A legal storm has engulfed former FBI Director James Comey, as federal prosecutors are moving to seize the profits from his book sales. The action follows a recent indictment on two felony counts stemming from a controversial social media post targeting former President Trump.
The Justice Department alleges that Comey intentionally posted a cryptic threat – “86 47” – online to generate interest and boost sales of his book, “Red Verdict.” This timing, just days before the book’s release, is central to the prosecution’s case.
The indictment explicitly states that upon conviction, Comey will be required to forfeit any property or funds directly linked to the alleged offense. This includes all proceeds derived from the book’s sales, effectively turning potential profits into assets subject to government seizure.
The initial post, appearing on Comey’s Instagram account, quickly ignited a firestorm of speculation and criticism. The phrase “86 47” was widely interpreted as a veiled call for harm against Trump, with “86” being slang for removing someone and “47” referencing Trump’s position as the 47th President.
Last year, a Fox News reporter directly confronted Comey at a book signing, pressing him on the meaning behind the post. “Why do you want to 86 Trump?” the reporter asked, only to be met with a dismissive refusal to answer.
The exchange took a bizarre turn when the reporter attempted to deflect with a pointed question about seashells, referencing the numerical code and Vice President Kamala Harris. Comey remained unresponsive, and the reporter was subsequently escorted away by security.
The government’s pursuit of a “forfeiture action” signals a determined effort to hold Comey accountable, not only through criminal penalties but also by stripping him of any financial gain potentially derived from the alleged misconduct. The case promises a complex legal battle with significant implications.
The unfolding legal drama centers on the intersection of free speech, political expression, and potential incitement. Prosecutors are building a case that links the provocative social media post directly to a calculated effort to profit from the ensuing controversy surrounding his book.
