April 28, 2026 – Former FBI Director James Comey indicted again for Trump assassination Instagram post

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

(…) Federal prosecutors said they plan to prove former FBI Director James Comey’s intent through witness testimony, documents, and other evidence as he faces charges tied to an Instagram post authorities say threatened President Donald Trump.

While responding to questions about how the government will establish intent, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said prosecutors will rely on standard tools used in criminal cases.

“You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, and the defendant himself, to the extent it is appropriate,” Blanche said.

Blanche declined to preview specific evidence but emphasized the case is the result of a lengthy investigation, noting the alleged conduct dates back to May 2025 and was examined for months before charges were brought. (Read more: Fox News, 2026)  (Archive) (Indictment)

Press Conferences

James Comey’s Instagram post. (Credit: James Comey)

BREAKING: DOJ sources tell me prosecutors are pursuing a “forfeiture action” in relation to James Comey’s alleged felonies because they believe Comey posted the “86” Trump threat to also help drum up sales of a forthcoming book. Comey posted the image five (5) days before the May 20, 2025, release of his new crime novel. Controversy over the posting thrust Comey back into the headlines and drew potential book buyers to his Instagram and X accounts where he heavily promoted the book.

According to the Comey indictment, “Upon conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the said offense.”

Too many people are either ignorant of the facts, or being obtuse as relates to Comey’s “8647” (in shells!) Instagram post.

It was not a simple “one-off” post. Faulty premise and factually incorrect.

So everyone comparing it to Jack Posobiec’s 2022 tweet of “8646” is not comparing comparables.

Also, not an irrelevant factor – Jack is not the former Director of the FBI!

Posobiec’s tweet was stupid. And I would expect to be investigated and possibly charged if I were to ever post anything so stupid.

That says, now back to it not being a “one-off” possibly ambiguous tweet:

People are either unaware of, or ignoring the context of Comey’s Instagram post. It was not a “one-off”. It was actually the second in a series of three posts, all of which were connected, self-referential, and clearly deliberately so.

Post 1: Comey at the beach, reading his new book, FDR Drive (image attached).

Post 2: 8647 in shells.

Post 3: The summary of his new book which he is reading in Post 1. That summary:

“Garcia believes Buchanan went far beyond the protection of the first amendment when *he singled out his enemies by name* and *suggested “something should be done” about them*. His fans have obliged, killing or grievously, injuring some of his foes.”

Comey is telling you exactly what he is doing.

Reading his book.

Singling out his enemies by name (as close as he can get) – 47 for Trump.

Suggesting “something should be done about them” – 86 for kill or eliminate.

And “his fans have obliged” from his book description that he posted.

All of the elements are there to eliminate any ambiguity as to what common meant – sandwiching his 8647 in shells in between a picture of him reading his book, and a summary of his book – which has to do with calling out enemies by name, suggesting something should be done to them, and his fans obliging.

The indictment is as bare bones as it can possibly get.

I don’t know why. If I were drafting it, I would have included these details. But, according to some American attorneys, the indictment need not include every single allegation in it, just the essential.

And this indictment should have been brought last year. I cannot possibly fathom what took 11 months to investigate.

That said, anyone pretending there’s ambiguity, or pretending to offer serious analysis while ignoring or being unaware of the actual context – now deleted – of what Comey actually did (clearly setting out knowledge and intent) is either ignorant or dishonest. Either way, their opinions should be disregarded.

(Amazon)

 

Comey reads the book he wrote while lounging on the beach. Who does that?