Legal Arguments Over ‘True Threat’ Threshold
The U.S. Department of Justice filed more than 100 pages of new documents in a North Carolina federal court on Tuesday, mounting a robust defense against motions by former FBI Director James Comey to dismiss criminal charges. Comey is currently facing prosecution for a May 2025 Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to spell “86 47.” Prosecutors contend this message constitutes a “true threat” against President Donald Trump, citing the numerical combination as a coded call for violence.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Severo argued that the court should deny Comey’s motion to dismiss, stating that the interpretation of the post as a threat is a matter for a jury to decide. “At this stage, the issue presented is not whether Comey’s ‘86 47’ post constituted a true threat against the President—though the United States maintains that it did,” Severo wrote. “Rather, the issue presented is who should answer the ‘true threats’ question in the first instance.”
Countering Claims of Vindictive Prosecution
The federal filings also directly addressed Comey’s assertions that he is the target of a “vindictive” and “selective” prosecution orchestrated by political opponents. Government lawyers emphasized that Comey has failed to provide “actual, objective evidence” that the decision to prosecute was motivated by animus. U.S. Attorney Ellis Boyle, who took over the case in August 2025, submitted an affidavit confirming that his office’s decision to seek an indictment was made independently, without pressure or direction from any external individual.
Prosecutors drew a sharp distinction between Comey and potential comparator cases, noting that at the time of the post, Comey had published a novel featuring an antagonist who uses coded online messages to incite followers to kill political rivals. The government argues this context provides unique weight to the interpretation of his social media activity as a threat to the sitting President.
Disputing Search Warrant and Grand Jury Motions
In addition to the dismissal motions, the government rejected Comey’s attempts to suppress evidence obtained through FBI search warrants and his request to disclose grand jury proceedings. The filings argue that the FBI agent involved in the warrant applications provided rational investigative deductions to the magistrate, and that Comey has failed to meet the “strong showing of particularized need” required to breach grand jury secrecy. As the proceedings move forward, the court is expected to rule on whether these motions, including the request for a “Franks hearing,” will be granted.