James Comey’s re-indictment is the product of a twisted justice department | Lawrence Douglas
James Comey has been reindicted by the Department of Justice under the Trump administration, accused of making a threat against the president through a social media post involving seashells arranged as '86 47'. The charges stem from an interpretation that the numbers symbolized a call to remove or harm President Trump, despite Comey's claim of humor. Critics argue the indictment reflects a politicized justice system used for retaliatory purposes.
- ▪James Comey was reindicted by the Department of Justice on charges of threatening the president through a social media post.
- ▪The post showed seashells arranged as '86 47,' which authorities claim encoded a threat to remove or harm President Trump.
- ▪The original indictment was dismissed due to the prosecutor's unlawful appointment, leading to former Attorney General Pam Bondi's removal.
- ▪Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche pursued the new charges, amid claims the DOJ has become a tool for political retaliation.
- ▪FBI Director Kash Patel supported the indictment, alleging Comey encouraged violence against the president.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
‘How did we arrive at this Putinesque situation?’ Photograph: Andrew Harnik/APView image in fullscreen‘How did we arrive at this Putinesque situation?’ Photograph: Andrew Harnik/APOpinionJames ComeyJames Comey’s reindictment is the product of a twisted justice departmentLawrence DouglasAmid Trump’s unrelenting assault on the rule of law, it is drearily unsurprising to see the ex-FBI director targetedFri 1 May 2026 08.00 EDTLast modified on Fri 1 May 2026 11.34 EDTShareConsider the following screed: “If any other President had the ability, foresight, or talents necessary, to build this ballroom, which will be one of the greatest, safest, and most secure structures of its kind anywhere in the World, there would never have been a lawsuit. But, because it is DONALD J.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Guardian — US.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Guardian — US
