The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has taken a sharper turn, with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche making clear that the case extends beyond the widely circulated “86 47” Instagram post.
While that image—seashells arranged to form the numbers—became the public focal point, Blanche indicated that investigators built a broader case before presenting it to a grand jury.
Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Blanche pushed back on the idea that a single social media post triggered federal charges. He pointed directly to the involvement of career officials across multiple agencies, including assistant U.S. attorneys, FBI agents, and Secret Service personnel, all of whom contributed to the investigation.
The timeline also raises questions: the post in question dates back to May 2025, yet the indictment was returned nearly a year later. That gap, Blanche suggested, reflects a more extensive evidence-gathering process rather than a delayed reaction to a viral moment.
The three-page indictment itself references the Instagram image as a key element, describing it as a threat against President Donald Trump. However, Blanche’s remarks introduce the possibility that additional communications or actions were considered by the grand jury—details that remain undisclosed due to legal constraints surrounding ongoing proceedings.
At the same time, Blanche acknowledged a critical distinction: the phrase “86 47” has appeared in numerous contexts without triggering legal consequences. He noted that similar expressions, whether on clothing or online posts, have not led to indictments.
That statement draws a line between general usage and what prosecutors appear to view as a specific, actionable case tied to Comey.
Comey, for his part, has denied any intent to threaten. He has pointed to the long-standing use of “86” in the hospitality industry, where it typically means removing an item or refusing service, not violence. His defense is expected to hinge in part on that interpretation, challenging the government’s assertion that the message constituted a credible threat.
What remains unclear is how prosecutors intend to bridge that gap—how they will argue that Comey’s use of the phrase, in that specific context, crossed a legal threshold that countless other uses have not. Blanche’s insistence that more evidence exists suggests that the government believes it can establish intent or pattern beyond the image itself.
