Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to meet with U.S. Secret Service officials in Washington, D.C., for an interview regarding his controversial Instagram post, which has sparked speculation about its potential political implications. The post, which featured seashells arranged to form the phrase ’86 47,’ has drawn attention due to its potential reference to former President Donald Trump. The Secret Service is currently leading the investigation, with the FBI and Department, of Justice potentially involved if necessary.
The Instagram post, which was deleted, is believed to have been posted on April 21, 2020, and has since been removed from the platform. Some have interpreted the phrase as a call to ‘get rid of’ the 47th president, a reference to Trump, although Comey has not publicly commented on the potential political connotations of his post. The Secret Service has taken the lead in investigating the post, which has prompted speculation about the broader implications of social media activity in political contexts.
The meeting with Secret Service officials is reportedly being arranged to determine the extent of Comey’s involvement in the post and any potential violations of federal law. While Comey has not made any public statements regarding the investigation, his former role as FBI Director has made the case a subject of public interest. The FBI and Department of Justice may become involved if the Secret Service determines that further legal action is necessary. As the investigation unfolds, it remains unclear what the outcome will be, but the case has already sparked a broader discussion about the role of social media in political discourse.
Despite the controversy, Comey has remained largely uninvolved in political commentary since leaving the FBI in 2017. However, the nature of the post and its implications have reignited public interest in his actions and statements. The Secret Service’s involvement in the case marks a rare instance where social media activity is being scrutinized by federal law enforcement agencies. As the case continues, it may set a precedent for how such posts are treated in the future, especially in relation to political figures and their online behavior.