An arrest warrant has been issued for James Comey, as the US Department of Justice moves ahead with a renewed prosecution linked to a social media post. A person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press that Comey was indicted for a second time earlier on Tuesday under the administration of Donald Trump.
The case revives a previous prosecution effort that collapsed last year over issues related to the appointment of the prosecutor. Comey, who has been a vocal critic of Trump since being dismissed as FBI director in 2017, had previously faced charges of lying to Congress. Those charges were later dismissed. Thelatest indictmentunderscores Trump's long-running calls for legal action against political opponents.
The new case relates to an Instagram post by Comey featuring seashells arranged to form the numbers "86 47". Critics interpreted the message as a potential call for violence against Trump, who is the 47th president. The number "86" can, in some contexts, be used to mean eliminating or removing someone.
Comey deleted the post and said he had not intended it as a threat. "I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence," he wrote, adding that he opposes "violence of any kind".
The post prompted criticism from Republican figures, including former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who said at the time that the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service were "investigating this threat and will respond appropriately".
Comey was interviewed by the Secret Service in May 2025.
Several former federal prosecutors have criticised the case. Gene Rossi described the indictment as "a sad day at the Justice Department". "If there is any doubt that acting attorney general Todd Blanche is auditioning to be the nominee for the head of the Justice Department, this indictment removes all doubt," he said.
"If the charges are based on the phrase '86 47,' I pity the prosecutors… This indictment seems petty, seems childish, seems retributive. And those are its good qualities."
He added that a legitimate threat must be "specific" and "crystal clear", and said the case appeared to be "a complete stretch of the imagination".
Another former prosecutor, Neama Rahmani, said the case was "bad" and argued that Mr Comey had a "very significant" First Amendment defence.
Source: India Latest News, Breaking News Today, Top News Headlines | Times Now
