The Outrage Over James Comey’s Seashells
In an era where political rhetoric frequently veers into the territorial of extreme hostility, an innocuous social media post from former FBI Director James Comey has ignited a fierce tempest within MAGA circles. The post featured a serene picture of seashells arranging the numbers “8647.” Yet, as explosive accusations filled the air, declaring it a "threat" on President Donald Trump’s life, it raises critical questions about context, interpretation, and hypocrisy in political discourse.
The Reaction from MAGA Officials
Trump wasted no time in casting Comey’s post as a harbinger of violence, asserting in an interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant… That meant ‘assassination.’” Such accusations are striking, particularly given the past behaviors of many of those voicing outrage.
Matt Gaetz, a prominent figure in MAGA rhetoric, jumped onto the bandwagon, retweeting a letter from Rep. Andy Ogles demanding an investigation by the FBI and Secret Service into Comey’s actions. Gaetz’s indignation seems particularly rich, considering he previously used the term "86"—the same word he now condemns—to describe his efforts in reshaping Republican leadership.
The Hypocrisy of Language
In his eagerness to condemn, Gaetz appeared unaware of the double standards inherent in his viewpoints. Just a year prior, the former congressman tweeted that he had “now 86’d” several Republican leaders, boasting about his political maneuvers. When pressed about the apparent hypocrisy in his and others’ responses to Comey’s post, Gaetz distinguished his previous comments as retrospective, arguing, “I was speaking in the past tense about things that had already happened. Comey was putting out a call for future action.”
This distinction may not carry much moral weight in the eyes of critics. The sharp juxtaposition of outrage directed at Comey, paired with their prior relaxed interpretation of similar phrases, highlights a burgeoning culture of selective outrage in political discussions.
Voices in the MAGA Media Sphere
Adding fuel to the flames, Jack Posobiec, a controversial figure known for promoting conspiracy theories, asserted that Comey’s post was an incitation to violence against Trump. His indignation comes off as particularly ironic, given that he himself tweeted out the numbers “8646” in 2022—an anti-Biden code devoid of any elaboration but one that has been co-opted by merchandise calling for Biden’s impeachment.
Such contradictions do not go unnoticed by a growing cadre of commentators who emphasize the inconsistent standards applied by MAGA supporters. Critics point to the existence of anti-Biden merchandise that has effectively commodified similar phrases—raising concerns about the nature of selective morality in the political arena.
Social Media Spats and Irony
Drawing on the online confrontations sparked by Comey’s post, Mehdi Hasan, founder of Zeteo, pointed out the hypocrisy of GOP figures like Sen. Mike Lee, who lamented that Democrats would have jumped at the chance to imprison Trump had he made similar comments about Biden. Hasan countered, illustrating the growing pattern of utilizing aggressive imagery among Republicans without a corresponding backlash.
In a snarky retort, Brooklyn attorney Damin Toell sarcastically interrogated Posobiec’s military background, suggesting that he should also be held accountable for propagating language that could incite violence. These exchanges underscore a broader pattern of performing indignation while wielding similar language to undermine opponents.
Political Merchandise and Public Perception
Amidst the outrage, commentators like economist James Surowiecki verified that during Biden’s presidency, MAGA entities were selling “8646” merchandise without any public outcry implying a call for violence. This fact not only adds layers to the ongoing debate but serves to highlight the absurdity of the rapid escalation of rhetoric across party lines.
In striking contrast, Comey clarified that his post was merely a reflection of a beach walk and not intended as a call to violence. The former FBI director expressed disbelief at the associations made with his post, likening it to a misunderstanding rather than a signal for violent intent. His eventual decision to remove the post indicates an awareness of the sensitivity surrounding political imagery.
The Meaning Behind "86"
To fully grasp the dimensions of this controversy, one must understand the history of the term "86." It hails from a century-old slang expression originating in New York City, reportedly from a bar at 86 Bedford Street that became synonymous with ejecting unruly patrons. In current lingo, it signifies "throwing out" or "getting rid of," which comes with its layers of nuance—especially when applied to political contexts.
The correlation drawn between "86" and "47" in Comey’s seashell image—the latter referencing Biden’s position as the 47th president—adds yet another layer of interpretation that may not align with mainstream perceptions of violent threats.
With increasing instances of political imagery being weaponized to incite outrage, critical discussions around accountability, language, and selective interpretation will remain at the forefront of political discourse in these polarized times.
