BREAKING: In a new court filing, prosecutors suggest James Comey’s wife Patrice deliberately misled investigators by omitting the fact she texted her husband a possible alibi just two minutes before he posted his “86” threat against President Trump, in the form of a Google screenshot of a benign definition for “86.”
Federal investigators learned of her omission from search warrants to obtain iCloud data and Google search history related to the Comeys.
Former FBI Director Comey was fired by Trump in 2017 over the #RussiagateHoax he orchestrated. Patrice Comey and her daughters campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016 while her husband opened multiple unpredicated investigations against her GOP opponent.
BREAKING: In a new court filing, prosecutors suggest James Comey’s wife Patrice deliberately misled investigators by omitting the fact she texted her husband a possible alibi just two minutes before he posted his “86” threat against President Trump, in the form of a Google… pic.twitter.com/DRFByJLbOr
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 20, 2026
I asked Grok:
I’m looking for this court filing. Can you help find it?
“In a new court filing, prosecutors suggest James Comey’s wife Patrice deliberately misled investigators by omitting the fact she texted her husband a possible alibi just two minutes before he posted his “86” threat against President Trump, in the form of a Google screenshot of a benign definition for “86.”
Key details from the filing
Prosecutors note that search warrants for iCloud/Apple data and Google search history showed Patrice Comey texted her husband a screenshot of a benign/restaurant definition of “86” (e.g., “to get rid of or refuse service” / item out of stock) at about 3:12 p.m. on May 15, 2025—two minutes before James Comey posted the “86 47” seashell photo on Instagram at 3:14 p.m.
In her short (unrecorded) May 17, 2025, Secret Service interview, she described googling the term after an acquaintance (“Person-1”) contacted her later that day about a possible violent interpretation, and she mentioned the restaurant meaning based on her prior work experience. The government states she did not mention the earlier pre-post search/text. The filing characterizes this as an omission of the pre-post Google screenshot/text (described in some secondary reporting as a possible “alibi”), while arguing the agent simply recited facts supporting the need to obtain the search history and that any implication of lying is the defense’s characterization. It maintains this does not justify a Franks hearing or suppression.
Where to find the full documents
- CourtListener docket for the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73256624/united-states-v-comey/ (or the closely related docket page). Look for ECF Nos. 53, 54, and especially 55 (filed ~August 18, 2026).
- Direct PDF links (via RECAP/CourtListener storage; may require download):
- Response on suppress/Franks (key discussion of the omission): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nced.227449/gov.uscourts.nced.227449.55.0_2.pdf
- Related true-threat response (mentions the two-minute timing): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nced.227449/gov.uscourts.nced.227449.54.0.pdf
- Vindictive/selective response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nced.227449/gov.uscourts.n ced.227449.53.0.pdf
These are public court records. The exact phrasing in the query closely matches recent secondary reporting/summaries (e.g., an X post by Paul Sperry on or about August 20, 2026) of the government’s arguments in these filings. Defense filings from late July 2026 had previously argued the opposite—that the warrant affidavits falsely implied Patrice Comey lied about the timing. (Read more: Grok, 8/20/2026)