James Comey, the former FBI Director fired by President Trump in 2017, was indicted on April 28, 2026 on two federal counts — making threatening communications and interstate transmission of threats. The charges stem from an Instagram post Comey published that displayed the number “86 47.” Federal prosecutors argue the post was a veiled call for violence against President Trump, the 47th president of the United States. Comey appeared in federal court and pleaded not guilty to both counts. If convicted on both charges, he faces a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison.
The indictment immediately reignited a debate that has been simmering for years: is the Department of Justice enforcing federal threat statutes consistently, or selectively?
The comparison that has dominated online and cable news discussion since the indictment broke: Jack Posobiec, a prominent conservative commentator and Trump ally, posted “86 46” about President Biden in 2021. “86” is common American slang meaning “to get rid of” — the same phrase, the same numerical structure, the same implicit reference to a sitting president. Posobiec was never investigated by federal authorities. No charges were filed. No grand jury was convened.
The parallel doesn’t stop there. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer also posted “86 45” during the Trump years, using the same formulation to reference President Trump, who served as the 45th president. Whitmer, like Posobiec, was never contacted by federal law enforcement over the post. Critics of the Comey prosecution are now pointing to both cases as evidence of selective enforcement — arguing that the Department of Justice is applying federal threat statutes in a way that targets a political enemy of the current administration rather than enforcing the law uniformly.
The fallout has not been confined to Democrats and civil liberties advocates. Some of the most pointed criticism of the indictment has come from within the Republican Party itself.
Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina called the prosecution “selective” and warned that it sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she was troubled by the apparent double standard between how Comey’s post is being treated versus similar posts by Trump allies. Congressman Tim Nehls went further, publicly stating the DOJ is weaponizing the justice system against a political opponent. These are not opposition voices — these are members of the Republican Party breaking with the Trump administration over a prosecution that is supposed to be a win.
President Trump addressed the indictment in a CNN interview, calling Comey’s post “disgusting” and “threatening.” Attorney General Pam Bondi’s spokesperson Brian Blanche denied that the prosecution was politically motivated, arguing that the post crossed a clear and prosecutable legal line regardless of any political context. The DOJ’s position is that “86 47” constitutes an explicit enough threat to warrant federal charges independent of how similar posts were handled in prior administrations.
Legal analysts are sharply divided. Some argue that the post — while distasteful — falls within protected political speech and that the selective enforcement comparison makes the case nearly impossible to win at trial without appearing politically motivated. Others contend that a former FBI Director, given his public profile and the weight his words carry, crossed a threshold that makes the prosecution defensible.
Comey’s legal team is framing the case as retaliation. They argue that “86” is widely understood as slang meaning “to get rid of” rather than an explicit call for violence, and that the prosecution is payback for Comey’s role in the Russia investigation and his 2017 firing — not a good-faith enforcement of federal threat statutes. The case will now proceed to trial, where jurors will have to decide whether “86 47” constitutes a credible threat under federal law — or whether the prosecution itself is the political weapon.
The central question is no longer just whether Comey broke the law. It’s whether the law is being applied equally — and whether an administration that spent years accusing the DOJ of weaponization is now doing exactly that.