Comey Seeks Dismissal Of '86 47' Case, Alleges Illegal Surveillance
Late Tuesday, July 28, 2026, former FBI director James Comey asked a federal judge to dismiss his federal '86 47' threat indictment, saying prosecutors relied on illegally obtained surveillance and flawed warrant affidavits.[1]
He filed motions to suppress evidence gathered from search warrants for his and his wife's digital accounts and to compel disclosure of grand jury proceedings.[1] The new motion accuses the U.S. Secret Service of conducting "illegal electronic surveillance" without a warrant shortly after a spring 2025 Instagram post and says it acted at the request of a high-level Justice Department official.[1]
Discovery cited in an affidavit shows Secret Service staff discussed "pinging" Comey's phone to get location data as he traveled from North Carolina to Virginia and sought Verizon location information under an "emergency" request.[1] An agent wrote that no one was in "immediate danger" and that pinging the phone was "a bad idea" legally.[1] Comey's lawyers ask for a Franks hearing, saying the warrant affidavits omitted known facts and contained material falsehoods.[1] They say the affidavits relied on a witness who said they were estranged from Comey for at least two years and expressed "intense bias." CBS News That witness initially thought "86 47" was restaurant slang until listening to a Rudy Giuliani podcast.[1]
On May 15, 2025, Comey posted a photo of seashells arranged as "86 47" on a North Carolina beach. Federal prosecutors indicted Comey on April 28, 2026, charging him with two counts that alleged the post was a "true threat" against then-President Trump. In June 2026, a U.S. district judge ruled that "86 47" flags displayed by protesters were protected political speech in a separate case. Court filings also say an FBI database search in September 2025 found no direct association between Comey's past cases and the term "86", and a mob case file contained no references to "86".[1]
The mainstream summary does not address the broader implications of Comey's motion, particularly the First Amendment defense he is mounting. Social media users, such as @PinheadKing, argue that Comey's '86 47' seashell post does not meet the criteria for incitement under the Brandenburg v. Ohio test, as it lacks the necessary imminence or likelihood of lawless action. This perspective highlights a potential legal argument that could significantly impact the case's outcome, suggesting that the indictment may be more about political motivations than genuine threats.
Additionally, while the summary mentions the legal arguments surrounding the surveillance claims, it downplays the context of Comey's assertion that the seashell image represents protected political speech. @DallasExpress emphasizes this point, suggesting that Comey's defense is rooted in a broader discourse about free speech rights, which contrasts with the mainstream portrayal that frames the case primarily as a legal battle over surveillance and warrants. This nuance suggests that the case may also reflect deeper issues regarding the politicization of the Department of Justice and its implications for political discourse in America.
Show source details & analysis (2 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- Late Tuesday, July 28, 2026, James Comey filed additional motions to dismiss his federal '86 47' threat case, to suppress evidence from warrants targeting his and his wife's digital accounts, and to compel disclosure of grand jury proceedings.
- The new motion explicitly accuses the U.S. Secret Service of conducting 'illegal electronic surveillance' of Comey without a warrant shortly after his spring 2025 Instagram post, allegedly at the request of a high-level DOJ official.
- Discovery cited in an affidavit by Patrick Fitzgerald shows Secret Service staff discussed 'pinging' Comey's phone to obtain location data as he traveled from North Carolina to Virginia and sought Verizon location information under an 'emergency' request, with an official writing that no one was in 'immediate danger' and that pinging was 'a bad idea' legally.
- Comey's defense team is formally requesting a Franks hearing, arguing that the affidavits supporting search warrants for his and his wife's accounts omitted known facts and included 'material falsehoods,' including insinuations that his lawyer and wife obstructed the investigation.
- The defense says the warrant affidavits relied on a witness who admitted being estranged from Comey for at least two years, expressed 'intense bias' against him, and initially thought the '86 47' post referred to restaurant slang until hearing a Rudy Giuliani podcast.
- According to Fitzgerald's review of discovery, an FBI database search in September 2025 for any 'direct association' between Comey's prior cases and use of the term '86' produced 'inconclusive results,' and a review of the John Gambino mob case file found no references to '86'.
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- CBS reports that late Tuesday, July 28, 2026, James Comey filed additional motions to dismiss his federal '86 47' threat case, to suppress evidence from warrants targeting his and his wife's digital accounts, and to compel disclosure of grand jury proceedings.
- The new motion to dismiss explicitly accuses the U.S. Secret Service of conducting 'illegal electronic surveillance' of Comey without a warrant shortly after his spring 2025 Instagram post, allegedly at the request of a high-level DOJ official.
- Discovery cited in an affidavit by Comey attorney Patrick Fitzgerald shows Secret Service staff discussed 'pinging' Comey's phone to obtain location data as he traveled from North Carolina to Virginia and sought Verizon location information under an 'emergency' request; one official wrote that agents did not believe anyone's life was in 'immediate danger' and that pinging the phone was 'a bad idea' legally.
- Comey's team is formally requesting a Franks hearing, arguing that affidavits supporting search warrants for his and his wife's accounts omitted known facts and included 'material falsehoods,' including insinuations that his lawyer and wife obstructed the investigation.
- The defense says the warrant affidavits relied on a witness who admitted being estranged from Comey for at least two years, expressed 'intense bias' against him, and initially thought the '86 47' post referred to restaurant slang until hearing a Rudy Giuliani podcast.
- According to Fitzgerald's review of discovery, an FBI database search in September 2025 for any 'direct association' between Comey's prior cases and use of the term '86' produced 'inconclusive results,' and a review of the John Gambino mob case file found no references to '86'.