Blanche, asked if DOJ will now prosecute every post of ’86 47,’ says ‘every case is different’

Blanche on DOJ’s Approach to Prosecuting “86 47” Posts

Blanche asked if DOJ will now prosecute – Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) would now target every “86 47” post as a potential threat to President Donald Trump’s life. In response, Blanche clarified that the DOJ’s decision to charge former FBI Director James Comey with making a true threat through an Instagram post featuring the numbers “86 47” does not indicate a broad policy of prosecuting all similar content. The case is based on the specific context of Comey’s 2025 post, where seashells were arranged to form the numbers, symbolizing a call to end Trump’s presidential term. Blanche emphasized that the DOJ evaluates each case independently, focusing on intent and evidence rather than a blanket approach.

DOJ’s Case-by-Case Strategy

During a press conference, Blanche reiterated that the DOJ does not apply a uniform standard to all posts. “Blanche asked if DOJ will” target every “86 47” message, but he stressed that each case depends on its unique circumstances. The indictment against Comey was issued by a federal grand jury in North Carolina, underscoring the thorough investigation process. Blanche noted that while the numbers “86 47” are culturally significant, their legal interpretation as a direct threat requires clear proof of the sender’s intent to endanger Trump’s life. This distinction highlights the DOJ’s reliance on evidence over symbolic gestures.

Blanche also mentioned that individuals should remain cautious when posting content that could be seen as a threat. “People should be very wary of threatening the life of President Trump, because that is a crime, full stop,” he said. However, he acknowledged that the decision to charge someone ultimately hinges on factors such as the available evidence, the post’s context, and the defendant’s intent. This approach aligns with the DOJ’s history of evaluating threats on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that prosecutions are justified by concrete facts rather than public perception.

Legal Challenges and Selective Prosecution

James Comey’s legal team is expected to argue that the “86 47” post does not constitute an immediate threat but is a form of symbolic expression. They will likely claim that the DOJ is pursuing selective prosecution, pointing to the lack of similar charges against others who used the same phrase during the Biden administration. Blanche asked if DOJ will apply the same scrutiny to all instances, but he defended the decision by emphasizing the specific evidence linking Comey’s post to a true threat. The defense may also highlight the distinction between “86 47” and other numerical combinations like “86 46” to question the DOJ’s consistency in handling such cases.

The prosecution’s case relies heavily on proving Comey’s intent to endanger Trump. Blanche asked if DOJ will use the post’s context to establish this, noting that the numbers were arranged in a way that could be interpreted as a deliberate threat. Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on “true threat” standards supports the DOJ’s position, as it requires clear intent to be criminalized. Blanche’s comments reaffirm that the DOJ’s actions are grounded in legal criteria rather than a political agenda.

Historical Context of Threats to Trump

The “86 47” indictment follows a series of past incidents targeting Trump’s life. Three days prior, a gunman attempted to assassinate the president during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, an event that has drawn comparisons to Comey’s post. Blanche asked if DOJ will connect these events, stating that the current case is distinct and based on Comey’s specific actions. While the DOJ has investigated previous threats, such as the Butler, Pennsylvania, shooting and the Florida golf course attack, each case was evaluated independently, reflecting the department’s focus on individual intent and evidence.

Public Debate Over Free Speech and Legal Standards

Blanche asked if DOJ will face criticism for potentially overreaching in its interpretation of threats, sparking broader discussions about free speech and the balance between security and expression. Critics argue that prosecuting symbolic posts like “86 47” could set a precedent for targeting everyday speech, while supporters maintain that the DOJ’s actions are necessary to address direct threats to national leaders. Blanche’s case-by-case approach aims to mitigate concerns about sweeping prosecutions, though the case remains a focal point for debate on the legal boundaries of online communication.

Conclusion and Future Implications

As the case moves forward, Blanche asked if DOJ will continue to prioritize evidence over public sentiment in similar situations. The outcome may influence how future threats are interpreted, particularly in the digital age where symbolic messages can gain rapid traction. With the federal grand jury’s decision already set, the DOJ’s stance on “86 47” posts serves as a reminder of the legal process’s reliance on intent and context. Whether this case leads to a broader policy or remains an isolated instance will depend on the court’s evaluation of Comey’s actions and the broader implications for free speech under the law.