Will a disputed definition of a common restaurant slang term be enough to send a former FBI director to federal trial?

Question

Accepted Answer

Probably not by itself. A disputed slang definition alone is unlikely to be enough to justify sending James Comey to trial; the judge will likely focus on whether prosecutors have alleged enough context to let a jury decide if the post was a “true threat.” That is the government’s best argument. Prosecutors say an objective viewer could read “8647” as “kill Trump,” with “47” referring to President Trump and at least some slang sources defining “86” as “kill.” They also point to surrounding facts: the post’s timing, Comey’s experience in law enforcement, his wife’s text defining “86” as “get rid of,” and the broader legal principle that threat cases turn on context, not dictionaries alone. But the defense appears to have substantial material for dismissal. Most mainstream dictionaries define “86” as discard, remove, refuse service, or run out of. Comey’s lawyers say no reasonable observer would read the shells post as a serious expression of intent to commit violence. They also note investigators reportedly spent months searching organized-crime files, FBI records, and trial transcripts for proof Comey knew “86” as murder slang and found none. Even former agents and former mob prosecutor John Gleeson reportedly did not support the government’s theory. That leaves Judge Louise Flanagan with a narrow but important question: whether the indictment is legally sufficient, not whether Comey is guilty. If she thinks ambiguity and context must be weighed by jurors, the case survives.…

Judge Weighs Dismissal of Comey 8647 Indictment Before 2027 Trial

Sources

Sources

Judge Weighs Dismissal of Comey 8647 Indictment Before 2027 Trial

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories