Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted — for a second time — last Tuesday. This time, it was for his infamous May 2025 Instagram post of seashells on the beach, curiously arranged to spell out "86 47."
But it isn't just the Instagram post at issue here, as Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche informed Kristen Welker on NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning.
Blanche made clear this goes beyond the image itself:
WELKER: Let's move on to former FBI Director James Comey. A grand jury has indicted the former FBI director for this Instagram post. I wanna put it up; I think a lot of folks have seen at this point: 8647 in seashells, which the indictment says, quote, "a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States."
How does that image of seashells amount to a serious threat against the president's life?
BLANCHE: Well, every case requires an investigation, and what you just showed is one part of that investigation. What you just showed is the Instagram post.
Rest assured that the career Assistant United States Attorneys in North Carolina, the career FBI agents, the career Secret Service agents that investigated this case didn't just look at the Instagram post and walk away.
That's why you saw an indictment last week, notwithstanding the fact that it was last May that the post was made. So I am not permitted to get into details of what the grand jury heard or found, as you know, but rest assured that it's not just the Instagram post that leads somebody to get indicted.
Comey, of course, was previously indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for making a false statement to Congress and for obstructing a congressional proceeding (in connection with his September 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Russia Collusion hoax). That indictment was later dismissed without prejudice after Lindsey Halligan's appointment as U.S. Attorney for that district was held to be unlawful. (That dismissal is currently up on appeal.)
News of the second indictment in connection with the IG post prompted critics to question whether this was primarily political retaliation, and others to point to potential First Amendment issues that may serve as a defense to the latest charges.
However, as Blanche notes in response to Welker here, the matter has been under investigation for close to a year, and we don't really know the scope of the evidence presented to the grand jury that returned the indictment.
That suggests there's more to this story than initially meets the eye.