned.

Your party is filled with literally insane people that have been spoon fed propaganda that has convinced them that Trump is literally Hitler.

Instead of doing anything about, you are defending it. Its disgusting..

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

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.

---

When your deranged moron comrades keeping trying to murder the president, with actual real bullets, people have a reason to be concerned.

Your party is filled with literally insane people that have been spoon fed propaganda that has convinced them that Trump is literally Hitler.

Instead of doing anything about, you are defending it. Its disgusting..

---

I'm not defending any attempt on his life. The former director of the FBI did not try to kill DJT. And if that's the game you're playing, I'm searching for your outrage on the Jack Posobiec shirts and can't seem to find any. WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT??!!??

No one is trying to kill Biden except father time. You wouldnt even know Jack said that if it wasn't for this thread.

The two things aren't even remotely comparable. You know that,, you are just pretending not to.

Sure Comey wasn't going to kill Trump. He was trying to bait one of your crazy party soldiers to do it. Even you know it.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

No one is trying to kill Biden except father time. You wouldnt even know Jack said that if it wasn't for this thread.

The two things aren't even remotely comparable. You know that,, you are just pretending not to.

---

No, I saw the tweet and the shirts when they first rolled out, so again, where is your outrage?
If this one is a threat, that one is too.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The two things aren't even remotely comparable. You know that,, you are just pretending not to.

---

Tweeting 8646 is not comparable to tweeting 8647? That appears to be an incredibly irrational false statement.

Anonymous Source said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

No one is trying to kill Biden except father time. You wouldnt even know Jack said that if it wasn't for this thread.

The two things aren't even remotely comparable. You know that,, you are just pretending not to.

---

No, I saw the tweet and the shirts when they first rolled out, so again, where is your outrage?
If this one is a threat, that one is too.

---

Show me the thread where you cared about it. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

No one is trying to kill Biden except father time. You wouldnt even know Jack said that if it wasn't for this thread.

The two things aren't even remotely comparable. You know that,, you are just pretending not to.

---

No, I saw the tweet and the shirts when they first rolled out, so again, where is your outrage?
If this one is a threat, that one is too.

---

Show me the thread where you cared about it. Go ahead. I'll wait.

---

If I recognized it as more meaningless political bull**** and didn't think it was a threat, I wouldn't have posted on it, braintrust.

But its not meaningless political banter when your side is acting it. Over and over and over again.

Charlie Kirk lost hist life over "meaningless political banter."

Rockdoc said:

---

Sure Comey wasn't going to kill Trump. He was trying to bait one of your crazy party soldiers to do it.

---

It is definitely possible that was Comey's intent. But the Instagram post alone doesn't prove it. That is why I asked on the previous page of this thread:

If the FBI discovered 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 a DOJ to seek a grand jury indictment and then prosectute him?

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

Anonymous Source said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

No one is trying to kill Biden except father time. You wouldnt even know Jack said that if it wasn't for this thread.

The two things aren't even remotely comparable. You know that,, you are just pretending not to.

---

No, I saw the tweet and the shirts when they first rolled out, so again, where is your outrage?
If this one is a threat, that one is too.

---

Show me the thread where you cared about it. Go ahead. I'll wait.

---

If I recognized it as more meaningless political bull**** and didn't think it was a threat, I wouldn't have posted on it, braintrust.

---

Meaningless? Interesting choice of worlds, when Trump has been hit with a bullet by one guy…I hope you take that same take tact if that was to happen to you.

Rockdoc said:

---

Sure Comey wasn't going to kill Trump. He was trying to bait one of your crazy party soldiers to do it. Even you know it.

---

Winner! He couldn't very well write "I'm going to 8646" (pretty obvious threat), but anyone without a skull full of mush can tell he thinks somebody should. First Amendment protected? Maybe…….but it sure reeks of incitement to commit a violent act.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

But its not meaningless political banter when your side is acting it. Over and over and over again.

Charlie Kirk lost hist life over "meaningless political banter."

---

To follow Godwin's law... this is like the Allies accidentally knocking off a Jew and Hitler screaming "Beide Seiten, Beide Seiten!".

Now, getting a lib to be self-aware? That aint happening.

That is a good point…given all the rhetoric around Jan 6th, that is exactly what the left was saying, Trump was inciting violence on that day, but it is Different.

B-1 83 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Sure Comey wasn't going to kill Trump. He was trying to bait one of your crazy party soldiers to do it. Even you know it.

---

Winner! He couldn't very well write "I'm going to 8646" (pretty obvious threat), but anyone without a skull full of mush can tell he thinks somebody should. First Amendment protected? Maybe…….but it sure reeks of incitement to commit a violent act.

---

Even telling people to commit violent acts isn't enough to charge someone as far as I can see. If I'm speaking at a rally and say "all of you should burn down these buildings, tip over cars, and destroy everything you can", unless they actually do that then I'm not liable.

Assuming that you do believe "86 means murder" saying "someone should kill this guy" is covered in the 1A

WaltonAg18 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Sure Comey wasn't going to kill Trump. He was trying to bait one of your crazy party soldiers to do it. Even you know it.

---

Winner! He couldn't very well write "I'm going to 8646" (pretty obvious threat), but anyone without a skull full of mush can tell he thinks somebody should. First Amendment protected? Maybe…….but it sure reeks of incitement to commit a violent act.

---

Even telling people to commit violent acts isn't enough to charge someone as far as I can see. If I'm speaking at a rally and say "all of you should burn down these buildings, tip over cars, and destroy everything you can", unless they actually do that then I'm not liable.

Assuming that you do believe "86 means murder" saying "someone should kill this guy" is covered in the 1A

---

Tell that to Demcorats and how they reacted to Jan 6th.

Dude, that was an insurrection!

Nanci Pelosi almost died!

Quote:

---

Even telling people to commit violent acts isn't enough to charge someone as far as I can see. If I'm speaking at a rally and say "all of you should burn down these buildings, tip over cars, and destroy everything you can", unless they actually do that then I'm not liable.

---

Not exactly. Under Brandenberg, there is an imminence and capability test. Such speech as you have hypothesized with such specificity and proximity can be viewed as inciting imminent illegal acts.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Dude, that was an insurrection!

Nanci Pelosi almost died!

---

I am just saying words and meanings mean something…the left says Trump on Jan 6 caused this, but somehow Comey's post is being equated to killing a menu item…make it make sense. They know what they are doing…

Comey book proceeds to be seized pending trial.

BREAKING: DOJ sources tell me prosecutors are pursuing a "forfeiture action" in relation to James Comey's alleged felonies because they believe Comey posted the "86" Trump threat to also help drum up sales of a forthcoming book. Comey posted the image five (5) days before the May…

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) April 29, 2026

Good.

Quote:

---

BREAKING: DOJ sources tell me prosecutors are pursuing a "forfeiture action" in relation to James Comey's alleged felonies because they believe Comey posted the "86" Trump threat to also help drum up sales of a forthcoming book. Comey posted the image five (5) days before the May 20, 2025, release of his new crime novel. Controversy over the posting thrust Comey back into the headlines and drew potential book buyers to his Instagram and X accounts where he heavily promoted the book.

According to the Comey indictment, "Upon conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the said offense."

---

Aah, so that was what the grand jury was seeing all of those extra months they were investigating. And for a fictional crime novel. I can see where a grand jury would view that as reckless behavior.

Yes, and I've tried to point folks to the storyline of the novel itself. The connection to the 'clever' use of language/social media (a podcaster) to incite others to political violence seems blatantly obvious to me.

Quote:

---

The connection to the 'clever' use of language/social media (a podcaster) to incite others to political violence seems blatantly obvious to me.

---

Why wasn't that incitement charge included in the indictment?

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, and I've tried to point folks to the storyline of the novel itself. The connection to the 'clever' use of language/social media (a podcaster) to incite others to political violence seems blatantly obvious to me.

---

And that will be a fact question for a jury, it seems to me. Not a question for the judge during pretrial.

And as to the plot of Comey's novel (which I obviously have not read) that would tie directly into his personal knowledge of stochastic terrorism. Not a crime in and of itself but can satisfy elements of other crimes such as here.

I think a 373 solicitation charge will be added. We just don't know the evidence/testimony the government will present yet, at trial.

I highly doubt their theory of the case was that Comey planned to carry out an assassination himself, of course. All of this goes to the intent/mens rea stuff I posted earlier.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, and I've tried to point folks to the storyline of the novel itself. The connection to the 'clever' use of language/social media (a podcaster) to incite others to political violence seems blatantly obvious to me.

---

Wasn't that also a plotline for a season of Homeland? And Dar ended up in prison in part for that? (And that whole trying to assassinate the female POTUS stuff.) Had the podcaster and the secret CIA Bot farm, etc.

I've never watched that show, sorry.

Eugene Volokh has some thoughts, along with additional case cites not posted here yet.
https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/28/analyzing-indictment-of-james-comey-for-86-47-post/

nortex97 said:

---

I've never watched that show, sorry.

---

You might want to consider putting it on your list of things to watch. It was well written and well done. At the time it came out seemed maybe a little far out there. But after what we have since learned, not at all farfetched.

nortex97 said:

---

Comey book proceeds to be seized pending trial.

BREAKING: DOJ sources tell me prosecutors are pursuing a "forfeiture action" in relation to James Comey's alleged felonies because they believe Comey posted the "86" Trump threat to also help drum up sales of a forthcoming book. Comey posted the image five (5) days before the May…

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) April 29, 2026

Good.

---

Counterpoint: this action by the Trump DOJ adds additional evidence and weight to the defense team's coming motion for dismissal on grounds of selective and malicious prosecution.

To many observers and legal experts, it seems likely Comey will eventually end up with a 7-figure government check, and the money will come from us taxpayers.

nortex97 said:

---

Comey book proceeds to be seized pending trial.

BREAKING: DOJ sources tell me prosecutors are pursuing a "forfeiture action" in relation to James Comey's alleged felonies because they believe Comey posted the "86" Trump threat to also help drum up sales of a forthcoming book. Comey posted the image five (5) days before the May…

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) April 29, 2026

Good.

---

I mean it was same day or within days and he certainly used the controversy to push his "book".

HTownAg98 said:

---

Eugene Volokh has some thoughts, along with additional case cites not posted here yet.
https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/28/analyzing-indictment-of-james-comey-for-86-47-post/

---

Who is Volokh and what were the thoughts?