The US Department of Justice has defended its prosecution of former FBI director James Comey, claiming in new court documents there is “no serious dispute” that his social media post last year featuring a photo of seashells arranged to read “8647” could be interpreted as a threat against Donald Trump. Comey was indicted in April after a grand jury in North Carolina charged him with making a threat against the US president and transmitting that threat, via social media, across state lines, over an image he posted on Instagram while vacationing in North Carolina last May. In the photo, the seashells were arranged to read “8647”, which the president’s allies and supporters quickly denounced as a threat against Trump.
The number “86” is often used as shorthand to mean to get rid of or remove something, while Trump is the 47th US president. Comey deleted the photo after the uproar, saying he didn’t know that it could be interpreted as a violent threat. In the court documents filed earlier this week, prosecutors with the eastern district of North Carolina continued to argue the post was a “coded message to his followers meaning ‘kill’ or ‘get rid of’ President Trump”.
Comey has denied the charges against him and his lawyers have asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the post was protected speech and did not amount to a “true threat” against the president. Comey’s lawyers have also said the case should be dismissed for “vindictive and selective prosecution” and have said the indictment is “not based on a goodfaith application of the law to the facts; instead, it effectuates a yearslong campaign by the President to use the criminal process to punish Mr Comey for his protected speech and because of the President’s deep-seated animosity”. Trump has long feuded with Comey since his handling of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election while he was FBI director.
Last year, the justice department also indicted Comey in a separate case, alleging that he had lied to Congress. But those charges were later thrown out after a judge ruled the prosecutor handling the case was unlawfully appointed.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
