Kash Patel: FBI Spent Nearly a Year Probing James Comey's Post

Kash Patel, the FBI director, said the bureau spent "nearly a year" investigating former FBI Director James Comey's Instagram post that ultimately led to his indictment, describing the probe as a methodical review handled by career agents and prosecutors, according to remarks reported by Mediaite.

Patel said the case centered on Comey's May 2025 post showing seashells arranged to read "86 47," which prosecutors have interpreted as a coded threat against President Donald Trump, the 47th president, and noted such sensitive threat investigations routinely require extended review before charges are brought.

"These cases take time," Patel said, adding that the investigation moved through standard channels and emphasizing that career FBI personnel — not political leadership — handled the fact-finding and case development.

Patel also said agents "call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit," framing the work as evidence-driven and guided by established legal standards, as reported by Mediaite.

At an afternoon briefing, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the indictment reflects a straightforward application of federal law prohibiting threats against the president rather than a First Amendment dispute, according to reporting from Newsmax.

Blanche said prosecutors would still need to prove intent at trial, but argued the statute is clear that threats against the president are not protected speech and that a grand jury had already found sufficient evidence to proceed.

Comey, responding after the indictment, posted a video message saying "Well, they're back," a line widely interpreted as a reference to renewed legal action against him, according to The Hill, and said he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Comey said he was stunned by the charge but expressed confidence in the court system, adding that he is "not afraid," and insisted the post was meant as political commentary rather than a threat, according to his remarks highlighted by The Hill.

He has also argued the Instagram post was removed after he realized it could be misinterpreted, and his legal team is expected to mount a First Amendment defense arguing the government is criminalizing ambiguous political speech rather than a true threat.

There is no apparent fixed penalty in the public record tied specifically to the case at this stage, which remains at the indictment phase with no conviction or sentencing determination entered.

The case marks a renewed legal escalation involving Comey and Trump-era Justice Department officials, setting up a high-profile fight over intent standards and the boundaries between protected speech and criminal threats.

"It's not a very difficult line to look at," Blanche said. "And it's not, in my mind, a difficult line for one to cross over one way or the other. You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America. That's not my decision. That's Congress' decision in a statute that they passed that we charge multiple times a year."