Sen. Tillis challenges Comey indictment, says he finds no evidence "86" is a call for violence

Sen. Thom Tillis told CNN on Sunday that the federal case against former FBI Director James Comey over an Instagram post of seashells on a North Carolina beach "makes no sense" to him, and that he cannot find evidence the number "86" carries the violent meaning the prosecution apparently relies on.

The North Carolina Republican made the remarks on CNN's "State of the Union" after host Jake Tapper raised the Justice Department's latest indictment of Comey. Tapper told viewers the department had indicted Comey "again, this time for posting a photograph on Instagram of seashells spelling out 86, 47, 47", a reference, Tapper noted, to Donald Trump as the 47th president.

Tapper then played a clip of President Trump explaining the term. Trump said the number has a specific pedigree in organized crime.

"Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86, you know, in the 80s, it's a mob term for kill them. You know, have you ever seen the movies? 86, the mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, 86 him. That means kill him."

Tapper followed the clip with a direct question to Tillis: "Do you think posting 86 47 is a crime?"

Tillis pushes back on the government's theory

Tillis did not mince words. He said the prosecution, which he identified as coming from the Eastern District of North Carolina, needs to rest on far more than a photograph if it expects to hold up. He pointed to his own background in the restaurant industry, where "86" is standard shorthand for pulling an item off the menu, not a threat against anyone.

"No, I you know, again, if this prosecution, which is coming from the Eastern District of North Carolina, if this whole case is based on a picture in the sand of, of a North Carolina beach, it again makes no sense to me. I used to work in the restaurant industry, and I think 86 actually has its roots as a cook. That's my understanding, too. I it has its roots at 86ing the menu or 86ing thing the product. I can't find any evidence except some that's come up after the president made the comment about the movies. I know the penal code in North Carolina 187 means murder, but I can't find any evidence where 86 is used to as a call for violence and again, if it's more than just the picture, it reminds me of the two minutes of testimony against Powell. It better be more than just the picture. There have to be facts and circumstance since beyond that to convince me."

The senator drew a sharp distinction between the California penal code number 187, which does refer to murder, and the number 86, which he said he could not connect to any recognized violent meaning. He acknowledged that some claims linking 86 to violence had surfaced, but only after Trump himself made the movie reference.

A pattern of independent judgment

Tillis has not been shy about breaking with the White House when he believes the facts warrant it. He recently questioned Trump's Iran strategy and called a $200 billion funding push a hard sell without clearer answers from the administration.

On the Comey matter, however, Tillis was not siding with the former FBI director out of sympathy. He was raising a straightforward evidentiary concern: does the government have a case, or does it have a photograph?

Tillis compared the Comey indictment to what he called "the two minutes of testimony against Powell", a reference that suggests he sees a pattern of thin prosecutorial showings. His demand was plain: "There have to be facts and circumstances beyond that to convince me."

The senator has also publicly rebuked a key Trump adviser, calling Stephen Miller "out of his depth." That willingness to speak plainly about allies and adversaries alike gives his skepticism on the Comey indictment a different weight than it would carry from a reflexive Trump critic.

What the indictment actually rests on

Details remain scarce. Tapper described the charge as stemming from Comey's Instagram post, a photograph of seashells arranged on a North Carolina beach to spell out "86, 47, 47." Beyond that description, no indictment document, case number, or court filing has been publicly quoted or linked in available reporting. The word "again" in Tapper's framing, "indicted former FBI Director James Comey again", implies a prior indictment, but no details about an earlier case were discussed during the segment.

The second "47" in the seashell arrangement also went unexplained on air. Whether the government reads the repetition as emphasis, a separate message, or something else entirely is unknown from the public record so far.

These gaps matter. If the entire case hinges on a social media photo and a contested interpretation of slang, the prosecution faces a credibility problem that goes well beyond partisan politics. The First Amendment sets a high bar for criminalizing speech, and a number whose most common use involves restaurant kitchens is not an obvious vehicle for a viable threat charge.

The broader political environment around Trump-era prosecutions, and counter-prosecutions, has grown increasingly tangled. Democratic lawmakers have conceded that their own impeachment push against Trump has no path to success, even as the Justice Department pursues cases that raise questions on the other side of the ledger.

The real test ahead

Conservatives who cheered the pursuit of Comey after years of frustration with the former FBI director's conduct may find Tillis's skepticism uncomfortable. But the senator's point is not that Comey deserves a pass. It is that the government must meet its burden, and that a photograph of seashells, standing alone, does not clear the bar.

Republican senators face mounting pressure from multiple directions. Trump-backed primary challengers are raising millions to unseat incumbents who stray from the president's priorities. At the same time, the credibility of federal prosecutions, on all sides, depends on evidence, not atmospherics.

Tillis is not asking the Justice Department to drop the case. He is asking it to show its work. That is not a radical demand. It is the baseline expectation in any courtroom in the country.

If the Eastern District of North Carolina has more than a beach photo, now would be a good time to say so. If it doesn't, the case will tell the country more about the prosecutors than about the defendant.

The rule of law means the government has to prove its case, even when the target is someone a lot of people don't like. Especially then.