‘Sorely Lacking and Deeply Problematic’: CNN Legal Expert Takes Flamethrower to Trump DOJ’s Case Against James Comey

CNN’s Elie Honig took a flamethrower to the Trump DOJ’s case against former FBI director James Comey on Monday morning.

Comey was indicted last week over a 2025 Instagram post including a picture of seashells arranged on the beach to read, “86 47,” and the caption, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” Prosecutors are arguing the post constituted “a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States.”

On Monday, Berman played a clip of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche arguing that “This is not just about a single Instagram post, this is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months,” and asked Honig to weigh in.

“John, count me as highly skeptical that DOJ has some piece of evidence that’s a true game changer here, above and beyond the post itself. Now, if this case charged some sort of sprawling, ongoing conspiracy, some multi-defendant scheme that went on over weeks or months, then sure, there could be evidence that hasn’t yet come out at this early phase, but will come out soon,” replied Honig. “But if you look at the indictment, if you look at this statute that DOJ has chosen to charge here, if you look the wording of the indictment, it’s quite clear that Jim Comey’s Instagram post with the seashells, that is the case, and the case is that post.”

Berman followed up by asking Honig why Blanche might be insisting that there’s more to the case, as well as context on relevant case law.

The former federal prosecutor answered:

Well John, I think this apparent overrepresentation of the case by Todd Blanche is a reflection of the fact that he’s a good enough prosecutor to recognize that this case is sorely lacking and deeply problematic. So the case is going to turn on the meaning of that phrase, “86 47.” No question, 47 means Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States. But 86 is ambiguous at best for prosecutors. Are there instances where people have used 86 to mean kill? Sure. But those are few and far between, clearly in the minority. The far more common usage of 86 is to mean we’ve run out of something, or to cut something off, or to eliminate something. And that’s, by the way, what all the major English language dictionaries say.

Now, if you look at prior case law, there was a case back in 1969 involving a Vietnam war protester, a guy named Robert Watts. His case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court. Here’s what Robert Watts said in his statement back in 1969, quote, “I am not going,” meaning to Vietnam, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ,” end quote, referring to the then-president. That went up to the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court said that is not a criminal threat. Same charge at issue here, and even that explicit statement about a rifle sights and the president, the Supreme Court said, that is aggressive, it is offensive, it is controversial, but it is protected First Amendment political speech. And so, John, if that statement about getting the sitting president in the sights of a rifle is not a crime, there is no conceivable way that a seashell post of 86 47 is going to be a chargeable crime.

Watch above via CNN.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!