BOULDER COLORADO TERRORIST ATTACK AND JAMES COMEY’S PROVOCATION
TERRORIST THREW A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL AT A JEWISH GATHERING
BY SNN.BZ STAFF
A Call for Severe Consequences for both Mohamed Sabry Soliman and James Comey.
The suspect in the Boulder, Colorado terrorist attack on June 1, 2025, has been identified as Mohamed Sabry Soliman. The 45-year-old Egyptian national entered the U.S. on a B1/B2 tourist visa during the Biden administration but illegally overstayed his visa, has been confirmed.
No One Gets a Pass: Threats Against President Trump Demand Accountability
The reckless actions of former FBI Director James Comey, who posted an Instagram photo of seashells spelling “8647” on May 15, 2025, have ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising serious questions about accountability for threats against President Donald Trump. The post, widely interpreted as a coded call to “kill” (86) the 47th president, comes in the wake of two assassination attempts against Trump in 2024 and a deadly terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1, 2025.
Comey’s claim that he was unaware of the violent implications of “86” is a lie. A man of his law enforcement background and experience, and his dismissive appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert only amplified the danger of his rhetoric. My strong position is that no one—not even a former FBI director—should be given a pass for threatening the President, and Comey’s actions warrant serious consequences, including incarceration, to deter others from normalizing such dangerous behavior.
The “8647” Seashell Post: A Reckless Act
On May 15, 2025, James Comey posted an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to spell “8647” with the caption, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” The combination of “86” (slang for “to get rid of” or “to kill” in contexts like mafia terminology) and “47” (referring to Trump as the 47th president) was immediately seen as a potential threat, especially given two assassination attempts against Trump in 2024. The Secret Service launched an investigation, interviewing Comey on May 17, 2025, while FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed the bureau was probing “copycat threats” inspired by the post. The “8647” imagery has since appeared on anti-Trump merchandise and in street protests, amplifying its reach and raising fears it could inspire unstable individuals.
Comey deleted the post and claimed he and his wife found the shells on a beach, interpreting them as a “clever political message” without violent intent. On MSNBC, he insisted “86” reminded him of “ditching a place” from his youth or his wife’s restaurant days, where it meant removing an item from the menu. He called accusations of a threat “crazy.” On May 20, 2025, he appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, blaming his wife for suggesting he post it and downplaying the backlash. This casual dismissal, on a national comedy show no less, has fueled outrage, with critics arguing it trivializes a serious issue in a climate already charged with violence.
Comey’s Excuse Doesn’t Hold Water
Comey’s claim of ignorance about the “86” slang is hard to believe. As FBI director from 2013 to 2017, he oversaw investigations into organized crime, terrorism, and political threats, where coded language and slang are routine. Social media posts, like one from
@TonySeruga, point out his exposure to FBI Hostage Response Team members and snipers, making it implausible he wouldn’t know “86” can mean “to kill” in certain contexts, as noted by Merriam-Webster and urban slang dictionaries. His public feud with Trump—who fired him in 2017 over the Russia investigation—and his endorsements of Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024 suggest a personal animus that could have motivated a provocative post. The timing, during a book promotion tour, further implies he sought attention, knowing the post would stir controversy.
The Boulder, Colorado, attack on June 1, 2025, by Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a Jordanian national, underscores the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric. Soliman’s attack killed Rabbi Menachem “Manny” Fabian, a 44-year-old rabbi, and injured eight others, including a Holocaust survivor, at a pro-Israel demonstration on Pearl Street Mall. While no direct evidence links Comey’s post to Soliman’s actions, the broader concern is that high-profile figures like Comey normalizing “8647” could embolden unstable individuals to act violently, whether against Trump or others. The spread of “8647” as a protest slogan shows how quickly such rhetoric can take hold.
No One Is Above the Law
Threatening the President is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Comey’s defenders, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argue his post is protected by the First Amendment, as it lacks the intent, likelihood, and immediacy required for a “true threat” under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Legal experts like Jonathan Turley note that prosecution would be challenging, given Comey’s deletion of the post and denial of violent intent. However, the court of public opinion—particularly among Trump supporters—sees his actions as reckless and malicious, driven by personal vendetta. Trump himself called Comey a “dirty cop,” while officials like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have demanded jail time. FBI Director Kash Patel highlighted the strain on resources to investigate copycat threats, underscoring the real-world impact.
President Trump’s zero-tolerance stance on threats is clear. His January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14164 directs the Justice Department to pursue the death penalty for severe crimes, including those against law enforcement or public officials. In a March 4, 2025, speech to Congress, Trump called for a mandatory death penalty for killing law enforcement officers, signaling his administration’s resolve. The recent push to seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione for the 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson shows this policy in action. If Comey’s post were deemed an intentional threat, incarceration would be the minimum consequence, with broader implications for deterring others.
The Danger to the Vulnerable
Comey’s actions are particularly dangerous because they risk influencing the mentally unstable. His high profile as a former FBI director and his platform on The Late Show amplify the reach of his message. The “8647” post, even if intended as a political jab, could be misinterpreted by those with mental instability as a tacit endorsement of violence against Trump. The 2024 assassination attempts and the Boulder attack, which left Rabbi Fabian dead and eight injured, highlight the volatile climate. Comey’s failure to anticipate this, given his expertise, is not just negligent—it’s a betrayal of the responsibility that comes with his former role.
A Call for Incarceration
No one should be given a pass for threatening the President, regardless of their status. Comey’s experience makes his “I didn’t know” defense indefensible, and his flippant attitude on national television only compounds the offense. While legal hurdles may complicate prosecution, the principle is clear: actions that endanger the President or public safety demand consequences.
Incarceration under 18 U.S.C. § 871 would send a strong message that even coded threats, especially from someone of Comey’s stature, will not be tolerated. At a minimum, Comey should face professional sanctions or congressional hearings to address the damage caused by his recklessness.
James Comey’s “8647” seashell post was not a harmless beach photo—it was a reckless act that fueled a dangerous narrative in a time of heightened threats against President Trump. His claim of ignorance and casual dismissal on The Late Show are unacceptable for a former FBI director, whose actions risk inspiring unstable individuals.
No one, not even Comey, should escape accountability for threatening the President. Incarceration is a fitting consequence and the very least that should occur to deter others and protect public safety. The law must be clear: threats against Trump or any leader will face severe repercussions, no exceptions.
B1/B2 tourist visa during the Biden administration but illegally overstayed his visa
