Comey indicted by DOJ for instagram pic of seashells

[Syne]

I only said he's a known liar. Maybe you don't know that, but you're really gullible.

So since your claiming that means he is lying now has no evidence to back it up, then it is you who is lying.  So STFU..

I don't know if he's lying about this. Again, if you could read, you'd know I didn't claim that he is.
That's why you indict him and have a trial. To find out. Him being a known liar doesn't require that he lies about everything... although a suspect a pathological liar may not understand that.

So again, either you're lying (and projecting) or you're actually that functionally illiterate.
And apparently so insecure about it you want to silence people, Karen.

[Magical Realist]

I don't know if he's lying about this.

Then why did you claim he's lied in the past? And even if he did arrange the shells, how can that legally or even rationally be construed as a present threat to the President from a photo of it a year ago? Do you know what "86" even means? Please elaborate..

[Syne]

I don't know if he's lying about this.

Then why did you claim he's lied in the past? And even if he did arrange the shells, how can that legally or even rationally be construed as a present threat to the President from a photo of it a year ago? Do you know what "86" even means? Please elaborate..

Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior.
No one said it's a "present threat." The statute of limitations on 18 U.S.C. § 871 is five years.
86 means eliminate.

[Magical Realist]

Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior.

So now you're saying he's lying because you claim he's lied in the past. Let's try that rule in real life: everybody has lied at some point(s) in their life. How does it make it probable that they are lying about something they are claiming right now? It doesn't. It has no bearing whatsoever. It's pure lawyer bullshit.

No one said it's a "present threat." The statute of limitations on 18 U.S.C. § 871 is five years.

If it's not a present threat then it's not a threat at all. There's no such thing as prosecuting someone for a possible future threat. Unless they are a character in Minority Report.

86 means eliminate.

No it doesn't. It means "get rid of" an order in a restaurant. Which in this context can just as well mean impeach or prosecute for crimes. Nobody is "assassinating" or "killing" food in restaurants. lol

[Yazata]

It actually proves that Pam Bondi was dragging her feet, and now that shes gone, the DOJ is prosecuting the case.

Todd Blanche has hit the ground running and it's good to see.

Comey isn't the only indictment that he's obtained:

https://www.scivillage.com/thread-10919-...l#pid84609

[Syne]

Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior.

So now you're saying he's lying because you claim he's lied in the past. Let's try that rule in real life: everybody has lied at some point(s) in their life. How does it make it probable that they are lying about something they are claiming right now? It doesn't. It has no bearing whatsoever. It's pure lawyer bullshit.

Not everyone has a history of lying, leaking, and misconstruing the law. Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't understand simple things... like the fact that people use patterns of past behavior as heuristics for predicting future behavior. You really should try to get out more, get to know more humans in real life.

No one said it's a "present threat." The statute of limitations on 18 U.S.C. § 871 is five years.

If it's not a present threat then it's not a threat at all. There's no such thing as prosecuting someone for a possible future threat. Unless they are a character in Minority Report.

18 U.S.C. § 871
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

I know English is hard for you. This says that simply making such a threat is punishable by fine or imprisonment up to five years.
What it doesn't say is that the threat must be current or in any way actionable. This means it has nothing to do with the future. The simple act of making the threat is, itself, illegal.

86 means eliminate.

No it doesn't. It means "get rid of" an order in a restaurant. Which in this context can just as well mean impeach or prosecute for crimes. Nobody is "assassinating" or "killing" food in restaurants. lol

The term 86 most commonly refers to killing when used as slang for elimination in high-stakes environments like the military, mafia, or in political threats. While its primary origins are in the restaurant industry (meaning "out of stock" or "eject a customer"), it has evolved into a euphemism for permanent disposal.
- Gemini

Slang usage often changes over time.

---

It actually proves that Pam Bondi was dragging her feet, and now that shes gone, the DOJ is prosecuting the case.

Todd Blanche has hit the ground running and it's good to see.

Comey isn't the only indictment that he's obtained:

https://www.scivillage.com/thread-10919-...l#pid84609

There's a dim hope we may finally see some bad actors face some sort of consequences.

[Magical Realist]

Not everyone has a history of lying, leaking, and misconstruing the law

Doesn't matter what he was charged with in the past. Nobody's past lies have any bearing on whether they are now lying. It's simply irrelevant. So you are lying to suggest there is evidence he is now lying. There is no such evidence. It's basically a lawyer's ad hominem or "poisoning the well" fallacy.

This says that simply making such a threat is punishable by fine or imprisonment up to five years.

That would make it a present threat moron. As in "holding it in your hands at this moment" present. Not a picture of some "not even a threat" assembled out of shells out on some beach by "who knows who" a whole year ago. Again, non-present threats are not threats. That's why we say they "were threats" or "will be threats" and not "ARE threats". Think about it cretin..

The term 86 most commonly refers to killing when used as slang for elimination in high-stakes environments like the military, mafia, or in political threats. While its primary origins are in the restaurant industry (meaning "out of stock" or "eject a customer"), it has evolved into a euphemism for permanent disposal.

Nope..just means get rid of or kick out, not killing or doing anything violent. It still retains its innocuous meaning from its origin, particularly when used in the context of the phrase "86 47"..BTW what is the source of that quote. It doesn't come up in a google search. Did you make it up?

“86 47” is typically read as the slang “86” (meaning to get rid of, eject, or remove someone or something) plus “47” (a reference to the 47th U.S. president), and so many people interpret it as a message to “get rid of” the 47th president. ([npr.org](https://www.npr.org/2025/05/16/nx-s1-540...rce=openai)) A bit more detail: “86” is longstanding American service-industry slang used to indicate that someone or something should be refused service, thrown out, or discarded; some sources note occasional uses where it is taken to mean “kill,” though major dictionary treatments treat that meaning as rarer and contested. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...rce=openai)) Context matters: the phrase drew attention after a public figure posted an image of shells arranged as “8647,” then removed it and said he did not intend a violent meaning; the post prompted public controversy and was reviewed by authorities. ([aljazeera.com](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/16...rce=openai)) Bottom line: most readers understand “86 47” as “86” (get rid of) + “47” (the 47th president), but whether it constitutes a literal threat depends on context, intent, and how authorities interpret the message."--------- https://en.amazingtalker.com/questions/7388

---

OMG! Trump's DOJ goons have so much work to do now! They can start with prosecuting Jeff Bezos for threatening to assassinate Donny Dumbass! Yeah..good luck with that!

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Magnet-Frid...B0F1XVB6ST

[Syne]

Not everyone has a history of lying, leaking, and misconstruing the law

Doesn't matter what he was charged with in the past. Nobody's past lies have any bearing on whether they are now lying. It's simply irrelevant. So you are lying to suggest there is evidence he is now lying. There is no such evidence. It's basically a lawyer's ad hominem or "poisoning the well" fallacy.

Really? No one who's been an alcoholic ever falls off the wagon? There's no such thing as a pathological liar?
I didn't saying anything about any evidence, which makes you the liar. I literally told you: "That's why you indict him and have a trial. To find out."
I'm not a lawyer in the case, so I'm free to have and express my own opinions... regardless of Karens like you whining about it.

This says that simply making such a threat is punishable by fine or imprisonment up to five years.

That would make it a present threat moron. As in "holding it in your hands at this moment" present. Not a picture of some "not even a threat" assembled out of shells out on some beach by "who knows who" a whole year ago. Again, non-present threats are not threats. That's why we say they "were threats" or "will be threats" and not "ARE threats". Think about it cretin..

Again, do you not understand what a five year statute of limitations means? It means charges can be brought, for a past action, within five years of the action. It's a very basic law.

A statute of limitations is a law that sets a maximum timeframe, often 1–6 years, for initiating legal proceedings after an alleged event. They apply to both civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions, ensuring evidence remains reliable and cases are not "stale". If the deadline passes, legal action is generally prohibited.
- Gemini

Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 871 includes simply transmitting such a message, originated by you or not.

I know, simple English is hard enough for you, much less very simple laws.

The term 86 most commonly refers to killing when used as slang for elimination in high-stakes environments like the military, mafia, or in political threats. While its primary origins are in the restaurant industry (meaning "out of stock" or "eject a customer"), it has evolved into a euphemism for permanent disposal.

Nope..just means get rid of or kick out, not killing or doing anything violent. It still retains its innocuous meaning from its origin, particularly when used in the context of the phrase "86 47"..BTW what is the source of that quote. It doesn't come up in a google search. Did you make it up?

In the military, "86" is slang for removing, cancelling, discarding, or neutralizing a person, item, or mission. It implies getting rid of something, such as taking a vehicle out of service, banning someone, or in extreme cases, terminating a target. It is used as informal shorthand for removal or "no more".

In the context of the Mafia and organized crime, the slang term "86" is used to mean murdering, killing, or permanently eliminating someone.

The slang "86" is used in political threats to mean "get rid of," "eliminate," or "assassinate" a political target, originating from restaurant jargon for disposing of an item or ejecting a person.
- Gemini

[stryder]

I'd think that you'd have to prove without shadow of a doubt as to *if* Trump is a legitimate sitting president.

There are still alot of questions to be asked about the original Bitcoin price hike when the results came in and how that was arranged.

Was it an escrow setup "buying" votes through the disparity of price caused by the price spike?
Did the price spike originate from only US citizens, or was their financial manipulation by people from outside the US involved?

Once in, was DOGE used to run interference (Conspiracy) to make sure no RICO case could be build?

If those things had been considered and *if* it had been found that Trump had done those things, then he should never have been inaugurated (for being a person of ill-repute). That in turn he would not be the legitimate sitting 47th president,... but an Imposter (Which also would carry a prison term)

So I don't put too much into Trump trying to pressure Comey, it could backfire pretty rapidly.

[Syne]

Ah, the wishful thinking of the wild conspiracy theorist.