Did James Comey Really Call for Trump’s Assassination?
May 20, 2025.png)
Key Takeaways
- Many Americans interpret James Comey’s “8647” post as a veiled threat against President Trump, demanding legal accountability.
- While the public supports Kash Patel investigating, MAGA critics question his competence and Cabinet viability.
- The incident has reignited deep concerns over selective enforcement and the erosion of institutional credibility in politically charged cases.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
1,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
Former FBI Director James Comey posted and then deleted an image of shell art in the sand which depicted “8647.” The post, which many interpreted as an implied threat against President Trump, were immediately outraged.
This controversial event exacerbates the fault lines of political symbolism, institutional trust, and the public's demand accountability. Many believe the implied symbolism of “8647” is a call for assassinating the 47th president. In response, Trump’s FBI Director Kash Patel announced he’s looking into the incident in coordination with the Secret Service.
Just James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 15, 2025
This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!! pic.twitter.com/4LUK6crHAT
Public Sentiment
MIG Reports data shows public response to Comey’s post and Patel’s announcement breaks down as follows:
- 45% demand Comey’s immediate arrest and prosecution
- 35% support a formal investigation without prejudging intent
- 20% are skeptical, viewing the probe as overreach or overreaction
These metrics emerge from online discussion in the 24-hour period following the viral post and Patel’s follow-up statement.
.png)
Interpreting The “8647” Code
For many on the right, “86” is universally understood as slang for eliminate, and “47” unmistakably refers to Trump, the 47th president. The outrage hinges on the fact that Comey—a career law enforcement official and former FBI Director—cannot credibly plead ignorance about the implications of using such coded language in public.
This is not merely about symbolic ambiguity. It comes against the backdrop of two assassination attempts on Trump and years of incitement normalized through double standards. While Comey defenders argue “86” does not necessarily imply violence, many say Trump and Comey’s histories add sinister layers to the symbol.
Roughly 60% of the total commentary discusses Comey's post as a direct threat, calling for law enforcement action. Elected officials, legal commentators, and former intelligence insiders echo the concern. Others, particularly on the left, dismiss the post as innocuous or turned accusations against MAGA, deepening the public divide.
.png)
Director Patel’s Response
Many see FBI Director Kash Patel’s public announcement that the FBI is cooperating with the Secret Service as a rare instance of proactive institutional response. It lands well among those who see a justice system rife with selective enforcement. His supporters applaud him for necessary and long-overdue counterattacks against deep state impunity.
We are aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump. We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) May 15, 2025
Yet Patel himself remains a divisive figure. While his defenders see him as one of the few willing to challenge entrenched intelligence networks, 70% of commentary referencing Patel expresses some kind of disapproval. There are concerns about Cabinet-level competence, past foreign consulting work, and perceived media unseriousness.
Only 10% of over sentiments express outright support for Patel as a credible institutional leader. The disconnect between his policy instincts and his public reputation is typical among MAGA figures, even for portions of the pro-Trump base.
.png)
Free Speech or Incitement?
Those who support investigating Comey argue that no American—especially a former FBI Director—should be allowed to post coded threats without scrutiny. Critics caution against criminalizing ambiguous speech.
The First Amendment defense has some traction, particularly among civil libertarians and institutional moderates, but it is undermined by the fact that similar defenses are rarely extended to Trump or his allies when critics accuse them of incitement.
Many Americans say, if leaders ignore coded language like “8647,” the precedent invites escalation. But if it’s prosecuted too aggressively, the chilling effect on speech could be real. But voters don’t care to parse the distinction. They want clarity and consequences.
Institutional Credibility and Double Standards
The backlash against Comey comes against a backdrop of years of perceived double standards—from Hillary Clinton’s emails to the Steele dossier to January 6 charges to the press suppressing Hunter Biden’s laptop story. For many, this moment is about cumulative grievances with a justice system that protects its own and punishes dissent.
Many view Director Patel’s announcement as an institutional correction—proof that some remnants of justice still exist. His critics say it’s political theater, but the broader takeaway is that the public no longer trusts institutions to apply laws evenly.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)