The story contains several claims that require verification, such as the interpretation of "86" as meaning "get rid of" and the details surrounding alleged assassination attempts on Trump. The story reports that "86" is a term used in the restaurant industry, but this needs confirmation for its broader implications. Additionally, the mention of Trump's assassination attempts, including a specific date and location, requires substantiation, as these are significant claims with potential legal and security implications.

The article also presents statements from Dan Bongino and Kash Patel about reforms within the FBI and upcoming revelations regarding Crossfire Hurricane and the Capitol riot investigations. These claims are significant and need verification through credible sources or official statements. The lack of direct evidence or corroboration from independent sources weakens the factual accuracy of the story.

The story predominantly presents the perspective of Dan Bongino and his criticisms of James Comey, with limited representation of Comey's viewpoint. While Comey's brief response is included, the article does not offer a balanced exploration of the situation, such as seeking input from neutral or opposing voices within the FBI or independent legal experts.

The narrative leans heavily towards Bongino's perspective, which may skew the reader's understanding of the events. By focusing mainly on criticisms of Comey's leadership and the implications of his Instagram post, the article does not adequately address other potential interpretations or context that could provide a more nuanced view.

The article is generally clear in its presentation of Bongino's criticisms and the controversy surrounding Comey's Instagram post. However, the structure could be improved to provide a more coherent narrative. The transitions between different aspects of the story, such as the Instagram post, Bongino's criticisms, and the FBI investigations, could be smoother to enhance readability.

The language used is straightforward, but the article would benefit from additional context to clarify the significance of certain terms and events mentioned. Providing more background information on the key players and the implications of their actions would help readers better understand the story's impact.

The article relies heavily on statements from Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and conservative media figure, which raises questions about potential bias. While Bongino holds a position of authority as the FBI Deputy Director, his dual role as a media personality could influence his statements.

The story lacks input from independent sources or experts who could provide additional context or verification of the claims made. There is also a lack of direct quotes or statements from James Comey beyond his removal of the Instagram post, which limits the article's ability to present a well-rounded view of the situation.

The article does not provide sufficient context or background on the significance of the "86 47" post or the broader implications of the claims made by Bongino and Patel. There is no clear explanation of how the conclusions about Comey's post were reached or the methodology behind the investigations mentioned.

The lack of transparency about the sources of information and the processes involved in verifying the claims undermines the article's credibility. Readers are left without a clear understanding of the basis for the allegations against Comey or the nature of the FBI reforms and investigations discussed.