The latest rage post trend on Substack Notes has been the performative nonsense that James Comey should be arrested immediately for daring to call for the assassination of President Trump.

On Thursday, Comey shared a picture on Instagram of seashells on a beach arranged into the numbers "8647." The caption read: "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."

We must always remember that Free Speech is a universal Moral Imperative. It extends in all directions towards all people wishing to make all manner of commentary—including rage Notes about others, but also about the commentary which triggers individuals and inspires those rage Notes.

Contents

• Not A Threat

• Not The Meaning Of The Term

• What Is The Context?

• Political Theater

• A Distraction

Please Support Independent Journalism

Not A Threat

To properly apprehend the various rage Notes—as well as similar postings on other social media, we must understand that every single one of these Notes is pure performative posing hogwash and horse hockey.

Every.

Single.

One.

(Which is why I’ve blanked out the names of the posters and put image captures without linking to the Notes themselves. I decline to contribute to the spread of this nonsense.)

James Comey did not call for President Trump to be assassinated.

No more than Jack Posobiec called for Joe Biden to be assassinated in 2022.

No more than Matt Gaetz was suggesting Senator Mitch McConnell was killed in 2024.

This is not a defense of James Comey. The man is an idiot. The man has always been an idiot. The man always will be an idiot. The case that as FBI Director James Comey was more corrupt, more venal, and more vicious than J. Edgar Hoover is substantial to the point of being overwhelming.

This is a defense of sanity. This is a defense of common sense. This is a defense of a common idiom.

“86” means “to get rid of.” As in to fire—or, in the case of a President, to impeach.

That was how Matt Gaetz demonstrably used the expression last year. It is almost certainly how Jack Posobiec used the expression in 2022.

(Update) Not The Meaning Of The Term

We do well to consider the established etymology of the term—it does not carry an intimation of violence, nor has it.

In the 1950s the word underwent some functional shift, and began to be used as a verb. The initial meaning as a verb was “to refuse to serve a customer,” and later took on the slightly extended meaning of “to get rid of; to throw out.” The word was especially used in reference to refusing further bar service to inebriates.

Even the Urban Dictionary’s statement on the term’s origins do not support it as a call to violence:

Chumley's, a famous and OLD New York speakeasy, is located at 86 Bedford St. During Prohibition, an enterance through an interior adjoing courtyard was used, as it provided privacy and discretion for customers.

As was (and is) a New York tradition, the cops were on the payroll of the bar and would give a ring to the bar that they were coming for a raid. The bartender would then give the command "86 everybody!", which meant that everyone should hightail it out the 86 Bedford enterance because the cops were coming in through the courtyard door.

This matters because in order for a social media post to be an actionable threat of violence it has to rise to a threshold level of incitement (up to an including an explicit threat of violence). That is the legal standard established in Brandenburg v Ohio1 delimiting defensible “Free Speech” from actionable conduct.

Speech Or Silence: Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater

Peter Nayland Kust

·

June 12, 2019

Read full story

This concept appears again in Brandenburg v Ohio (1969, 395 US 444) , in which the "Brandenburg Test" was established, creating a two part test by which speech advocating criminal acts could be circumscribed:

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, AND

2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

The linkage is clear: people must account for their actions, not their ideas.

If the phrasing cannot be clearly construed as a threat, it is not a threat.

That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion, and should have been all along.

We do not criminalize a social media post on the basis of who publishes it. We do not criminalize a social media post because our particular likes and dislikes. We do not criminalize a social media post because of a person’s presumed corruption or failure to be sufficiently “MAGA” for someone’s tastes.

That is not how the rule of law operates. That is not how the First Amendment operates.

(Update) What Is The Context?

A common refrain in responses to this article thus far has been that “context” matters. That is a fair observation, as context is by definition an essential element of inferring a message’s intent.

However, what can we establish as a relevant context for Comey’s social media posting?

Certainly we may take as a given James Comey’s personal dislike of Donald Trump, given Comey’s conduct in the early days of Trump’s first term of office, and the FBI’s established role in perpetuating the “Russia collusion” hoax.

Likewise, we must acknowledge that President Trump has already been the target of multiple assassination attempts.

However, does personal animus necessarily elevate every anti-Trump message to the level of personal threat? Obviously not. Neither does the sobering reality of prior assassination attempts. Additional factual evidence that Comey’s social media post was intended as a threat is needed, and as of this writing none has been presented.

Moreover, there is reporting from March that “8647” has been a trend on TikTok, as a “silent protest” against President Trump’s administration.

8647 is designed to be a silent form of protest that is designed to signal opposition to President Donald Trump. It's actually a combination of two numbers that have different meanings. 86 is a number commonly used to mean something like "get rid of," and 47 is the number president that Trump is in his second term. He was also the 45th president, so those numbers get a little bit confusing.

8647 therefore means that the people who display it want to get rid of Trump, or make it so that he is no longer the president. The message is vague about how exactly these people want to do that, but it seems that the point is to signal that you don't want Trump to be in the White House. It's not a call for impeachment necessarily, or even an endorsement of some other candidate. It's just a signal of opposition.

There is no reporting indicating that such TikTok posts were considered to be calls for Donald Trump’s assassination.

If “8647” is a sign of political opposition on TikTok, it cannot follow that “8647” is a call for assassination on Instagram. Logic and common sense preclude such partisan views.

Complicating the question of context are observations by some on social media that, at the time Comey made the post, it had been 8647 days since the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

While such observations hardly establish that Comey’s intended comment was about 9/11, they do establish the problematic and uncertain nature of such inferences. If there are plausible alternative interpretations of Comey’s post, on what basis do we conclude the “correct” interpretation included a call for violence?

Moreover, we cannot escape the reality that “8646” was used, as I noted earlier, to protest Joe Biden’s administration.

If “8646” was not a call for Joe Biden’s assassination, we cannot plausibly claim that “8647” is a call for Donald Trump’s assassination.

These are factual elements which must be considered as part of the question of context, and which directly refute the interpretation that 8647 is a call for violence.

The quantify of facts and evidence against the inference that Comey was calling for President Trump’s assassination greatly exceeds the facts and evidence in favor of that inference.

Context does matter, but the facts by which we may establish context for Comey’s social media post are against imputing a desire for President Trump’s assassination. In context, Comey’s post can plausibly be seen as a sign of opposition to President Trump, but no more than that.

Political Theater

Why are President Trump’s people claiming Comey’s social media posting is something it isn’t? For the very simple reason that it is handy political theater—and as the rage postings across social media prove, effective political theater. Tulsi Gabbard going on Fox News calling for Comey’s arrest is just as performative as the Notes included above.

What Tulsi Gabbard’s comments on Fox News were not was serious commentary or serious discussion about serious issues. Neither was Kristi Noem’s tweet.

We should not be surprised to see the Trump Administration engaging in such shameless political theater.

We should not be surprised to see Donald Trump, Jr., engaging in such shameless political theater.

We should not be surprised to see President Trump engaging in such shameless political theater. All politics is to a degree theatrical, and the political style of Donald Trump especially so. The Trump team is going to make a big deal about this because it advances their political interests to do so.

The Trump Administration claiming that it is a serious threat does not make it a threat nor does it make it serious. In the final analysis, the post is neither serious nor a threat.

A Distraction

This dustup over Comey’s insipid social media post is a distraction. With Congress making a complete pig’s breakfast of President Trump’s tax reform agenda and with the Supreme Court failing to recognize the judiciary’s limited role in cases involving the Alien Enemies Act, this is not a helpful distraction.

People are better than this.

People deserve better than this.

This is a time when people are well advised to focus on the issues which are going to directly impact their lives

There are plenty of reasons to be angry at President Trump’s political opponents. James Comey’s stupid social media post is not one of them.

Please Support Independent Journalism