Investigating the Claims Surrounding James Comey’s Seashell Post and the Meaning of ‘86’
In recent headlines, former FBI Director James Comey has become the center of controversy after a federal indictment accused him of threatening President Donald Trump through an Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to spell “86 47”. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the numerals implied a serious threat of harm, citing the slang meaning of “86” as “to kill” or “to get rid of,” especially in the context of criminal mob slang. However, a thorough investigation into the linguistic origins and legal implications reveals a complex picture that challenges the DOJ’s interpretation.
The Meaning of “86”: Slang or Threat?
The DOJ’s case hinges on the assertion that Comey’s Instagram post posed a physical threat, based on the traditional slang usage of “86.” According to Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “eighty-six” has historically referred to “to throw out,” “to get rid of,” or “to refuse service,” especially in the 1930s soda fountain slang. While Merriam-Webster notes that in more recent usage, “86” has occasionally been used to mean “to kill,” this sense is documented as being sparse and less recognized in formal language. The OED, for instance, emphasizes the phrase’s meaning within restaurants or bars, not violence.
Jesse Sheidlower, a renowned lexicographer and former editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, explained that “the original sense is, we are out of an item,” and the extension to “refuse service” or “throw out” is well-established. He notes that instances of “86” meaning “to murder” are exceedingly rare and context-dependent, and usually do not imply physical threats without additional, explicit context.
Legal Challenges in Proving “Intent” and “Threat”
The law requires prosecutors to demonstrate that Comey “knowingly and willfully” made a threat intended to harm the President. Legal experts like Jimmy Gurulé of the University of Notre Dame suggest that proving this in court is difficult, given the ambiguity of “86” and the absence of clear violent intent in Comey’s statements. Furthermore, former federal prosecutor John Keller pointed out that the phrase’s ambiguity makes it hard to establish a “beyond a reasonable doubt” case for threatening violence, especially since Comey claimed he intended only a political message, not a violent threat.
Law professors and legal analysts, including Elie Honig of CNN, highlight that the law’s requirement for proof of “intent to kill or physically injure” is challenging to meet when the meaning of the terms involved is so doubtful. Ambiguous language like “86” can’t reliably be tied to violent threats without explicit evidence of intent, which does not seem to exist here.
Context and Comey’s Response
Comey stated that he was unaware of any violent connotation when posting the seashell image, claiming it was a “silly picture” meant to express a political viewpoint, and that he removed it once he realized that others might interpret it differently. On social media, he wrote that he opposed violence of any kind, emphasizing his lack of malicious intent. This explanation aligns with linguistic analyses that see “86” as more often denoting “to get rid of” or “to cross off,” rather than a death threat.
Compared to the DOJ’s framing, credible voices such as Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley argue that the indictment’s reliance on semantic ambiguity makes it “facially unconstitutional” to convict without clear evidence of a true threat. The legal threshold for such crimes mandates that the language used must explicitly convey an intent to harm, which in this case, remains open to interpretation.
The Broader Picture: The Importance of Context and Evidence
This controversy exemplifies a broader challenge in modern legal and societal interpretations of language: how slang, cultural references, and contextual understanding can vary wildly. As experts like Jesse Sheidlower emphasize, while “86” can sometimes be slang for “murder,” its primary and most common meanings involve “getting rid of” or “refusing service,” not violence. Prosecutors unfamiliar with these nuances will face an uphill battle in establishing criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ultimately, this case underscores the importance of precise communication and the dangers of overreach in criminalizing speech based on ambiguous language. In a democracy, where free expression and responsible citizenship form the bedrock, understanding the origins and common usage of language is paramount to ensuring that justice is truly served—guided, not by fear or misinterpretation, but by facts and context.
As we watch developments unfold, it remains clear that fact-based analysis and linguistic clarity are essential tools in safeguarding justice and preventing the erosion of free speech rights.
