home

FBI Interviews James Comey Re: Social Media Post

Former F.B.I. Director James Comey was escorted to the Secret Service offices today for a voluntary interview about a social media post he wrote:

On Thursday, the former FBI head posted a photo of the numbers “86 47” spelled out by shells on a beach he said he came across. Comey quickly took down the post after Republicans and Trump allies said he was calling for the president’s assassination.

“I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” Comey said of the number “86,” which can refer to something being tossed away or taken out. The corresponding “47” matches Trump’s current term in office as the 47th president. “It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

Legal experts on the First Amendment interviewed by CNN seem unanimous that there's no criminal case to be made here. [More...]

As for Trump's claim that even a child would know the numbers referred to assassination, I disagree. I stared at the numbers for 30 seconds and couldn't figure out what they stood for. I had to look it up. And I'm someone who makes a new file folder called "86" File" every year. (It's a file with notes I took during interviews of potential clients, who never became active clients.) "86" to me means something to toss out or discard. It could also mean discarding a person, as in 86'ing someone from your circle of friends. But discarding someone by killing them? Would never cross my mind.

To me, the story here is not about free speech. It has always been the rule here at TalkLeft that comments referring to or suggesting acts of violence against someone else will be removed. I don't want to get sued and have to litigate whether readers' comments are protected free speech. Hiring a lawyer to defend a civil case is expensive. Now there's another reason: I don't want to have to pay for legal representation because a criminal investigation has been initiated over comments posted on TalkLeft that others may view as a threat. When the Government decides to exercise its awesome power against you, it's not a matter to be taken lightly. Whether you think you did nothing wrong is besides the point.

So even though James Comey is likely off the hook and should be, the lesson to be learned here is don't do what he did -- if the Secret Service, FBI, ICE or the local police comes a'knocking, ask to call a lawyer before you agree to an interview. These people are not your friends. They aren't asking you to come downtown so they can share a cup of coffee and some donuts with you. They are seeking evidence with which they can charge you or someone close to you with a crime.

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is there for a reason. Use it or lose it. Our jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the agents or prosecutors would see it their way. It rarely happens. Call your lawyer, and if you can't afford one or don't know of one, call someone who can recommend one.

"Miranda Rights" are different. They only apply to custodial interviews. How do you know if you are in custody? Are you free to leave?

A good rule of thumb, especially if stopped for a traffic violation and after returning your license and registration and any a ticket or warning, the officer starts asking you questions about where you are going, or if you have drugs, guns or large amounts of money in the car, or about your citizenship: Ask if you are free to leave. Five words. Put them in your phone. Put them in your glove compartment. Put them in your wallet. If the officer says yes, then leave.

The fine print: This is not legal advice. Talkleft does not give legal advice. It is an expression of my individual opinion and point of view. Read at your own risk.

< Friday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Remember this? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 17, 2025 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    Speaking as a former bartender and waiter, ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 17, 2025 at 05:07:10 AM EST
    ... whenever we used the term "86" in restaurant / bar lingo, it's in reference to either one of two things:
    • We were out of a particular menu item that day or evening, e.g. "Eighty-six clam chowder"; or
    • A particular patron was expelled from the premises - usually for disorderly conduct or antisocial behavior - and prohibited from returning without prior permission of management, e.g., "The guy was eighty-sixed for picking fights with other customers."

    The cockeyed notion that it's somehow indicative of a mortal threat when used in reference to Donald Trump is an entirely manufactured and phony controversy. That in itself is an act of intimidation on the part of the Trump regime.

    (PERSONAL NOTE: I've decided that henceforth, I'm going to refer to the Trump administration as a regime, because that's exactly how they're behaving.)

    Further, given the absurdly hyperbolic times in which we currently live, it's a ginned-up controversy that former FBI Director James Comey really should have anticipated. I agree with you that he showed poor judgment here.

    Now, that said, when we start to feel compelled to temper our remarks or refrain from expressing our own personal opinions about public officials or current events, or we find ourselves advising relatives, friends and acquaintances to do the same, out of concern that the authorities might be angered or offended, then that's a clear red flag that we are transitioning from a free and democratic society and into an authoritarian autocracy.

    And THAT should give us all very serious pause.

    Aloha.

    86 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat May 17, 2025 at 09:51:43 AM EST

    Ditto your number 2.  Same bartender experience.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 17, 2025 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    my understanding of 86 is, essentially, we're rid of (service industry, we've out of something and the item I has been taken off the menu) or get rid of (such as ask an obnoxious patron to leave).

    But, it does not have the meaning of "kill", except if stretched to become a subset of " get rid of"--which would be an unnatural subset.  It is more, in this usage asa call for impeachment.

    The fascist outrage over Comey's sea shells is curious given their apparent tolerance for the 86 46 T-shirts long available through sources such as Amazon and Etsy. And, this is noted without great empathy for Comey who did his best to 86 Hillary in the 2016 election.

    Parent

    I worked as a doorman/bouncer (none / 0) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Sat May 17, 2025 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    for many years in San Diego (OB). "86" has always meant that a person was to leave the bar for the night. When we told someone they were "86'd" no one ever assumed we wanted that person dead, ever.

    When I started seeing the 86 47 stuff online, I never interpreted as a call for assassination. To me it meant it was time for the felon to leave. (Granted, I wouldn't be bothered in the least for for the other to happen.)

    This hyperbole from the MAGAts is laughable and ridiculous.


    One of my favorite Supreme Court decisions (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Mon May 19, 2025 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    holds that the federal "threat" statute must be narrowly construed in light of First Amendment considerations. Kid at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration who said (more or less), "If they draft me and issue me a rifle, the first guy I want to get in my sights is LBJ." In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled without even asking for briefs (5-1, with the other 3 opposing acting summarily): "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise." Conviction vacated and acquittal ordered. In 2015, the Court further ruled that the speaker cannot be convicted for threats without proof of some subjective intent to threaten (or at least recklessness with respect to how the words would be understood); it is not enough that a reasonable person would understand the defendant's words to be objectively threatening. There is no way that Comey could be properly prosecuted under these precedents, if this DOJ were operating in good faith (which I understand they are not).

    Just saw Comey on MSNBC (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 19, 2025 at 04:03:13 PM EST
    It was interesting.  He said he was not worried about this particular kerfuffle

    Worried about many things.  Not that.

    Parent

    This keeps happening (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 19, 2025 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    George Simion pledged to "Make Romania Great Again" and said he was running "on the MAGA ticket" to become president of the Eastern European country. The New York Times even declared that Simion was the favorite in the race, after he had come in first in an earlier round of voting to winnow the field down to two candidates.

    Yet on Sunday, Simion lost decisively to Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan, becoming the latest foreign leader to lose an election after embracing Donald Trump.

    link


    Yes, and (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 19, 2025 at 05:37:08 PM EST
    the Romanians also went for quality. Nicursor Daniel Dan, Mayor  of Bucharest,  is an anti-corruption activist and mathematics prize winner. He received a masters and doctorate in mathematics from the University of Paris (Sorbonne).  

       So too, the Canadians; they  rejected a Trumpist and chose quality, to boot.   Mark Carney earned a baccalaureate degree in economics  from Harvard and a doctorate in economics from Oxford University.  He served as head of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada.

    What happened to the American electorate?  About half of it, anyway.

    Parent

    That (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 19, 2025 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    would be a longer conversation

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 19, 2025 at 06:16:48 PM EST
    suspect historians will be debating this question for a long long time.

    Parent