A Florida congressional candidate sells "8647" hats for $29.99 on his campaign website. Hundreds of similar products sit on Amazon and Etsy. And a former FBI director now faces two felony counts for posting a photo of seashells arranged in those same four digits. The gap between those facts raises a question the Justice Department has not fully answered: where does political shorthand end and a criminal threat begin?
James Comey was indicted Tuesday on charges that his Instagram post, seashells on a beach, shaped into the numbers 8647, constituted a threat against President Donald Trump, NBC News reported. The two-count felony indictment could send the former FBI chief to prison for years. It also lit a fuse under a broader debate about whether everyday Americans who buy, sell, or wear the same slogan might face the same legal exposure.
The answer from legal experts on both sides of the aisle: almost certainly not. But the fact that the question is even being asked tells you something about the selective way federal power is being applied, and about the double standard that has followed political speech for years.
Mark Davis is an Air Force veteran, a father of two, and a no-party-affiliated congressional candidate in Florida. He sells "8647" T-shirts and hats on his campaign website. He wears the hat around his predominantly conservative neighborhood. And he is not backing down.
Davis told NBC News plainly:
"Arrest us all. I dare you."
He said he recently took time off from wearing his campaign hat but plans to put the "8647" merchandise on every day until his congressional election. His reasoning is blunt: he believes the country is being "dragged through chaos" and that millions of Americans refuse to sit down and shut up.
Davis described the phrase as a restaurant term, "86" means to remove or eject, not to harm, paired with "47," a reference to the 47th president. He acknowledged that some people read it as threatening, but he framed it as a response to what he called years of intimidation.
"I am disappointed in America right now, and I've never said that. I've been in the military. I'm a patriot. I love this country."
He added: "This isn't about being left or right for me. I'm not even a Democrat. This is about people feeling like they're allowed to speak without getting targeted."
The legal threshold for criminalizing speech like "8647" is steep, and two former federal prosecutors explained why ordinary sellers and buyers are unlikely to face prosecution. The key concept is the "true threat" standard, the government must prove that a speaker intended, or consciously disregarded the risk, that their words would be understood as a serious expression of intent to commit violence against the president.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told NBC News that "8647 is not a true threat to the president" and that "'86' means to kick someone out, not kill them." Rahmani said it is possible others could be prosecuted but that "no judge in the country will find that someone acted intentionally or that they willfully intended to communicate a threat to the president based on 86 alone."
That assessment extended to the Comey case itself. Rahmani predicted the charges would be dismissed, calling it a potential "embarrassing loss for federal prosecutors."
Former federal prosecutor Katie Cherkasky laid out both sides of the courtroom argument. The defense, she said, will point to Merriam-Webster's definition of "86" as slang for ejecting, dismissing, or removing someone, and argue that ambiguity should resolve in favor of protected speech. Prosecutors, meanwhile, will argue that Comey is not a random social media user but a public figure with a career in the FBI, aware of the polarizing political environment, and that this context elevates the post beyond casual commentary.
That distinction matters. The government's theory against Comey rests not just on the numbers but on who posted them and what investigators believe he understood. That is a very different case from a Florida veteran selling hats or an Etsy shop hawking $17.99 "classic vintage 80s" versions of the same slogan.
The most uncomfortable fact in this story is not the indictment itself. It is the selective application. During President Joe Biden's term, the phrase "8646" circulated widely as a call to remove the 46th president from office. Far-right political pundit Jack Posobiec posted the phrase on social media. Those posts remain live on X. No indictment followed. No DHS investigation was reported. No Secret Service questioning materialized.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked about this on "CBS Mornings" Wednesday, specifically, whether he would prosecute Posobiec for his "8646" posts. His answer was procedural, not substantive. As we reported when Blanche flatly denied that Trump ordered the Comey prosecution, the acting AG has been careful to frame the case as a product of the grand jury process, not political direction.
Blanche said on CBS:
"That's not how a grand jury does its work. They don't just look at a single image and then say, 'OK, yes, we'll indict,' or 'OK, no, we won't indict.' They do an investigation."
He added that he had "no idea whether there was an investigation into the other times that that post has been made and whether that investigation yielded different results." He acknowledged that threats against President Trump are made every day and that "every one of those are not indicted. It depends on the facts of every case."
That is a reasonable legal principle stated in the abstract. But it does nothing to explain why the same four-digit formula, used by thousands of Americans, sold on hundreds of products, posted across every major platform, triggered a federal prosecution only when it came from James Comey.
Comey has maintained his innocence. He deleted the seashell photo. In a May Instagram post after removing it, he said he assumed the shells he saw on a beach walk were "a political message" and that he "didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence." He said he opposed violence "of any kind."
That explanation is either sincere or carefully lawyered, and a jury may eventually decide which. But it is worth noting that the Department of Homeland Security previously investigated Comey over the post, and the Secret Service questioned him about it, before the indictment came down. This was not a snap decision. The government had time, resources, and investigative tools. It chose to proceed.
Comey was also federally indicted last year on suspicion of making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional proceedings. Those charges were later dismissed. The pattern, charge, dismiss, charge again on different grounds, raises fair questions about whether the legal system is being used to keep one man perpetually under threat of prosecution. The political environment around threats to presidents has grown more volatile in recent years, a reality underscored by incidents like the assassination attempt on Trump that drew international condemnation.
Hundreds of "8647" products remain for sale on Amazon, Etsy, and other retailers. Neither Amazon nor Etsy immediately responded to NBC News requests for comment. Merchandise bearing the "8646" slogan from the Biden era is also still available on both platforms.
Davis sells his gear for $29.99. Others list similar items for less. The market is open, the products are visible, and the sellers are not hiding. If "8647" is a criminal threat, then every one of those transactions is a potential federal case. If it is protected political speech, as two former federal prosecutors said, then the Comey indictment stands on shakier ground than the Justice Department wants to admit.
The broader cultural question is whether political speech in America now depends on who says it rather than what is said. The era in which public figures handled political tension with grace feels distant. Today, the same four numbers can be a hat, a felony, or a punchline, depending on the speaker's name and the prosecutor's appetite.
Davis, the Florida candidate, captured the frustration of Americans watching this play out. He said his stance has nothing to do with party loyalty. It has to do with whether citizens can express political discontent without becoming federal targets.
The spectacle of Washington's political theater, from correspondents' dinners to grand jury rooms, often obscures a simple principle. The First Amendment does not protect threats. But it does protect political speech, even speech that is sharp, uncomfortable, and directed at the most powerful person in the country.
If the government wants to prosecute "8647," it needs to explain why it starts with a former FBI director and stops there, while hundreds of hats, shirts, and stickers keep shipping.
Equal justice under law means something. Or it doesn't. The Comey case will tell us which.
