Prosecutors Defend Criminal Case Against James Comey as Defense Contests Charges
Former FBI Director James Comey is contesting a federal criminal case over an Instagram post, which remains undecided in district court.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 4:24 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 4:24 p.m. ETFirst report
Federal Prosecutors Defend Criminal Case Against Former FBI Director James Comey
Federal prosecutors in North Carolina have filed court documents in district court defending a criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, NBC News reported. The case remains open and developing, and the charges against Comey remain undecided as the proceeding is contested.
Prosecutors allege Comey "knowingly and willingly" made "a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States" by sharing an Instagram picture of seashells arranged to say "8647" with the caption "cool shell formation on my beach walk," according to NBC News. Prosecutors say the post was a coded message meaning "kill" or "get rid of" President Trump.
According to NBC News, prosecutors argued in court documents that the post was a "true threat" and cited Comey's novel "FDR Drive" as supporting context to defend the prosecution and rebut his claims of selective and vindictive prosecution.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 20:26current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 20:24current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.