2026-05-01T12:53:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
撰稿
雅各布·罗森 司法部记者
杰克·罗森是负责报道美国司法部的记者。此前他曾担任竞选数字记者，报道特朗普总统2024年竞选活动，还曾担任《与玛格丽特·布伦南面对面》节目的助理制片人。
阅读完整简历
更新时间：2026年5月1日 / 美国东部时间下午2:55 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯—— 本周联邦大陪审团投票起诉前联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米，指控其涉嫌威胁特朗普总统，科米因此面临第二轮刑事指控。
但法律专家预计，这项指控将在多个层面遭到抗辩，他们认为科米不太可能因现已删除的Instagram帖子受审，该帖子展示了一组排列成数字“86 47”的贝壳照片。
起诉书称，该帖子可以被合理解读为“严肃表达伤害美国第47任总统的意图”。特朗普在Truth Social平台上表示：“‘86’是黑帮术语，意为‘干掉他’。” 韦氏词典将“86”定义为俚语，意为“扔掉”或“摆脱”，并指出该表达在餐厅厨房中常用。
“如果仅仅因为在沙滩上摆放贝壳并附上模糊信息就能指控某人，且如果这就算威胁、就算刑事言论，那么第一修正案将面临严重危机，”佩斯大学法学教授、前曼哈顿联邦检察官办公室刑事部门主管佩里·卡尔博内告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻。
这位前联邦调查局局长周三出席了联邦法院庭审。他尚未正式抗辩，但在Substack平台发布的视频中宣称：“我依旧无罪。”
“此案对政府而言将是真正的挑战，”北卡罗来纳大学刑法专家、法学教授卡里萨·伯恩·赫西克告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻。“除了科米可能提出的选择性起诉和报复性起诉主张——他去年首次被起诉时就提出过这类主张——政府此次提出的具体指控还存在相当重大的法律争议。”
这是特朗普政府治下的司法部对科米提起的第二起刑事案件。他首次被起诉是在去年9月，罪名是两项向国会撒谎的刑事指控。他曾以多项理由要求驳回这些指控，包括辩称检方存在报复性和选择性起诉。
一名法官最终驳回了此案，理由是检察官林赛·哈利根的任命非法。法院未就科米以检方存在报复性和选择性起诉为由要求驳回起诉书的主张作出裁决。
预计科米将再次辩称，因其受保护的言论和特朗普对他的敌意，他遭到了非法的针对性起诉。周三出庭期间，科米的律师帕特·菲茨杰拉德告诉法庭，辩方计划提交动议驳回此案，理由是检方存在报复性和选择性起诉。
科米去年5月将这张成为起诉书核心的照片发布到社交媒体上，但不久后便删除了该图片，并在随后的帖子中写道，他在海滩散步时看到了别人摆放的这些贝壳，以为“86 47”是在传递一个政治信息。科米表示，他并未意识到有人将这些数字与暴力联系在一起。
“真实威胁”还是受保护的言论？
起诉书称，科米“明知且故意”通过在Instagram上发布贝壳照片，威胁杀害或伤害特朗普总统。
最高法院已裁定“真实威胁”不受第一修正案保护，并为认定何为真实威胁设定了高标准。
“言论需要呼吸空间，第一修正案不允许国家以最偏执的方式解读言论内容，从而赋予言论最险恶的含义，”密歇根大学法学教授伦·尼霍夫告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻。“我们会宽厚地解读言论，给其充足的表达空间。因言论含糊不清而起诉，这完全违背了第一修正案的要求。”
至少有两起最高法院判例与科米的案件相关。第一起是196年判决的沃茨诉美国案，该案涉及抗议者罗伯特·沃茨三年前在一场反对警察暴行的集会上发表的言论，他当时称：“如果哪天我不得不扛枪，第一个要瞄准的就是林登·约翰逊”——指的是时任总统林登·B·约翰逊。
最高法院裁定，沃茨的言论属于粗俗的政治夸张，不构成法律意义上的真实威胁。
第二起案件是2023年判决的科特曼诉科罗拉多州案。该案争议涉及一名科罗拉多男子，他因在Facebook上向当地歌手发送威胁性信息而被根据州法律起诉。
最高法院裁定，要证明某一真实威胁不属于第一修正案保护范畴，政府必须证明被告至少主观上知晓其言论具有威胁性质。为证明这一点，检方必须证明行为人“有意识地无视”其言论可能被视为威胁的重大风险。
结合科米案件的事实，专家们怀疑司法部能否证明科米的言论不受第一修正案保护。
“这篇帖子显然属于受保护的政治言论范畴。最高法院已经明确表示，即使是夸张或某些人认为过激的政治表达，只要未跨越真正威胁的界限，就应受到保护，”卡尔博内说。“要证明存在真实威胁，不能仅靠挑衅性言论，还需要严肃表达实施非法暴力的意图，而我认为本案中并不存在这一点。”
2015年的另一起最高法院判例埃隆尼斯诉美国案，明确了检方在起诉科米所违反的其中一项联邦法律——跨州传播威胁信息——时必须证明的内容。在该案中，最高法院表示，仅证明理性的人会认为某一言论具有威胁性是不够的。相反，法律要求检方证明行为人“出于发出威胁的目的，或明知该言论会被视为威胁”而传输该通信。
迈克尔·德雷文曾是科米首次起诉案辩护团队成员，也是前副司法部副部长，他曾在2015年的这起案件中代表政府在最高法院出庭，但大法官最终裁定被告安东尼·埃隆尼斯胜诉。
“甚至无需涉及宪法问题，本案法官就可以仅以政府指控科米的行为未落入刑事法律范畴为由驳回指控，”赫西克说。“这是第一层抗辩。第二层抗辩是，即使该行为符合法律规定，它是否违反了第一修正案？”
其他人也曾发布“86”
代理司法部长托德·布兰奇本周早些时候宣布起诉以来，评论人士指出，知名保守派人士也曾使用“86”一词指代政客。
2024年，佛罗里达州前共和党众议员马特·盖兹在X平台上写道：“我们已经‘86’了：麦卡锡、麦克丹尼尔、麦康奈尔”，此前众议院前共和党领袖凯文·麦卡锡、前共和党全国委员会主席罗娜·麦克丹尼尔和参议院前共和党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔宣布辞去领导职务。
2022年，右翼影响者杰克·波西比耶克发布了“86 46”，指代时任总统乔·拜登。
当被问及这些言论以及司法部是否会对使用该短语的其他人提起指控时，布兰奇表示，这将取决于调查和“各种因素”。
但个人自由与表达基金会公共倡导主任亚伦·特尔警告称，科米这类案件可能会产生更广泛的寒蝉效应。
“这不仅向科米，也向所有人传递了一个信号：他们最好小心谈论政府的言论，否则下一个就是他们，”他告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻。“许多人可能会理性地选择自我审查，以免政府拿他们做典型，剥夺他们的自由。”
此外，作为前联邦调查局局长、副司法部长和联邦检察官，科米能够聘请到曾在最高法院最高层级辩护的律师，也拥有更多资源对抗指控——这是大多数美国人无法企及的。
“我们的民主基于人人能够公开表达政治观点和对政府的看法这一理念，”特尔说。“任何人都不应仅仅因为批评总统就担心联邦政府动用全部力量打压他们。这与我们民主的一切宗旨背道而驰。”
Ex-FBI Director James Comey faces charges over “86 47” post. But how far will the case get?
2026-05-01T12:53:00-0400 / CBS News
By
Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter
Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
Read Full Bio
Updated on: May 1, 2026 / 2:55 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — Former FBI Director James Comey is facing a second round of criminal charges after a federal grand jury voted this week to indict him for allegedly making threats against President Trump.
But legal experts expect that the indictment will be challenged on multiple grounds, and they believe it’s unlikely Comey will stand trial on charges arising out of a now-deleted Instagram post which showed a photo of seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47.”
The indictment alleges the post could reasonably be interpreted as “a serious expression of intent to do harm” to the 47th president of the United States. Mr. Trump said on Truth Social, “’86’ is a mob term for ‘kill him.’” Merriam-Webster defines “86” as slang meaning “to throw out” or “get rid of,” and notes the expression is commonly used in restaurant kitchens.
“If you can charge somebody for arranging seashells in the sand with an ambiguous message, if that’s a threat, if that’s criminal speech, then the First Amendment is in serious jeopardy,” said Perry Carbone, a law professor at Pace University and former chief of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.
The former FBI director appeared in federal court Wednesday. He has not yet entered a plea, though he declared in a video posted to Substack, “I’m still innocent.”
“This case is going to prove, I think, to be a real challenge for the government,” Carissa Byrne Hessick, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who is an expert in criminal law, told CBS News. “In addition to claims that Comey will be able to raise about selective and vindictive prosecutions, which are claims that he raised last year when he was indicted, there are also pretty significant legal issues associated with the particular charges that the government decided to bring.”
This is the second criminal case that the Justice Department under Mr. Trump has brought against Comey. He was first indicted in September on two criminal counts alleging he lied to Congress. He sought to have those counts dismissed on numerous grounds, including the argument that the prosecution was vindictive and selective.
A judge ultimately did toss out the case, finding that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor, was unlawfully appointed to the job. The court never ruled on Comey’s effort to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution was vindictive and selective.
Comey is expected to again argue that he is being unlawfully targeted for prosecution because of his protected speech and Mr. Trump’s hostility toward him. During the appearance Wednesday, Comey’s lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, told the court that the defense plans to file a motion to dismiss the case because the prosecution is vindictive and selective.
Comey posted the photo at the center of the indictment to social media last May. But he deleted the image shortly after, writing in a subsequent post that he saw the shells, which had been laid out by someone else, while on a beach walk and assumed the phrase “86 47” was conveying a political message. Comey said he did not realize some associate the numbers with violence.
A “true threat” or protected speech?
The indictment states that Comey “knowingly and willfully” made a threat to kill or harm Mr. Trump through his post of the shells on Instagram.
The Supreme Court has ruled that “true threats” are not protected by the First Amendment, and it set a high bar for what qualifies as a true threat.
“Speech needs breathing room, and the First Amendment doesn’t allow the state to assign to speech the most sinister possible meaning that it might convey out of the most paranoiac reading of its content,” Len Niehoff, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told CBS News. “We read speech generously and give it plenty of room to work. Prosecuting speech because it’s ambiguous is exactly the opposite approach that the First Amendment dictates.”
At least two Supreme Court cases are relevant to Comey’s case. The first, Watts v. United States, was decided in 1969 and involved a remark protester Robert Watts made during a gathering about police brutality three years earlier, in which he stated, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ,” a reference to then-President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The high court ruled that Watts’ comment was crude political hyperbole and did not constitute a true threat under the law.
The second case, Counterman v. Colorado, was decided in 2023. The dispute involved a Colorado man who was charged under the state’s law with making threatening communications toward a local singer on Facebook.
The Supreme Court ruled that in order to show that a true threat is outside the bounds of the First Amendment, the government must demonstrate that a defendant had at least a subjective understanding of his statement’s threatening nature. To make this showing, prosecutors must prove a person “consciously disregarded a substantial risk” that his statements would be viewed as threatening.
Given the facts of Comey’s case, experts are skeptical that the Justice Department can show that Comey’s speech is not covered by the First Amendment.
“This post falls clearly within the ambit of protected political speech. The Supreme Court has made clear that even hyperbolic or what some might consider intemperate political expression, it’s protected unless it crosses the line into a real threat, a true threat,” Carbone said. “And it requires in order to prove a true threat more than just provocative language. It requires a serious expression of an intent to commit unlawful violence, and I don’t see that you have that here.”
One other Supreme Court case from 2015, Elonis v. U.S., lays out what prosecutors must prove under one of the federal statutes Comey is charged with violating: transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. In that case, the high court said that it is not enough for the government to show that a reasonable person would view a statement as a threat. Instead, the law requires prosecutors to show that a defendant transmits a communication “for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat,” the Supreme Court found.
Michael Dreeben, who was a member of Comey’s defense team in the first prosecution and is a former deputy solicitor general, argued the 2015 case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government, though the justices ended up ruling for the defendant, Anthony Elonis.
“Without even having to get to a constitutional question, the judge in this case could dismiss the charges just on the grounds that what the government has said that Comey did doesn’t fall within the criminal law,” Hessick said. “That’s one bite at the apple. The second bite at the apple is even if it falls within the law, does it violate the First Amendment?”
Others have posted “86”
Since acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment earlier this week, commentators have noted that prominent conservatives have also used the term “86” in reference to politicians.
In 2024, former GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida wrote on X, “we’ve now 86’d: McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell” after former House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced they were stepping down from their leadership positions.
In 2022, right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec posted “86 46,” a reference to then-President Joe Biden.
Asked about these other comments and if the Justice Department would pursue charges against others who use the phrase, Blanche said it would depend on an investigation and “all kinds of factors.”
But Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, warned that cases like Comey’s can have a wider chilling effect.
“It sends a message not just to Comey but to everyone else that they better watch what they say about the government or they could be next,” he told CBS News. “Many people may rationally choose to self-censor rather than risk the government making an example out of them and taking away their liberty.”
Plus, Comey, as a former FBI director, deputy attorney general and federal prosecutor, has access to lawyers who have argued at the highest level of the judiciary and more resources to fight the charges — which few Americans have.
“Our democracy is based on the idea that everybody is able to openly express their political views and their opinions about the government,” Terr said. “Nobody should have to fear the full weight of the federal government coming down on them just for expressing criticism of the president. That’s antithetical to everything our democracy stands for.”