A federal grand jury has charged former FBI Director James Comey with two counts for posting a beach photo of seashells arranged to spell "86 47", and a former senior Justice Department official is calling the prosecution a stain on the department. The case raises a fair question that conservatives should be willing to ask: Does this indictment hold up on the merits, or does it risk making the DOJ look like it's swinging at a piñata?
David Laufman, a former federal prosecutor and onetime head of the DOJ's Counterintelligence section, appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper show to deliver a blunt assessment. As The Hill reported, Laufman said the charges against Comey run contrary to both the law and the department's own internal standards for bringing cases.
Laufman did not mince words:
"It makes no sense. This is something that brings stain and dishonor on the department, on its leadership, on the line prosecutors and their supervisory officials. This case has zero merit, it's contrary to applicable law, it's contrary to the department policy, which governs all prosecutors across this country in every U.S. attorney's office."
He added a specific procedural objection, that DOJ policy bars prosecutors from filing charges unless they believe the admissible evidence will probably result in a conviction that survives appeal. In Laufman's view, this case clears neither bar.
The indictment centers on a photo Comey posted to Instagram in May 2025. The image showed seashells on a beach arranged to display the numbers "86 47." President Trump is the 47th president. Prosecutors allege the post amounted to a threat against Trump's life.
Fox News reported that the two counts charge Comey with threatening the life of the president and transmitting a communication containing a threat to kill Trump. Each count carries up to ten years in prison.
Comey has said he is innocent. He has claimed he did not realize the image could be interpreted as endorsing violence against Trump and that he took the post down once someone pointed out the implication. Newsmax reported that Comey surrendered in federal court in Virginia and told reporters afterward: "I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary."
Trump, for his part, has never bought the innocent-mistake explanation. On Wednesday, he posted on Truth Social that "86" is a well-known term.
"'86' is a mob term for 'kill him.' They say 86 him! 86 47 means 'kill President Trump.'"
In a separate post, Trump added: "James Comey, who is a Dirty Cop, one of the worst, knows this full well! EIGHT MILES OUT, SIX FEET DOWN! Didn't he also lie to the FBI about this??? I think so!" Fox News quoted Trump saying of Comey's defense: "He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant."
There is no question that James Comey earned the distrust of millions of Americans, and of Donald Trump personally, through his conduct at the FBI. His handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, his role in the early stages of the Russia probe, and his selective leaking of memos after being fired all marked him as a figure who treated the bureau's authority as a personal instrument. The DOJ's $1.25 million settlement with Carter Page over surveillance abuses tied to the Russia probe is a reminder of the real damage done under Comey's watch.
But accountability and prosecution are not the same thing. Accountability requires evidence that holds up in court. And that is where this indictment runs into trouble.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the charges and said, "Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice." FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau spent nearly a year investigating the post and that career agents and prosecutors, not political leadership, handled the case.
Those assurances matter. Patel has outlined a serious agenda of gang arrests, fraud indictments, and foiled mass shootings in recent FBI briefings. The bureau under his leadership has shown it can do real work. The question is whether this particular case meets the same standard.
The conservative editors at National Review called the indictment "embarrassing" and argued the post is likely protected speech. They noted the case arrived less than a month after Trump dismissed Attorney General Pam Bondi, reportedly because she was not prosecuting enough of his political opponents. Acting AG Blanche, National Review's editors wrote, "to his shame, is trying to do better."
That is a serious charge from a publication that has no love for James Comey. And it points to a pattern that should concern anyone who wants the DOJ to be feared for its competence, not its compliance.
This is not the first time the government has tried to bring Comey to heel. National Review noted that an earlier indictment, charging Comey with lying to Congress, was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutor in that case had been unlawfully appointed. A second swing at the same target, this time over a seashell photo, does not inspire confidence that the legal theory has improved.
The Hill said it reached out to the Department of Justice for comment on Laufman's criticism. No response was noted in the report.
Conservatives rightly spent years demanding that the Justice Department stop being used as a political weapon. The FBI's pursuit of parents at school board meetings, its role in the Russia-collusion narrative, and its handling of the Biden family's legal exposure all fed a justified belief that the institution had been captured by one side. The decision to shelve the Biden autopen probe after prosecutors found no crime showed what happens when political pressure meets legal reality.
The answer to a politicized DOJ is not a differently politicized DOJ. It is a DOJ that brings cases it can win, cases built on evidence, not grievance.
There are real threats against public officials in this country. The DOJ's charges against Cole Allen for the attempted assassination of Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner demonstrate the gravity of genuine threats. Prosecuting a seashell Instagram post under the same umbrella risks trivializing the very laws designed to protect the president.
Trump's anger at Comey is understandable. Comey's conduct at the FBI was corrosive, self-serving, and damaging to public trust in law enforcement. But anger is not a charging document. And "86 47" spelled out in shells on a beach, however tasteless, however provocative, is a long way from a prosecutable threat under federal law, at least by the standards Laufman described.
If the DOJ believes it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey intended a genuine threat against the president's life with a beach photo, it should lay out that evidence in court and let a jury decide. But if this case collapses, as the earlier Comey indictment did, the damage will not fall on Comey. It will fall on the credibility of a Justice Department that conservatives fought to reclaim.
The best way to hold James Comey accountable is to build cases that stick. Anything less hands him exactly what he wants: the chance to play the victim.