Former FBI director James Comey made his first court appearance on Wednesday in a criminal case against him that legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the U.S. Justice Department to win.
Comey was indicted in North Carolina on Tuesday on charges of making threats against U.S. President Donald Trump related to a photograph he posted on social media last year of seashells arranged in the numbers “86 47.”
The Justice Department contends those numbers amounted to a threat against Trump, the 47th president.
Comey has said he assumed the numbers reflected a political message, not a call to violence against the Republican president, and removed the post as soon as he saw some people were interpreting it that way.
The indictment is the second against Comey, a longtime adversary of Trump dating back to his time as FBI director, over the past year.
In an apparent escalation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s attacks on his political enemies, former FBI director James Comey has now been indicted on criminal charges. For The National, CBC’s Lyndsay Duncombe lays out a timeline of how it got to this point.
1st indictment tossed
The first indictment, on unrelated false-statement and obstruction charges, was tossed out by a judge last year. Now prosecutors pursuing the threats case face their own challenge of proving that Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat.
The indictment accuses Comey of acting “knowingly and willfully,” but its sparse language offers no support for that assertion. Acting U.S. attorney general Todd Blanche declined to elaborate at a news conference on what evidence of intent the government has.
But broad First Amendment protections for free speech, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Comey’s public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden for the government.
“Here, ’86’ is ambiguous — it doesn’t necessarily threaten violence, and the fact that it was the FBI director posting this openly and notoriously on a public social media site suggests that he didn’t intend to convey a threat of violence,” John Keller, a former senior Justice Department official who led a task force to prosecute violent threats against election workers, wrote in a text message.
Asked on Wednesday if he truly thought Comey meant his post as a threat, Trump said he considers “86” to be a “mob term.”
“If anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86, it’s a mob term for kill ’em,” he told reporters during an appearance with NASA astronauts in the Oval Office. He also called Comey “a dirty cop.”
No plea entered
The case was brought in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where Comey has said he found the shells. He made a brief court appearance on Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the state where he lives.
Comey didn’t speak or enter a plea during the appearance, which lasted roughly five minutes. But his legal team teed up at least one argument expected to be invoked, with defence lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald saying the defence intended to argue that the prosecution is vindictive and selective and would ask prosecutors to save communications that might be relevant for that motion.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick also rejected the government’s request to set conditions on Comey’s release, calling it unnecessary.
As FBI director, Comey oversaw the early months of an investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 election campaign had co-ordinated with Russia to sway the outcome. Comey was fired by Trump months into the president’s first term, and Trump and his supporters have since sought retribution over the Russia investigation.
Former FBI director James Comey was indicted again on Tuesday over a social media post of seashells arranged on a beach reading the numbers ‘86 47.’ The Department of Justice says this post was a ‘call to violence’ toward U.S. President Donald Trump.
The law on threats
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the First Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a “true threat.”
That requires prosecutors to prove, at a minimum, that a defendant recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the “defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”
Meanwhile, the high court has found that hyperbolic political speech is protected. In a 1969 case, the justices ruled that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and wilful threat against then-president Lyndon B. Johnson, when he remarked, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
The court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made the statement, among other things, showed it wasn’t a serious threat of violence.
Regarding the current case, Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by The Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”
Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
U.S. President Donald Trump, when asked during a news conference with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer about a move by ABC to remove Jimmy Kimmel from the air, said the talk show host said ‘a horrible thing’ about Charlie Kirk — but attributed the decision to Kimmel’s ‘bad ratings’ and ‘lack of talent.’
John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, said the government will likely try to prove that Comey should have known better as a former FBI director.
“I think they’re going to try to circumstantially say that you were head of the FBI, you knew what these terms meant and you said them out to the whole world as a threat to the president,” Fishwick said, though he noted that such an argument would be challenging in light of Comey’s obvious First Amendment defences.
Comey was voluntarily interviewed by the Secret Service last year, and the fact that he was not charged with making a false statement suggests that prosecutors do not have evidence that he lied to agents, Fishwick said.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
“If it did,” he added, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”
Source link
#Comey #appears #court #allegation #legal #experts #tough #prove #CBC #News
