Justice Department indicts former FBI Director James Comey again over social media post

Tuesday, April 28, 2026U.S. PoliticsWell-covered4 frames

The Justice Department has obtained a new indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, marking the second time it has indicted him.
Multiple reports say the new indictment is tied to a social media post from last year showing seashells arranged to read “86 47.”
The earlier federal case against Comey was dismissed in late 2025 after a judge found a problem with the prosecutor’s appointment or authority.
The meaning of the “86 47” post is central to the case: Trump and some allies interpreted it as a threat against the 47th president, while Comey has said he did not intend it that way.
Some reports said the specific charges were not immediately clear when news of the indictment first emerged, leaving key details of the prosecution unresolved at that stage.
Other reports later said prosecutors were pursuing charges related to threatening the president and transmitting a threat across state lines, indicating the case could test how federal threat laws apply to an online post.

Tuesday, April 28, 2026U.S. PoliticsWell-covered4 frames

The Justice Department has obtained a new indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, marking the second time it has indicted him.
Multiple reports say the new indictment is tied to a social media post from last year showing seashells arranged to read “86 47.”
The earlier federal case against Comey was dismissed in late 2025 after a judge found a problem with the prosecutor’s appointment or authority.
The meaning of the “86 47” post is central to the case: Trump and some allies interpreted it as a threat against the 47th president, while Comey has said he did not intend it that way.
Some reports said the specific charges were not immediately clear when news of the indictment first emerged, leaving key details of the prosecution unresolved at that stage.
Other reports later said prosecutors were pursuing charges related to threatening the president and transmitting a threat across state lines, indicating the case could test how federal threat laws apply to an online post.