Comey Seeks Dismissal Of '86 47' Case As New Records Detail Secret Service Phone Surveillance Push
Late Tuesday, July 28, 2026, former FBI director James Comey asked a federal judge to dismiss the federal "86 47" threat case, saying he was illegally surveilled at President Trump's direction.[1]
Comey filed additional motions seeking to suppress evidence from warrants for his and his wife's digital accounts and to compel disclosure of grand jury proceedings.[1] The filings include internal Secret Service records showing agents debated "pinging" Comey's phone and warned invoking emergency powers would be "a bad idea" legally.[2] Those records say a top Justice Department official then directed agents on May 16, 2025, to access Comey's phone signal.[2] Agents then followed his car as he and his wife drove from North Carolina toward their Virginia home.[2]
On May 15, 2025, Comey posted an Instagram photo of seashells arranged as "86 47" while walking on a North Carolina beach. Federal prosecutors indicted Comey on April 28, 2026, charging him with two counts accusing him of threatening President Trump. In June 2026, a federal judge ruled that "86 47" flags and signs displayed by protesters were protected political speech in a separate case.
Comey's lawyers are asking for a Franks hearing, saying the affidavits backing the digital-account warrants omitted known facts and contained "material falsehoods." CBS News The defense says the affidavit relied on a witness who admitted being estranged from Comey for at least two years, expressed "intense bias," and initially thought the "86 47" post meant restaurant slang.[1] Fitzgerald's review also found an FBI search in September 2025 for any direct association between Comey's prior cases and "86" produced inconclusive results and that the John Gambino mob file contained no references to "86." CBS News
The mainstream summary frames Comey's legal arguments primarily around the alleged illegal surveillance he faced, but it overlooks the nuanced discussions emerging on social media regarding the implications of his '86 47' post. For instance, while the summary emphasizes Comey's claims of a First Amendment violation, users like @PinheadKing argue that the post does not meet the criteria for incitement as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, indicating a broader legal debate about free speech protections in this context. This perspective highlights the complexities of interpreting political speech versus perceived threats, which the mainstream account does not fully explore.
Additionally, the summary does not mention the contrasting views among social media users, such as @johnnyB671188, who assert that the seashell post constitutes a promotion of violence against Trump, thus arguing against its protection under free speech. This divergence in public opinion reflects a significant tension in how Comey's actions are perceived, which could influence both public sentiment and legal outcomes. The summary's focus on the legal motions filed by Comey misses these critical discussions that shape the narrative around the case and its implications for political discourse.
Show source details & analysis (3 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- Late Tuesday, July 28, 2026, James Comey filed motions to dismiss the federal '86 47' threat case, to suppress evidence from warrants for 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, and alleges the surveillance was requested by a high-level Justice Department official.
- Discovery cited by Comey attorney Patrick Fitzgerald includes Secret Service discussions about 'pinging' Comey's phone to obtain location data and an email in which agents warned invoking emergency powers was 'a bad idea' because they did not believe anyone’s life was in 'immediate danger.'
- The filings incorporate newly filed internal Secret Service records showing mid-level and senior officials debated a higher‑level administration request and that, on May 16, 2025, a top DOJ official directed agents to access Comey’s phone signal and follow his car as he and his wife drove from North Carolina toward their Virginia home.
- Comey’s team is formally seeking a Franks hearing, arguing the affidavits supporting search warrants omitted known facts and contained 'material falsehoods,' including insinuations that his lawyer and wife obstructed the probe.
- The defense says the warrant affidavits relied on a witness who admitted being estranged from Comey for at least two years, expressed 'intense bias,' and initially thought the '86 47' post referred to restaurant slang until hearing a Rudy Giuliani podcast.
- Fitzgerald's review of discovery found an FBI database search in September 2025 for any 'direct association' between Comey's prior cases and the term '86' produced 'inconclusive results,' and a review of the John Gambino mob case file found no references to '86.'
- A Justice Department spokesperson declined to identify the DOJ official alleged to have ordered the surveillance and said only that 'a North Carolina grand jury indicted Comey, and he’ll have his day in court like any other defendant,' while a Secret Service spokesperson said the agency would not comment outside court filings.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- Newly filed internal Secret Service records show that on the night of May 15, 2025, mid-level and senior Secret Service officials debated a request from higher-ups in the Trump administration to secretly access James Comey's phone and monitor his movements after his '86 47' seashell post.
- An email from a Washington field office supervisor, written contemporaneously and included in the court filing, states that agents 'did not believe anyone’s life was in danger and legally it was a bad idea' to invoke emergency powers to track Comey’s phone without a warrant.
- Despite those internal objections, a top Justice Department official directed the Secret Service on May 16, 2025, to proceed, and agents accessed Comey’s phone signal and followed his car as he and his wife drove north through North Carolina toward their Virginia home.
- The records were filed in federal court on Tuesday night, July 28, 2026, by Comey attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of his motion to dismiss the '86 47' threat case and suppress evidence.
- A Justice Department spokesperson, responding to MS NOW, declined to identify the DOJ official involved and said only that 'a North Carolina grand jury indicted Comey, and he’ll have his day in court like any other defendant.'
- A Secret Service spokesperson said the agency would not comment while the matter is pending in federal court and would respond through court filings.
- 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'.