Talk:James Comey

Lead issue

Per MOS:LEADBIO, the first paragraph of this article's lead should summarize the key events of Comey's life with "due weight." Does Comey's political affiliation deserve half of the "due weight" granted in the first paragraph? I don't think so. Comey was not a politician whose party affiliation played an important role in his actions, and it seems that many other things are deserving of mention in this paragraph while his party affiliation is not. Should this sentence be removed and replaced by two sentences that summarize his tenure of Director of the FBI and the events surrounding his firing?Personnongratia (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that should be removed, makes no sense in the lead. 2600:1700:D520:17C0:9CD2:6FE5:CCC2:80ED (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Add a new article

You should add an article about the 86 47 thing called "James Comey Instagram controversy" 107.201.182.97 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is controversial that Trump and his allies are making an absurd claim that 86 means an assassination threat and calling for an arrest. But this idiocy should be removed from this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This is where it belongs, if anywhere: Government targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration. Although that article is going to be very long. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no way to keep that article short unless it's incomplete. But yes, this "86" "controversy" is manufactured nonsense. We probably will need to keep it in the article when it's the basis of the DOJ prosecuting Comey for.... I don't know what yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

While I wholly agree on it being manufactured nonsense, I disagree on it being WP:UNDUE in its entirety. The two sentences I originally added I think were fine, though they could probably be improved to just say "Trump admin. officials" instead of singling out Noem. Some of the revisions afterwards were needlessly detailed, but I still think there is value in mentioning it. It has generated lots of coverage. I'm fine with leaving it out until we know if more will come of it. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

An Instagram post and manufactured outrage are UNDUE. A DOJ prosecution for attempted murder will be DUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

"86" has never meant killing of any kind in American slang. Over time, it became part of restaurant and bar culture, meaning essentially that the customer was no longer welcome to dine in that establishment. In other words, the analogy or metaphor here is that Trump should be ejected out of office in the same way that a bar ejects a drunk and overly aggressive customer who has had too much to drink already. Everyone in America knows this, so any other meaning that goes beyond this shared understanding is a lie. I spent the 1980s through the 1990s working in bars and restaurants. The term was well established at that time and never meant to harm, injure, or deprive the life of anyone. As of 2025, all the restaurants and bars in my area have "86 lists" posted behind their counters. These often have photos, names, and short descriptions of the problem customers. Very often they refer to dine and dashers, other kinds of thieves, drunk or doped up patrons, and people who generally make a nuisance for the servers. For the Trump admin to say otherwise isn't a difference of opinion or cultural affectation. It is a straight up lie, fabrication, and distortion of reality. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and this has been for sale on Amazon for five years. [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

And there's a news article about it.[2] Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You might believe this to be a fabrication, but multiple reliable independent sources have reported on Comey's actions and the outrage and Secret Service investigation that have come as a consequence of those actions. The standard for inclusion for Wikipeida has been met -- and it doesn't involve your personal opinion of veracity. Even if completely bogus, Comey did make the post, and is being investigated for it. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion is debatable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Just because its true doesn't mean its worthy of inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump has used government powers to target more than 100 perceived enemies[3]. This is in just the first three months. If these "investigations" belong anywhere, they belong in one of the Trump articles. If someone is actually charged with a crime, then it belongs in their article. Otherwise we have BLP problems. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

8647 investigation

Muboshgu, this investigation: [4], [5], [6].

Your reversion didn't indicate why WP:NOTNEWS applies here. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

My talk page posts here do. Your edit did not mention any investigation, just the post and its caption. A new section here is unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Your posts here don't mention NOTNEWS.

Not sure what you mean by "the post and its caption". My edit (you're referring to the article ,right?) restored this reference which mentions the investigation. Why do you think the investigation of this former government executive official for a threat to a sitting president should not be a part of this bibliographic article?

Are you discarding my input simply because I created a new section? -- mikeblas (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit you restored included the text Comey posted a picture to Instagram, which depicted seashells spelling 8647, and captioned the post: "Cool shell formation on my beach walk". with a WP:CITEBOMB. I see that there's a reference mentioning an investigation, but the body text made no mention of it. An Instagram post in the news is NOTNEWS. Fair, only UNDUE was referenced above. But NOTNEWS applies as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Instagram posts usually aren't news, but when a post from a former goverment agency executive is perceived as a threat to a sitting president, and that threat draws a federal investigation, that entire chain of events is certainly noteworthy and deserves to be part of the poster's bio page. Here, it's only two sentences of a pretty large article.

I've provided three references above about the investigation, and I think these should be added to the article along with the sentence you previously reverted. I'll do that presently. If you think there's a CITEBOMB, feel free to prune the references. But there's no sensible reason to remove Comey's use of social media to cause himself problems. For quantity concerns, maybe the Northern Jersey and Herald-Tribune cites could be removed. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The USSS does somewhere on the order of around 6000 investigations per year, more or less, based on 2022 numbers. It's questionable if this is an investigation of any kind beyond "Trump said it and the SS looked into it". Back here in consensus reality (full of liberals, I know), "86" isn't a threat to anyone. Given the number of false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, one wonders if any of these allegations belong on any biography page at all. Finally, Wikipedia should not be used for weaponization. We are also not stenographers for power brokers. Between speaking truth to power and parroting official sources, there is a solid core of a story. Once you find that, it can be told. The problem is we aren't going to agree on the story. I think, for example, that this is a story about revenge, retribution, and the government targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration. You seem to think it's something else entirely, perhaps the investigation of of a threat to a sitting president. That's a problem. We have to get the framing right. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The two statements I've re-added to the article express only reported facts, objectively. If Comey did not actually make the social media post in question, please add that to the article, along with supporting references -- that would tell the whole story of a fabrication. If the charges are due to weaponizing the Secret Service and not just a routine investigation of a potential or perceived threat, please add information about that, with references, to the article.

Without references, you're just using your opinion to block the inclusion of objectively and reliably referenced relevant material to the article. Why would you want to do that?

It doesn't matter what I think of the story, either. Federal law enforcement thinks it's a threat, and are investigating it as such, and that's precisely what the article says without any bias or implication. The results of the investigation can be added when it comes to light, as can any facts you find about the any other motivation for the investigation. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You do not know that Federal law enforcement thinks this is a threat. The USSS interviewed and released him. And you clearly do not have consensus for inclusion. You should self-rvt while discussion is underway.[7][8][9][10][11][12] There have been over 100 such items for sale for years on Amazon. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog repeating the most recent faux "outrage". O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We all know that federal law enforcement considers this a threat because federal officials have said so. See the AP News reference, which says “DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately,” Noem wrote., as well as the USA Today reference, which says The Secret Service vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees. We are aware of the social media posts by the former FBI director and we take rhetoric like this very seriously.

There's nothing "faux" about the post, nor the investigation, and you have no reason to exclude them except bias. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes we know what Kristi Noem says. We also know that Trump has suggested Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, John Kerry, Joe Scarborough, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden (and the entire "Biden crime family"), Liz Cheney, James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, members of the House committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riot, Adam Schiff, special counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Arthur Engoron, the Judge who presided over the civil fraud case against Trump, Individuals involved in the Russia investigation should all be arrested, and General Mark Milley the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be tried for treason and potentially executed. It would be a serious BLP violation to immediately claim all these folks are being seriously investigated for cause. If this is not "faux outrage" over posting "86 47" then where is the outrage and investigations for the approximately 100 Amazon items for sale for years that say "86 46"? There is WP:NODEADLINE. If something actually becomes of this, we can then add it. you have no reason to exclude them except bias Please WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You're bringing up a lot of irrelevant stuff -- first a bunch of Amazon product listings, now a list of people which aren't in this article.

I've provided referenced material about events that have happened and are incontrovertible: Comey mad a post and the federal authorities treated it as a threat and began an investigation. You've denied the investigation, and expressed the opinion is that these actions are "faux" (whatever that specifically means). You've provided zero references supporting that opinion.

Your personal bias doesn't determine inclusion, and a collection of biases is not a useful consensus. Objective facts belong in the article, and it's that simple. Are you certain that you're actually acting in good faith? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that Comey posted it or the public responses of the Trump administration. We are arguing that an Instagram post and resulting outrage is a whole lot of nothing and therefore is undue for the article. They're apparently charging LaMonica McIver. Let's wait and see if they charge Comey. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

My comments on the frequent use of “86 46” by Trump supporters without investigation (e.g. Mark Gaetz said “We’ve now 86’d McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell”[13]) and the large list of people the administration is going after (Andrew Cuomo was just added[14]) are to provide context. Have any of the investigations of the numerous people I listed actually resulted in prosecutions, or are they distractions and much ado? Comey says he saw these seashells while walking down the beach, took a picture and posted it on Instagram (which is what Instagram is for), If he is actually prosecuted, then that would obviously be DUE. But this is a BLP and care must be taken with inclusion of potentially libellous.material. We should not be adding what may be frivolous actions to large numbers of BLPs. OTOH, we could include this in an article that speaks to the weaponization of the DOJ as that would provide the necessary context thereby avoiding BLP problems. Meanwhile, I have shown no “bias”, always act in good faith, and suggest you strike these untoward comments. Comment on content, not the contributors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Former director of the FBI James Comey posted a photograph of arranged seashells on a sandy beach indicating "86 47", alleged by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to be a veiled threat, calling for violence against President Donald Trump. President Trump considered "86 47" to be a call for assassination. One of the dictionary definitions of the term "86" has meant "to kill", and "47" sometimes refers to the 47th president. In May 2025, AP News reported that the Trump administration officials said that the Secret Service was investigating Comey’s "86 47" social media post. Comey denied guilt of any nefariousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.32.135 (talk • contribs)

• And reported yesterday, Congresswoman LaMonica McIve was arrested after Kristi Noem claimed she body slammed federal officers when she tried to get to the mayor of Newark as he was being arrested and handcuffed. Add these to the growing list of people the administration is threatening with arrests and investigations. And I still don't see why 86 46 means impeach Biden but 86 47 means assassinate Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump was twice a target of assassination. maybe you forget... 24.194.32.135 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That is clearly not relevant. And I see of your 80 edits here, you have made 56 edits to three articles on James Comey and the sea shells. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

According to The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English one of the meanings of "eighty-six" is to kill. That usage dates from 1991. Topcat777 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Webster's provides 54 synonyms of kill.[15] 86 is not listed. It also provides 46 synonyms of 86. The four most relevant are discard, lose, ditch, scrap, shed, reject.[16] The many uses of 86 46 have always been considered as meaning impeach Biden, not kill him. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References