Sponsor Advertisement
Trump Accuses Comey of Veiled Assassination Threat on Instagram
AI image of Trump vs Comey. Particular LLC

Trump Accuses Comey of Veiled Assassination Threat on Instagram

Former President Donald Trump has accused ex-FBI Director James Comey of sending a cryptic message that he interprets as a call for assassination, citing Comey's deleted Instagram post "86 47."

In a recent development that has stirred controversy and concern, former President Donald Trump has leveled a serious accusation against ex-FBI Director James Comey. Trump asserts that Comey's Instagram post, which featured seashells arranged to read "86 47," was a thinly-veiled message inciting violence against him. The term "86" is commonly understood in slang as a call to eliminate or get rid of something, and with Trump being the 47th president, the post was interpreted by many, including Trump, as a veiled assassination threat.

The interview, which aired on Fox News with Bret Baier on Friday, highlighted Trump's blunt assessment of the situation. "He knew exactly what it meant," Trump stated emphatically. "A child knows what that meant. That meant assassination." Although Comey has offered an explanation that he was merely photographing seashells during a beach walk, without any violent intentions, Trump has dismissed this apology.

The issue is particularly sensitive given the backdrop of multiple assassination attempts on Trump during his 2024 campaign. Notably, on July 13, 2024, an attack during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, resulted in Trump sustaining an ear wound. The assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was fatally shot by law enforcement at the scene. In a separate incident on September 15, 2024, Ryan Wesley Routh was arrested for aiming a rifle at one of Trump's security detail at his West Palm Beach golf course.

These incidents have amplified concerns about the security of political figures and the dangerous potential of coded or symbolic actions. The reactions to Comey's post have been sharply divided along partisan lines. Republicans, including Donald Trump Jr., have expressed outrage. The Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service are reportedly investigating the implications of Comey's Instagram post, with Secretary Kristi Noem confirming the scrutiny.

Critics of Comey find it hard to believe that he could be unaware of the potential interpretation of his post, given his extensive background in law enforcement. Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has dismissed Comey's defense as "ridiculous" and "insane," and has called for him to be held accountable.

Conversely, supporters of Comey suggest that the number "86" may be a political statement, akin to calls for impeachment, rather than a violent threat. They point to past uses of similar phrases, such as "86 46," which targeted former President Joe Biden, suggesting a non-violent intent.

Comey's tenure as FBI director was fraught with controversy, including his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, which some Democrats believe contributed to Clinton's loss in the 2016 presidential election. His subsequent dismissal by Trump and the leaking of private meeting memos further strained their relationship.

The unfolding situation raises important questions about the interpretation of political messaging and the appropriate limits of symbolic speech, especially in the context of the current political climate and the very real threats that have been made against President Trump's life.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

Progressives tend to view the controversy over James Comey's Instagram post as an overreaction and a misinterpretation of what could very well be a political statement rather than a call to violence. The left often interprets "86" as a term to discard or veto, and in this context, possibly a symbolic rejection of Trump's policies or a call for his political removal.

The progressive viewpoint seeks to understand the nuances behind such statements, considering the historical context and common usage of the term in political dissent. They argue that the immediate jump to an assassination narrative is indicative of a hyper-polarized political environment where dialogue is often replaced by outrage and accusation.

Those on the left also highlight the importance of freedom of speech, arguing that while threats must be taken seriously, care must be taken not to over-police language to the point where political expression is stifled. They advocate for a measured response that considers Comey's long career in public service and his contributions to the country.

Conservative View

The recent controversy surrounding James Comey's Instagram post is a testament to the left's double standards and the media's bias. Conservatives argue that if a similar message had been directed at a Democrat president, the outcry would be deafening, and the perpetrator would face immediate repercussions. The casual dismissal of such a blatant threat to a former president's life is unacceptable. The conservative perspective underscores the need for consistency in addressing potential threats against political figures, regardless of their party affiliation.

Further, the right emphasizes the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, especially when those individuals have held positions of power and responsibility, like Comey. The interpretation of "86 47" as a call for Trump's assassination is a serious allegation that warrants investigation, and if found to have malicious intent, should be met with legal consequences.

Conservatives are also concerned with the broader implications of such messaging, and its potential to incite violence. The recent attempts on President Trump's life are a stark reminder of the risks public figures face, and the responsibility of those in the public eye to communicate with caution and consideration for the possible interpretations of their words and actions.

Common Ground

Both conservatives and progressives can agree that the safety and security of political figures are of paramount importance. No matter the political leanings, there is consensus that real threats should be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. The shared value here is the sanctity of democratic processes and the protection of those who serve the public.

Additionally, there is agreement on the need for clear communication from public figures, to avoid any potential misinterpretation of their messages that could lead to harmful consequences. The common ground lies in the commitment to maintaining a political discourse that is robust but does not cross the line into endangering individuals.