Federal investigators interviewed one of America's most notorious mob turncoats to determine whether former FBI Director James Comey knew the violent meaning of "86" when he posted the term alongside "47" on Instagram, and his defense team says the interview actually helps their case.

A sworn affidavit filed by Comey's defense lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that the FBI contacted Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, the former underboss of the Gambino crime family, on May 8, 2026, to ask whether Comey likely understood what "86" meant. Gravano told the FBI case agent during that phone call that Comey "had to know" what the term meant "as it related to killing someone." A subsequent recorded interview lasting 25 minutes followed, in which Gravano told the FBI that "86" generally means to "get rid of" and that to him, as a "gangster," it means "to kill."

The interview sits at the center of a high-profile criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, where the Department of Justice has charged the former FBI director with two federal counts: threatening the life of the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Prosecutors allege that Comey's May 2025 Instagram post, a photo of seashells arranged on a beach to spell out "86 47", was a reference to killing President Trump, the 47th president. Comey deleted the post shortly after publishing it and has denied any violent intent.

Gravano's own words cut both ways for the prosecution

Fitzgerald filed the affidavit in support of Comey's motions to dismiss the case. The defense's argument: even the government's own mob witness did not go as far as prosecutors need him to. Gravano characterized the Instagram post as meaning "let's kill Trump," but he did not claim that Comey was personally threatening to kill the president, a distinction that matters under the federal statute.

Gravano also told the FBI he did not recall ever discussing the term "86" with Comey. That detail matters because the two men share history. Comey served as lead prosecutor in the 1990s trial of United States v. John Gambino, and Gravano was one of the cooperating witnesses in that case. The prosecution's theory depends in part on the argument that Comey's experience prosecuting the Gambino family gave him firsthand knowledge of mob slang, including the lethal meaning of "86."

But the FBI's own search of Gambino case materials turned up no references to "86." Combined with Gravano's inability to recall any conversation with Comey about the term, the defense contends the prosecution's link between Comey's mob-trial experience and his Instagram post does not hold up.

Comey's defense clashes with prosecutors' evidence trail

Comey addressed the post publicly in a May 2025 interview with MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, shortly after deleting it. He framed the image as someone else's creative work that he found appealing.

"I actually didn't think of it as political speech by me, but I thought, 'What a clever way to express a political view.' The shells were the same color for each of the letters.... It took a lot of work."

He added that he did not believe the creator had any dark intention, "and it certainly was no dark intention on my part or my spouse's part." He also said he removed the post because he did not want "any part of any violence."

Prosecutors, however, have assembled evidence that complicates Comey's account. Federal court filings detailed by the Washington Examiner show that Comey's wife texted him a definition of "86" two minutes before he posted the seashell image, a timeline that undercuts his suggestion he was unaware of the term's violent connotation. Prosecutors also cited a message Comey sent to his publishing agent after the image went viral, in which he said he would be "OK if it sells books." And in a detail the government flagged in its filings, Comey published a novel around the same time in which the antagonist persuades followers to kill political rivals by communicating coded messages online.

The case has raised broader questions about DOJ independence and prosecution decisions under the current administration. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who announced the charges, has faced scrutiny over his prior role as Trump's personal lawyer.

Prosecutors insist the decision to indict was independent

In more than 100 pages of court filings, federal prosecutors pushed back on any suggestion that the case was politically directed. U.S. Attorney Ellis Boyle stated under oath that no one "ordered, directed, or pressured" his office to pursue the investigation or the indictment. AP News confirmed the two-count indictment was brought by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Blanche, for his part, framed the prosecution as routine enforcement. "Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice," Blanche said when announcing the charges. He noted that similar cases have been prosecuted regardless of the target's political affiliation, including a threat against former President Biden.

This is Comey's second federal indictment. His first, on charges of making false statements and obstruction, was dismissed after a judge ruled the prosecutor had been illegally appointed. The original prosecutor in the current case also stepped down, and an assistant U.S. attorney took over.

The case has unfolded against a backdrop of intensifying accountability efforts within the bureau Comey once led. FBI Director Kash Patel has moved to discipline officials responsible for past misconduct, and declassified records have exposed troubling conduct by senior intelligence figures in recent years.

Secret Service agents questioned the legal basis for surveilling Comey

Court documents filed by Fitzgerald also revealed friction inside the Secret Service over the government's response to Comey's post. Just The News reported that Secret Service agents and supervisors internally questioned whether they had legal authority to surveil Comey without a warrant. A mid-level supervisor wrote in an email that agents did not believe anyone's life was in danger, making warrantless surveillance legally questionable.

A top DOJ official overrode those objections and ordered the surveillance to proceed. On May 16, 2025, agents accessed Comey's location data and followed his vehicle through North Carolina. The defense has cited these internal objections as further evidence that the case was driven by political pressure rather than a genuine threat assessment.

Comey is scheduled for arraignment on September 30, with a tentative trial date of October 21. He has maintained his innocence throughout. "I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let's go," Comey said after the indictment was announced.

Separate declassified FBI documents have continued to surface showing patterns of questionable judgment by senior bureau officials during Comey's era and beyond, a record that provides context for why many Americans view the former director's protestations of innocence with deep skepticism.

Intent is the case's central battleground

Both sides understand that the prosecution rises or falls on proving Comey's state of mind when he posted the image. Blanche acknowledged the challenge directly. "How do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent it's appropriate. And that's how we'll prove intent in this case," the acting attorney general said.

The Gravano interview gives each side something to work with. Prosecutors can point to a former mob underboss, one who worked alongside Comey in a federal courtroom, telling the FBI that the former director "had to know" what "86" meant. The defense can point to the same witness saying he never discussed the term with Comey, and to the FBI's own failure to find the word anywhere in the Gambino case files.

Add the wife's text, the publishing-agent message, and the novel's plot, and prosecutors have built a circumstantial case that Comey knew exactly what he was posting. Subtract Gravano's inability to place "86" in any conversation with Comey, the absence of the term from the trial record, and the Secret Service's own internal doubts, and the defense has room to argue the whole thing was manufactured.

A former FBI director who spent his career putting mobsters away now finds his fate tied to the testimony of one of the most famous mobsters in American history. If the jury believes Comey understood what "86" meant and posted it anyway, his years of prosecutorial experience become the very thing that convicts him. That is a reckoning no amount of seashell artistry can explain away.