Photo: Well This Is News
Trump's DOJ chief claims broad case against Comey while downplaying Iran conflict
Indictment of Comey goes deeper than Instagram: evidence collected for nearly a year
Acting AG Blanche says Comey indictment extends beyond social media post
Key Takeaways
- Acting AG Blanche has stated the case involves evidence collected over a year but has not publicly named the specific federal statute Comey is charged with violating, leaving the actual legal theory of the prosecution unclear.
- Neither left nor right outlets have identified what crime Blanche claims a seashell photograph and the number 86 demonstrate, and a Republican senator found no evidence 86 functions as a call to violence, yet Blanche did not respond to this directly.
- The indictment has been announced rather than explained, raising questions about whether prosecutors lack confidence in defending the charge if it were clearly named and scrutinized.
The Analysis
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's statement that the Comey indictment 'is not just about' a single Instagram post marks the first official acknowledgment that prosecutors are claiming a broader case, yet neither the left nor the right has named what that broader case actually is. This silence is the story.
Blanche told NBC that investigators have been collecting evidence for nearly a year, a claim designed to signal that this is a serious, methodical prosecution rather than political retaliation. He did not specify what that evidence consists of, what laws it demonstrates were broken, or why a year-long investigation into a former FBI director remained secret until the indictment was unsealed. The indictment itself references a seashell photograph posted to Instagram and an alleged coded reference, the number 86, which Blanche framed as evidence of something larger. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, stated on CNN that he could find no evidence 86 is used as a call for violence. Blanche did not respond to this directly.
The left's framing, visible across MSNBC and HuffPost, focuses on the apparent absurdity of charging Comey with serious federal crimes based on a vacation photograph and internet slang. This framing is doing two things: attacking the prosecution as frivolous and implicitly arguing that charging a former senior law enforcement official reflects political vendetta rather than prosecutorial merit. The left names Trump's appointment of Blanche as acting AG and emphasizes that this is happening under an administration that promised accountability for perceived enemies. What the left does not explain is what specific federal statute Comey allegedly violated or why a year-long investigation into an Instagram post would require such duration.
The right's framing, via Breitbart and National Review, argues that critics are deliberately reducing the case to a single photograph to make the prosecution sound ridiculous. Blanche's statement, from this perspective, corrects the record by insisting prosecutors have evidence of something substantive. National Review published a separate editorial arguing that the AG should not be the president's fixer, a quiet acknowledgment among conservatives that the optics of this indictment are difficult to defend on their merits. The right does not name what the substantive evidence is either, nor does it explain why Blanche cannot simply state the charges with clarity.
What both sides are avoiding: The specific text of the indictment and the specific federal statute Comey is charged with violating. If Comey is charged under the Espionage Act, both sides need to name it. If he is charged with mishandling classified information, that should be explicit. If the charge relates to the January 6 investigation, that should be stated. The fact that Blanche can discuss a year-long investigation without naming the crime suggests either that prosecutors lack confidence in the charge's legal grounding or that the charge is politically constructed to sound serious without withstanding scrutiny.
Neither side is addressing the precedent this sets: whether former senior officials can be prosecuted based on coded social media messages interpreted as incitement, a legal threshold that remains undefined in this case. The silence on what the actual charge is reveals that the case itself may not survive the scrutiny a named charge would invite. This is not an indictment that has been explained. It has been announced.
Federal prosecutors have established a precedent where the government can charge a former senior law enforcement official with serious crimes based on social media posts and alleged coded language without naming the specific statute violated or the evidence supporting it. Blanche's refusal to detail what law Comey allegedly broke, despite claiming a year-long investigation, suggests the prosecution either lacks confidence in its legal theory or is structured to sound serious while avoiding the scrutiny that explicit charges would trigger. This transforms indictment into announcement, allowing the government to define crimes retroactively through prosecution rather than law, a shift that reshapes how federal charges against officials operate regardless of administration.