Bloomberg Law• Apr 29, 2026• 16:29Interview

Former FBI Director Comey Indicted for Second Time | Bloomberg Law

From Bloomberg Law

Robert Mintz•Former Federal Prosecutor, Partner at McCarter & English

Executive Summary

The Department of Justice has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for a second time, charging him with threatening the president over a social media post of seashells arranged to say '86 47'.
Legal analysis suggests the prosecution faces an 'uphill battle' to prove the post constitutes a 'true threat' rather than protected political speech under the First Amendment.
Comey's defense is expected to argue the post was not intended as a threat and that the case is a selective and politically motivated prosecution, especially following a recently dismissed prior indictment.
The case highlights the legal distinction between political hyperbole and a prosecutable threat, referencing the Supreme Court precedent in *Watts v.
United States*.

8 quotes

Concerns Raised

The potential for the Department of Justice to be used for politically motivated prosecutions.
The chilling effect such indictments could have on political speech and criticism of public officials.
The difficulty in legally distinguishing between genuine threats and political hyperbole on social media.

Opportunities Identified

A strong defense based on First Amendment protections for political speech.
The ability to argue selective and malicious prosecution, given the prior dismissed indictment.
Exploiting the ambiguity of the term '86' to create reasonable doubt about criminal intent.

Key Themes

First Amendment vs. 'True Threats'

The core legal conflict is whether James Comey's ambiguous social media post is protected political speech under the First Amendment or a prosecutable 'true threat' against the president. The discussion emphasizes the high legal standard prosecutors must meet, requiring proof that the statement was a serious, detailed, and imminent expression of intent to commit violence.

This case tests the boundaries of free speech in an era of heightened political rhetoric and social media, with significant implications for how online statements about public officials are policed and prosecuted.

Politicization of the Justice Department

The indictment is framed within a context of potential political motivation, given it's the second attempt by the DOJ to prosecute Comey, a noted political opponent of the president. The defense is expected to argue this is a selective and malicious prosecution, aiming to punish a perceived enemy rather than enforce the law impartially.

This theme speaks to broader concerns about the erosion of institutional norms and the potential weaponization of federal law enforcement for political ends, which can undermine public trust in the justice system.

Interpretation of Ambiguous Language

The prosecution's case hinges on interpreting the slang term '86'. The analysis explores its origins as restaurant jargon for 'get rid of' versus its recent use in political contexts, making it difficult to prove Comey had a specific, violent intent required for a conviction.

This highlights the challenge for the legal system in interpreting evolving, context-dependent slang used on social media, where intent can be easily obscured and plausible deniability is high.

Prosecutorial Standards and Hurdles

The episode distinguishes between the low bar for securing a grand jury indictment (probable cause) and the much higher standard for a trial conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt). This explains why the case can proceed even if it appears weak, while also underscoring the significant challenge prosecutors will face in convincing a jury of Comey's guilt.

This provides insight into the mechanics of the federal criminal justice process, showing how cases can advance to trial despite significant evidentiary weaknesses that may ultimately prevent a conviction.

Get started free

Topics

James Comey Department of Justice (DOJ)Indictment Threats against the President First Amendment Free Speech Political Prosecution Selective Prosecution True Threat Doctrine 18 U.S.C. 871 Social Media Law Legal Analysis Watts v. United States Robert Mintz Donald Trump

Processed Apr 29, 2026 yt-dlp + mlx-whisper + Gemini