Blue Press Journal

Tag: Rudy Giuliani

  • The Seashell Conspiracy: Inside James Comey’s Bizarre Legal Battle Over a Two-Digit Photo

    by Winston Wendell

    When I first saw that strange Instagram post—a line of seashells spelling out “86‑47”—I just figured it was some quirky ad for a beach café. Fast forward to May 2025, and somehow that simple picture blew up. Conspiracy theorists latched onto it. Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t stop talking about it on his podcast. And even wilder, it ended up at the center of a federal case against former FBI Director James Comey.

    Man in dark suit sitting at a wooden table in a law office

    I’ve spent the last two weeks digging through the mountain of urgent court documents that popped up Tuesday, trying to sort out what’s legit legal concern and what’s just loud theater. The indictment says Comey threatened President Donald Trump’s life by posting those shells, twisting “86” into mafia slang for “kill.” Prosecutors say all those years spent fighting organized crime gave Comey “special knowledge” about that kind of code, which—by Supreme Court standards—could turn an innocent beach photo into a genuine threat.

    What really got me was how much extra stuff the government threw together to back this up. Comey’s lawyers got their hands on a Secret Service memo showing agents immediately started high-alert tracking of his phone the second the post went up, tailing him as he drove from North Carolina to Northern Virginia. The memo even says agents “did not believe that anyone’s life was in immediate danger” but carried out the surveillance anyway—something the Fourth Amendment only allows in real emergencies.

    The same memo points out that Comey at first didn’t reveal exactly where he was, but then quickly agreed to meet agents in Washington, D.C. the next day. The New York Times wrote about this extreme tracking last year, but the new filings I reviewed actually include the search warrants the FBI used to dig into his Google and Apple accounts. One warrant, signed March 23, 2026, came barely days after former Attorney General Pam Bondi got ousted for refusing to go after Trump’s political enemies. Another, issued in May, is signed by a judge who’s kept anonymous on the public record.

    Even crazier, the whole government case leans on a single tipster—just called “Person 1.” This person angrily texted Comey’s wife, Patrice, after seeing the post and instantly phoned the Secret Service. The tipster’s idea that Comey “must have known the violent meaning of ‘86’” actually came straight from Giuliani’s May 20, 2025, podcast, where he claimed that any career mob-buster would get the reference. The FBI went back and interviewed this guy in April 2026, building their affidavit around his statements.

    But Comey’s defense isn’t just sitting around—his lawyers filed a six-page affidavit from John Gleeson, a longtime prosecutor-turned-lawyer who was a judge for a decade. Gleeson flat-out says “86” isn’t mob code for murder. He writes: “If ‘86’ were used to denote a killing, it would be laughable outside the context of depriving a man of liberty.” Even infamous mobster Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano testified that some outsiders might tie the word to violence, but real mobsters “never use it; it’s corny.”

    Honestly, to me, this case stands on a pile of cherry-picked pop-culture claims—a Slate interview with actress Darby Stanchfield about late-night show prep, a Giuliani podcast, and an Instagram post that could just as easily be a mellow beach vibe. Now Comey’s filed a motion asking Judge Louise Flanagan to toss the indictment on First Amendment grounds, arguing that posting “86‑47” doesn’t legally count as an actual threat.

    If the court agrees, Comey goes free, and we get a vital ruling that stops prosecutors from turning every bit of slang into a crime. Until then, this whole seashell conspiracy just proves how quickly a harmless photo can set off a political storm.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Jack Smith’s Testimony and the Truth Trump Never Wanted Revealed

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – The latest revelations from former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee offer a sobering reminder of how far Donald Trump and his allies were willing to go to hold onto power after losing the 2020 election. While the session was held behind closed doors, reports of what was said inside make clear why some Republican lawmakers, including Committee Chair Jim Jordan, had no interest in making the testimony public.

    Smith’s investigation—now dismissed—had sought to determine the extent of Trump’s direct involvement in efforts to overturn the election and his mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House. What’s emerging from this new account is not just a picture of political hardball, but of a deliberate campaign built on lies that even Trump’s closest associates didn’t believe.

    One of the most striking details involves Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and architect of his post-election legal strategy. Smith’s inquiry reveals Giuliani admitted he didn’t believe the conspiracy theories he promoted—and neither did Donald Trump. This confession undermines the “Stop the Steal” narrative: it was not based on genuine grievance, but a calculated deception to inflame supporters and delegitimize a lawful election.

    If Trump and Giuliani both knew their claims were false, then the entire post-election chaos—from the flood of lawsuits to the violence of January 6th—was built on a conscious lie. This undermines any argument that Trump was simply misled or acting out of misguided conviction. It paints a portrait of a leader willing to endanger democracy itself for personal gain.

    The Republicans who sought to limit public access to Smith’s testimony likely understood how damaging such revelations could be. A clear-eyed look at the evidence doesn’t just implicate Trump; it also raises uncomfortable questions about those in Congress who continue to defend him, even as the factual record grows darker.

    Trump’s defenders often dismiss these investigations as partisan witch hunts, but Smith’s work reveals a graver truth: a former president, aware of his loss, attempted to weaponize the government and his followers to maintain power. This behavior is not that of a patriot—it’s someone who views democracy as expendable.

    As more details come to light, the question is no longer whether Trump believed his own lies. It’s whether the country is prepared to hold him accountable for them.