Ex-FBI Director INDICTED—Threatened Trump’s Life

(PatriotNews.net) – A former FBI Director now faces federal felony charges for allegedly threatening the life of the sitting President through a cryptic social media post that prosecutors claim crossed the line from political speech to criminal conduct.

Story Snapshot

James Comey indicted on two federal felony counts for allegedly threatening President Trump’s life via Instagram post
The May 2025 post depicted “86 47” which prosecutors interpret as a serious expression of intent to harm the President
Each count carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence if convicted
This marks the second indictment of Comey by Trump’s Justice Department

Federal Grand Jury Returns Two-Count Indictment

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned a two-count indictment against James Comey on April 28-29, 2026. The charges stem from an Instagram post Comey allegedly made on May 15, 2025, containing the image “86 47.” Prosecutors argue that anyone familiar with the circumstances would interpret this as a serious threat against President Trump, who is the 47th president. The term “86” is commonly understood as slang meaning to dispose of or eliminate something or someone.

The indictment charges Comey with violating two federal statutes specifically designed to protect the president. Count One addresses threatening the President under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a), while Count Two involves transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Both felony charges carry maximum prison sentences of 10 years. According to reports, Comey deleted the post after it was published, but not before it attracted attention from federal investigators and the public.

Justice Department Takes Hard Line on Presidential Threats

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a stern statement emphasizing that threatening the president’s life will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice. FBI Director Kash Patel characterized Comey’s conduct as disgraceful, noting that the former FBI Director posted the alleged threat on Instagram for the world to see. These strong official responses signal the government’s commitment to prosecuting what it views as serious threats against the commander-in-chief, regardless of the accused person’s previous standing in law enforcement.

The case raises significant questions about where free speech ends and criminal threats begin, particularly on social media platforms. While officials have stated Comey will receive full due process including a jury trial, the decision to prosecute a former FBI Director represents an extraordinary escalation. U.S. Attorney W. Ellis Boyle from the Eastern District of North Carolina announced the indictment, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew R. Petracca handling prosecution duties. The charges require proving that Comey knowingly and willfully made statements that constitute genuine threats rather than protected political commentary.

Long-Running Conflict Between Trump and Former FBI Director

The indictment emerges from years of contentious history between Comey and Trump. Comey served as FBI Director from 2013 to 2017 under both the Obama and Trump administrations before Trump fired him in May 2017. Their relationship deteriorated into public disputes and legal conflicts that have continued for years. This prosecution represents the second time Trump’s Justice Department has indicted Comey, underscoring the ongoing nature of their adversarial relationship and raising concerns among critics about potential politicization of prosecutorial decisions.

Many Americans across the political spectrum share growing frustration with what appears to be a justice system increasingly weaponized for political purposes. Whether one views this prosecution as legitimate enforcement of laws protecting the president or as political retribution against a Trump critic, the case highlights broader concerns about equal application of the law. The spectacle of former high-ranking government officials facing criminal charges from their political adversaries reinforces public skepticism about whether justice is administered fairly or selectively based on political loyalties and grudges among the powerful elite.