Re: "That Meant Assassination": Trump Says Comey Knew "Exactly" What "86" Post Implied in Televised Interview

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 16, 2025 at 9:48:17 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Here's the citation for the story Ubi the shithead plagarized.

'That Meant Assassination': Trump Says Comey Knew 'Exactly' What '86'
Post Implied
By Leif Le Mahieu
The Daily Wire
May 16, 2025
https://www.dailywire.com/news/that-meant-assassination-trump-says-comey-knew-exactly-what-86-post-implied

President Donald Trump said Friday that former FBI Director James Comey knew
what he was doing when he posted a picture on social media that was
interpreted by many as a threat against his life.

Trump was responding to a picture Comey posted on Instagram showing
seashells on a beach arranged to form the numbers "86" and "47" with
the caption "cool shell formation on my walk". Trump officials have
initiated investigations into Comey, as 86 can be used as slang for
killing someone, and Trump is the 47th president. Comey deleted the
post, saying that he did not mean to imply that Trump should be killed
and that he assumed the shells were a "political message".

"I posted a picture earlier of some shells I saw on a beach walk, which I
assumed were a political message," Comey said. "I didn’t realize some folks
associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose
violence of any kind so I took the post down."

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Thursday that she
believed that Comey should be put in jail for the post, saying that he was
essentially issuing a call for Trump to be assassinated.

Come off it, Tulsi. There's no way to criminally prosecute Comey for this. I
worked presidential threat investigations for the better part of 15 years and
with the Supreme Court's "true threat" standard in Elonis, you can barely
convict people who come right out and make threats clearly and unambiguously.
With "86" there's all sorts of ambiguity. Yes, it can mean to kill someone,
but it can also mean to merely get rid of someone or something. Like, "That
guy is drunk and causing problems, you need to 86 him from the bar." Or, "This
Bud Light ad campaign isn't working. We need to 86 the troon and get back to
appealing to our actual customer base."

Comey could easily and credibly claim he meant 86 as in "impeach the guy and
kick him out of office". And it's all predicated on the idea that Comey was
the one who arranged the shells on the beach. His comments seem to imply he
just came across someone else's arrangement on his walk, which means whatever
threat there may be here, he wasn't the one who made it.

Given the wide range of how the term 86 is used, proving beyond a reasonable
doubt that Comey meant to refer to it as "death" would be impossible. And even
if you clear that hurdle, then you have to prove that Comey was directly
threatening Trump. There's a huge legal difference between saying "I'm going
to kill the president" and "Someone should kill the president". The former is
a crime, the latter is very bad taste but not legally actionable. (And no, it
doesn't meet the elements of incitement under Brandenburg, either.)

But even if you manage to overcome all that, you'd still have to deal with the
"true threat" standard in Elonis and that would be the final nail in the
coffin in any attempt to prosecute Comey for this.

Are a former FBI director's denials that he knew how 86 could be used to imply
violence credible from a common sense perspective? Probably not. Was it in
extremely poor taste regardless of what he knew? Absolutely. Could he be
successfully convicted in a criminal trial for it? Almost certainly not.

You're right, of course.

It's outrageous that people use 86, which is otherwise innocuous, to
mean killing or assasination. It's a term like -30-, possibly from
telegraph code, to signify the end of a newspaper story transmitted over
the wires.

I just read that 86 originated from restaurant kitchens. If they ran out
of an important ingredient, the kitchen would "86" all the dishes that
required the ingredient.

I would never use the term for anything other than an innocuous use and
I would never imagine anyone else is using it to mean assasination.