FBI Interviews James Comey Re: Social Media Post

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Fri May 16, 2025 at 08:47:15 PM EST
Tags: James Comey, Donald Trump (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Remember this? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by CaptHowdy on Sat May 17, 2025 at 02:16:53 PM EST

When Trump parades a hog-tied Biden, his violent threat to democracy is beyond question

I am really tired of hearing about (5.00 / 6) (#14)
by CaptHowdy on Tue May 20, 2025 at 04:38:39 PM EST

how the 2024 election was about "affordability".

It was about the price of eggs.

This is total bullshite. It was about race and gender. Trump did not win because eggs were expensive.

He won because he was running against a black woman. But the affordability meme allows everyone - especially the f'ing media - to avoid looking at the fact they are, and the voters are spineless scumsucking racist cowards who were afraid to vote for a black woman and may have destroyed our country.

: Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by KeysDan on Tue May 20, 2025 at 04:45:15 PM EST

As the 2024 election is studied, several factors will be considered. However, at the bottom of the pile will be racism along side of misogyny and its first cousin, homophobia.

Just about everyone I know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 05:02:35 PM EST

is planning to participate in No Kings tomorrow. That wasn't true the last time. A lot didn't seem to know about it.

I think this one will be bigger than the last one.
Crowds big enough to get their attention.

: Attending with my daughter (none / 0) (#38)
by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 08:34:17 AM EST

and friends.
Missouri has declared a state of emergency and called up the National Guard as a precaution ( otherwise known as Republican intimidation). No news on deployment.
Our area for the rally will have a large contingent of white people; many who have money. Doubt the brown shirts will target that area.
Not enough black and brown people to help them sell the meme of dangerous radicals. Abusing old white people, many with canes etc. would be terrible optics.

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.

: 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.

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 (5.00 / 1) (#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.

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.

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.


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

would be a longer conversation


: I (5.00 / 2) (#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.

Stop Being Silly (2.00 / 1) (#12)
by RickyJim on Tue May 20, 2025 at 11:19:29 AM EST

Nothing happened to the American electorate. They were given a choice forced on them. What is needed is a program that will wean them off the two party system. Then maybe they will have high quality candidates to choose from.


Come on Ricky, (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by KeysDan on Tue May 20, 2025 at 01:12:52 PM EST

the electorate was given a choice---a choice not unlike the one a passenger was given by the flight attendant of two entrees, chicken with au gratin potatoes or cow dung under ground glass garnished with hemlock. And the passenger asks: "how is the chicken cooked". The American electorate declined the chicken.


Three or more political parties ... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 22, 2025 at 03:23:45 AM EST

... does not necessarily ensure better electoral outcomes or even a better electoral system and quite often, it creates political instability.

I need only point to Israel as a prime example. A fractured electorate split their vote amongst 13 parties in the most recent parliamentary election, with Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party garnering a plurality with a mere 23% of ballots cast, which gave them the right to form a government.

Netanyahu is prime minister, but 77% of Israelis actually voted for someone else to lead the country. He cobbled together a majority in the Knesset by aligning with extremists, and if he wants his coalition to remain in power, he has to keep the religious crackpots happy.

Aloha.


Focusing on the US (none / 0) (#17)
by RickyJim on Thu May 22, 2025 at 01:56:59 PM EST

The two party system has given us minority rule because a radical faction has grabbed control of one party and dictates the people who control the executive, legislative and judicial branches, destroying checks and balances. I propose that each of the branches have a different method to choose who will be in charge of it:

Legislature, multi-party through proportional representation (yes, like Israel).
Executive, an electoral college, consisting of the highest elective executives, viz. governors and mayors, chooses 10 candidates for chief executive followed by a popular vote with the winner determined by either ranked choice or a runoff.
Judicial, a civil service meritocracy appoints and promotes all judges and prosecutors.

The biggest problem the US faces is that the ruling faction denies the majority what it wants as far as the social safety net, birth and gun control. In Israel, despite a minority supporting Netanyahu, the government seems to give the citizens what they want: most important being the denial of citizenship to residents of Gaza and the West Bank.


Non one was "forced on" anyone (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Yman on Sun Jun 08, 2025 at 11:46:29 AM EST

"They were given a choice forced on them."

Pick whatever person or party you want - and one party had a high quality candidate, while the other had an unqualified felon and f@scist.

But false equivalencies are fun, huh?


The open is almost full so I put this here (none / 0) (#19)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 07:18:23 PM EST

Israel just struck Iran's nuclear facilities.

Slow (none / 0) (#20)
by FlJoe on Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 07:39:41 PM EST

news night, CNN already forgot about the plane crash.


: Still waiting (none / 0) (#21)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 07:43:19 PM EST

for the LA deployment decision.

The judge just returned control (none / 0) (#22)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 08:06:07 PM EST

of the CA national guard BACK TO THE GOVERNOR

starting tomorrow.

This is HUGE.

But Judge Charles Breyer (brother of retired (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Peter G on Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 08:45:49 PM EST

S.Ct. Justice Stephen Breyer) put his decision on hold for a day, to give the govt lawyers a chance to ask for a stay from the Court of Appeals. Breyer will not himself grant a stay, because the illegality of the Proclamation is so clear. See, among other things, the Tenth Amendment.


The judge literally said (none / 0) (#24)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 09:01:11 PM EST

the law you are using says you can't do this.

What is the appeals court like this will go to?


The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 08:46:44 AM EST

is the nation's largest, with a current total of 29 active judges, about twice the size of even the largest of the other circuits. (Efforts in Congress to divide the circuit in half, as was done 40 or so years ago with the deep south circuit (5th/11th), have repeatedly stalled over political issues.) It used to have a reputation (especially at the Supreme Court) of being the most liberal of the regional federal appeals courts. But now, like nearly all of the Circuits, it is pretty much divided 50/50 between conservatives and judges who lean liberal. The conservatives are not (mostly) crackpots like the younger 5th Cir judges, though. So I would hope to see Judge Breyer upheld. But the real play here is at SCOTUS, of course.


Thanks (none / 0) (#28)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 09:27:02 AM EST

As a non lawyer what the judge said about this being a clear choice seems almost inarguable.

I'm sure it is not.


Yeah, that's what I thought about the immunity (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Chuck0 on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 04:05:13 PM EST

decision. Should have overwhelmingly been a slam dunk to uphold the lower court. But...look where we are now.


: Point (none / 0) (#31)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 04:26:27 PM EST

Taken

: I felt that way about the CO insurrection ruling. (none / 0) (#35)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 03:18:15 AM EST

There it was in black and white: Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I found its language to be clear and unambiguous in its meaning. So did the Colorado Supreme Court, judging by its majority opinion. But then John Roberts showed up, sounded the foghorn and rolled out his fog machine.

Gosh, how reassuring. (none / 0) (#34)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 03:07:53 AM EST

Peter G: "So I would hope to see Judge Breyer upheld. But the real play here is at SCOTUS, of course."

I mean, who better to decide an important issue regarding the legal limits of executive authority than that peerless Trump enabler in black robes, John Roberts, who'll no doubt want to further his quest to displace Roger Taney as the most feckless and absolute worst chief justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Sigh!) Lily Tomlin said it best: "No matter how cynical you become, it's impossible to keep up."

Anyway, Aloha from Los Angeles, that socialist hellhole which Gauleiter Barbie - aka DHS Sec. Kristi Noem - wants to liberate from its brown residents. We were going to the No Kings rally in downtown L.A., but my elderly mother and aunt said they wanted to go to one, so we're all attending the rally that's closer to home on Colorado Blvd. here in Pasadena at 2:00 p.m. PDT.

Let's all make some noise on Saturday - okay? It's important.


The appeals court put the injunction on hold (none / 0) (#25)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 08:35:14 AM EST

until Tuesday, for an emergency hearing. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side you're on in any given case, the legal system is devoted, above all, to giving both sides a fair chance to be heard before acting. And the presumptions that favor presidential freedom of action were not designed for the possibility of Americans' electing an ignorant, authoritarian nutjob as president.


: 9th Circuit (none / 0) (#26)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 08:40:23 AM EST

Tuesday
I found that the 9th is considered on the liberalism side.

: Not as fast as we might like (none / 0) (#29)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:15:29 AM EST

but it seems like the courts are stepping up. This seems to be happening fast?

My (none / 0) (#32)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 04:30:56 PM EST

birthday is coming

: Happy birthday! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 04:00:34 AM EST

That looks really cool but with all due respect, might I suggest something that's perhaps more in keeping with the times in which we now live?
;-)

: UHH (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by jmacWA on Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 04:51:28 AM EST

You're really into advanced planning this year I guess.

: Happy Birthday (none / 0) (#39)
by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 08:39:49 AM EST

Good luck on receiving your wish on the present.