The Daily Fuckup

The Justice Department said on April 28, 2026, that a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two counts tied to an Instagram post from May 15, 2025. Prosecutors say the post — a photo of seashells arranged to read “86 47” — amounted to a threat against President Donald Trump. Comey’s first court appearance came the next day, on April 29, 2026.

The indictment charges Comey with threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. In its filing, the government says a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would read the post as a serious expression of intent to do harm. The case also alleges that Comey consciously disregarded the risk that the message would be viewed as threatening. As with any indictment, the filing is an accusation, not a finding of guilt.

That leaves the next fight where it belongs: in court. Prosecutors will need to prove the elements of the charges, including the required intent, and defense lawyers are likely to attack the meaning of the post, the context around it, and whether the message meets the legal standard for a threat. The government has said the maximum penalty on the charges could reach 10 years if there is a conviction.

The politics around the case are harder to separate from the law. Comey has been a familiar target for Trump for years, and his prosecution is already being read through that history. Critics of the indictment are arguing that it shows how federal power can be pulled into the president’s personal grievances. Supporters say the only question that matters is whether prosecutors had enough evidence to bring charges. Those are competing claims, not established facts.

What is already clear is that the case has moved beyond a single social media post. It now sits at the intersection of criminal law, presidential politics and the Justice Department’s promise to apply the same standards no matter who is under scrutiny. Whether that promise holds will depend on what the evidence shows in court.