Former FBI director Comey’s prosecution over seashells picture is ‘preposterous and vindictive’ legal experts say

Legal experts have condemned the Department of Justice over its latest attempt to prosecute ex-FBI director James Comey, this time for his previous Instagram post of a picture of seashells, calling it “fatally flawed” and “vindictive.”

The DOJ argues the image Comey posted last May of shells on a North Carolina beach arranged to spell out the figures “8647” constituted “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of the United States.” The “code” has been interpreted as a call to “86” (slang meaning to nix or remove) the 47th president, Donald Trump.

Comey, the subject of another failed DOJ indictment last year, rubbished the latest charge in a video on Substack Tuesday, stating: “Nothing has changed. I’m still innocent; I’m still not afraid. I still believe in an independent justice system.”

Former federal officials, lawyers and legal pundits duly took to the airwaves to support Comey and deride the case being presented by the Trump administration.

Speaking to Erin Burnett on CNN, former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said of the indictment: “It’s specious, it’ll be thrown out, it’s classic revenge.

“It’s a document that really isn’t worth anything other than the PR that the president’s trying to get to intimidate Comey and others who might speak out against him. It’s a vindictive prosecution; the previous attempts to get Comey certainly buttress that argument.”

open image in gallery

Cobb pointed to Trump’s Truth Social post last year, appearing to direct his then-attorney general Pam Bondi to go after his enemies as part of his attack on the DOJ’s latest maneuver and added: “There’s no evidence to suggest that any reasonable person would have seen this seashell picture and taken it as a death threat.”

He also noted the widespread availability of merchandise online bearing the slogan “8647” and that a number of No Kings demonstrators had been seen wearing it at public protests, none of whom had been prosecuted.

On the same network, former deputy assistant attorney general Tom Dupree told Kaitlan Collins the attempted prosecution was “not in the Top 10 of the best cases they’ve ever filed, I’ll put it that way.”

Dupree, who served under George W Bush, said the development was a “direct result” of Bondi’s acting successor, Todd Blanche, being tasked with delivering “results” by the president against his enemies.

He also called the case against Comey “skeletal,” said it could “very well get thrown out” before it reaches a jury and suggested that the attempted attack on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night “probably gave the Justice Department maybe a little extra courage to move ahead with this.”

Collins revealed that one former department official had told her: “This might be the worst case the DOJ has filed in my lifetime.”

open image in gallery

“How they’re able to keep a straight face while writing the indictment, I personally will never know,” fellow anchor Laura Coates said as she opened her own show on the topic.

Also on CNN, former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe told Anderson Cooper: “It boggles my mind that they’re still able to find people inside the department and the FBI... who would actually spend their time working on this thing.

“If there were even a legitimate argument that that statement was a threat, do you actually think the Secret Service, after having interviewed him the day after the threat was allegedly made, would have allowed Jim Comey to live his life walking around free, doing nothing for the last year?

“So you think this guy is actually a legitimate threat to the president of the United States, and you waited a year to arrest him? It’s preposterous. This whole thing is an absolute fraud.”

The network’s senior legal analyst, Elie Hoenig, said he believed there was no “realistic” prospect of a conviction. “I think this indictment is deeply flawed,” he said. “I think it’s probably fatally flawed.”

Hoenig said the lack of clarity about the meaning of the numbers would be crucial, should it ever reach court, observing: “Ambiguity is always the enemy of the prosecutors because you have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

open image in gallery

Over on MS NOW, Chris Hayes called the affair “ludicrous” and pointed out that even conservative constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, a favorite of Trump’s, had said on Fox News that he believed the case was a non-starter.

“I have to say I must be in a parallel universe to be talking about the shell artwork of James Comey,” Turley told Fox.

“I think that just showing the picture is going to be a weak case in terms of a threat. In my view, it would very likely be viewed as protected speech if it was the basis of a criminal indictment.”

At a news conference announcing the indictment, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said: “How do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent it’s appropriate. And that’s how we’ll prove intent in this case.

“While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.”

The Independent has reached out to the DOJ for further comment.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies