EX-FBI chief Comey’s ‘86 47’ social media post condemned by White House as attempt to put ‘hit’ on president

Fox News - May 15th, 2025

Former FBI Director James Comey found himself at the center of a social media storm after posting an image of numbers '86 47' etched in sand, which many interpreted as a veiled threat against President Donald Trump. The numbers '86' and '47' were seen as symbols for 'murder' and the '47th President,' respectively. Amidst the backlash, including calls for his arrest by Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., Comey deleted the post and clarified that he was unaware of the violent connotations. This incident has drawn attention from high-ranking officials, with the FBI and Secret Service now involved.

This controversy unfolds as President Trump is on an international trip to the Middle East. The post by Comey, who was fired by Trump during his first term, has reignited tensions between Trump supporters and the former FBI chief. The White House, through Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, has expressed grave concerns about the implications of the post. The situation highlights ongoing political and personal hostilities, underscoring the sensitivity around communication involving public figures and perceived threats, especially in a climate of heightened political polarization.

Donald Trump Fbi Social Media Controversy James Comey Threat Allegations

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story provides an accurate and timely account of the controversy surrounding James Comey's social media post. It effectively captures the public interest and potential impact of the incident. However, the article could benefit from more balanced representation of perspectives and more thorough sourcing, particularly from official agencies involved. The clarity and readability are strong, but the tone at times leans towards sensationalism, which could affect neutrality. Overall, the story effectively engages with a significant and controversial topic, but there is room for improvement in balance and source quality.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the incident involving James Comey's social media post, as corroborated by multiple sources. The claim that Comey posted numbers '86 47' with seashells on a beach is factual. However, the interpretation of these numbers as a 'hit' on President Trump is subjective and not universally accepted. The story correctly notes that Comey deleted the post and issued a statement denying any violent intent. The involvement of the Secret Service and FBI is also accurately reported, although the story could benefit from more detailed citations or statements from these agencies to enhance precision.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on reactions from Trump administration officials and Republican lawmakers, which suggests a potential bias in representation. While it mentions Comey's denial of any violent intent, the story lacks perspectives from neutral or opposing viewpoints, such as legal experts or Comey supporters, which could provide a more balanced view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and structured logically, with a straightforward presentation of the events and reactions. However, the tone at times seems to lean towards sensationalism, particularly in how the potential threat is framed. This could affect the neutrality and overall comprehension for some readers.

Source quality

The story references statements from public figures and officials, such as Kash Patel and Taylor Budowich, which adds credibility. However, it does not provide direct quotes or detailed attributions from the FBI or Secret Service, which are central to the story. The reliance on social media posts as a primary source also raises questions about the depth of reporting.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the controversy, such as the meaning of '86' and '47', and Comey's past with the FBI. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind the claims, such as how the interpretation of the numbers as a threat was reached. The story would benefit from more explicit disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest or biases.