Washington, D.C. – At 1:21 PM +07 on Sunday, May 18, 2025, Associate Deputy Attorney General Ed Martin’s assertion that former FBI Director James Comey is headed to prison over an alleged assassination threat against President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through political and legal circles. Martin’s comments, made on the Benny Johnson show on May 16, center on a now-deleted Instagram post by Comey, which some interpret as a coded call for violence against the president, escalating tensions in an already polarized climate.
The controversy erupted on May 15 when Comey posted a photo of seashells arranged to spell “86 47” with the caption, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” Trump allies, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, quickly accused Comey of signaling an assassination attempt—interpreting “86” as slang for killing and “47” as a reference to Trump, the 47th president. Budowich called it “a hit on the sitting president,” while Donald Trump Jr. claimed Comey was “casually calling for my dad to be murdered.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed on May 16 that the Secret Service was investigating, and Comey was interviewed by agents on May 17.
Martin, a Trump appointee, took a hardline stance, stating, “He knew… He’s got a problem. Perjury traps are next. Going to jail on one or the other.” He suggested Comey faces a dilemma: either admit he knew “86 47” implied violence or lie to a jury, risking perjury charges. Martin argued that Comey, with 30 years in federal law enforcement, must have understood the term’s implications, dismissing Comey’s claim of ignorance as “an obvious lie.” Comey deleted the post after backlash, stating on Instagram, “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence… I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down,” claiming he assumed it was a “political message.”
The Trump administration has seized on the incident, with the president himself telling Fox News on May 16, “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant… That meant ‘assassination.’” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went further, demanding on Fox News that Comey be jailed, citing heightened risks after two 2024 assassination attempts on Trump—one in Pennsylvania, where a bullet grazed his ear, and another foiled attempt at a Florida golf course. However, legal experts like Georgetown law professor David Cole argue there’s “no basis” for prosecution, calling the post “100 percent protected” speech under the First Amendment, despite its indiscretion.
Comey’s history with Trump adds fuel to the fire. Fired by Trump in 2017 amid the FBI’s Russia investigation, Comey has been a frequent target of the former president, who labeled him a “dirty cop” on May 17. Comey’s tenure as FBI director under Obama was marked by controversy, including his handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, which Trump has long criticized. The White House’s aggressive response, including Noem’s involvement and FBI Director Kash Patel’s support for the investigation, reflects a broader pattern of targeting perceived adversaries, as seen in recent probes like Attorney General Pam Bondi’s rumored investigation into the Soros family over Tesla attacks, reported on May 17.
The incident raises broader questions about political rhetoric and accountability. While Comey’s post may have been reckless, the administration’s swift escalation—pushing for prison time without clear evidence of intent—risks further eroding trust in institutions. As Trump navigates a second term marked by economic challenges, like the U.S. credit rating downgrade on May 16, and ethical controversies, such as hiring over 30 former Fox News employees linked to a $787 million defamation settlement, the focus on Comey may serve as a distraction from deeper governance issues.
