Federal investigators asked a former Gambino crime family underboss whether ex-FBI Director James Comey understood "86" as a reference to killing, and the interview now anchors Comey's defense, not the prosecution's case.
A sworn affidavit filed by Comey's defense lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that an FBI case agent called Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano on May 8, 2026, to discuss the meaning of the term "86", the number at the center of federal charges against the former FBI director. Gravano, who cooperated with Comey during the 1990s Gambino prosecution, told the agent that Comey "had to know" what the term meant "as it related to killing someone." But the full picture that emerged from Gravano's statements cut against the government's theory in ways the DOJ may not have anticipated.
Comey faces two federal charges, threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, stemming from a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to spell "86 47." The Department of Justice alleges the post was a reference to killing President Donald Trump, the 47th president. Comey removed the post shortly after publishing it and has denied any violent intent. His defense team filed motions to dismiss the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Fitzgerald's affidavit, filed approximately in July 2026, is part of that effort.
The affidavit lays out two separate interactions between the FBI and Gravano. The first was the May 8 phone call, during which Gravano offered his initial opinion that Comey "had to know" the meaning of "86." But the second, a recorded interview lasting 25 minutes, produced a more complicated picture for prosecutors.
During the recorded interview, Gravano told investigators that "86" generally means to "get rid of" and that to him, as a "gangster," it means "to kill." He characterized Comey's post as a "let's kill Trump" message. But Gravano did not claim the post was a statement that Comey would personally kill the president, a distinction that matters when the charge is making a direct threat.
Gravano also told investigators he did not recall ever discussing the term "86" with Comey. That detail matters because the prosecution's theory rests partly on Comey's experience as lead prosecutor in the 1990s Gambino case, United States v. John Gambino, where Gravano was a cooperating witness. If the term never came up between them during that case, the argument that Comey absorbed mob slang through his prosecutorial work loses force.
FBI searches of the Gambino case materials themselves turned up zero references to "86," according to the affidavit. The government's own records, in other words, failed to support the government's own claim.
The Washington Examiner reported that Gravano went further, telling investigators that mobsters themselves would be unlikely to use "86" as violent terminology because it was too obvious. A separate affidavit from former federal prosecutor and judge John Gleeson called the claim that "86" is mafia jargon for "kill" outright "preposterous."
Fitzgerald's affidavit is not the only front in Comey's defense. His legal team has also alleged that investigators made false statements and that the Secret Service tracked Comey's cellphone without a warrant. Internal agents reportedly warned that the tracking was legally questionable and that no one faced immediate danger, a detail that, if confirmed, could raise serious Fourth Amendment problems for the prosecution.
The case has already hit procedural turbulence. Comey's first indictment was dismissed after a judge ruled the prosecutor who brought it was illegally appointed. The current indictment, AP News reported, is being driven by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal lawyer. The lead prosecutor in the case has also stepped down, with an assistant U.S. attorney stepping in.
The broader context of FBI investigations involving political figures has drawn heightened public scrutiny in recent years, and the Comey prosecution sits squarely in that crossfire.
Prosecutors have not backed down. In their own filings, the DOJ argued that "there is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey's post could read it to mean Kill President Trump," Just The News reported. They pointed to a text message from Comey's wife sent just two minutes before the post, a screenshot defining "86" as "to get rid of or refuse service." Prosecutors also cast doubt on Comey's claim that he stumbled upon the seashell arrangement, noting the shells were found four miles from his beach property with no witnesses and no evidence anyone else arranged them.
That timeline, wife sends a definition of "86," Comey posts "86 47" two minutes later, is the strongest circumstantial card in the government's hand. It suggests awareness, not innocence. And the absence of any witness who saw the shells before Comey photographed them leaves his "I just found them" story without corroboration.
Comey has maintained his position publicly. In May 2025, he told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace:
"I don't see it the way some people are still saying it is, but again, I don't want any part of any violence. I've never been associated with violence, and so that's why I took it down."
He also described the post as someone else's handiwork, saying he found the display and thought it was "a clever way to express a political view." He added that "somebody with artistic flair did that" and that he had "a hard time believing it was anybody with a dark intention."
Questions about the FBI's institutional credibility have surfaced repeatedly under the current administration, from disputes over FBI Director Kash Patel's role to debates about how the bureau handles politically sensitive cases.
Conservative legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in National Review, argued the indictment is constitutionally weak. McCarthy called the conduct "wholly permissible political speech" and said the simplest reason to throw out the case is that "the indictment fails to state a crime." He pointed to Supreme Court precedent on the distinction between protected speech and actionable threats, a legal line the prosecution would need to cross to survive a First Amendment challenge before Judge Louise Flanagan in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Comey responded to the second indictment with a written statement: "Well, they're back, this time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago, and this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary."
Acting Attorney General Blanche, for his part, framed the case as routine enforcement. "While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute," Blanche said.
The tension between those two positions, Comey's insistence on First Amendment protection and the DOJ's claim that the post crossed into criminal territory, will likely be resolved by the court's ruling on the pending motions to dismiss. The case also unfolds against a backdrop of ongoing debates about the proper scope of FBI investigations under the current administration.
Set aside the legal arguments for a moment and look at what the government actually built. Prosecutors have a two-minute gap between a wife's text defining "86" and a husband's Instagram post using that exact number. They have no witness who saw the seashells before Comey did. They have a defendant who took the post down quickly, which can read as consciousness of guilt or, just as easily, as someone realizing how a post looked.
And they have Sammy the Bull. The FBI went to a former mob underboss to establish that a former FBI director understood gangland slang. Gravano obliged, up to a point. He said Comey "had to know." But he also said he never discussed the term with Comey, said real mobsters wouldn't use "86" because it's too obvious, and declined to call the post a personal threat. The FBI's own search of the Gambino case files came up empty.
The defense filed all of this in a sworn affidavit. The prosecution's star witness on intent became the defense's best exhibit on overreach.
Whether the DOJ can clear the First Amendment bar remains an open question. But when your case depends on a mob informant, and the informant's full testimony helps the other side, the foundation looks shaky. The credibility of federal investigators is already under a microscope, and cases like this one do nothing to sharpen the focus.
If the government wants to hold a former FBI director accountable, it needs a case built on more than seashells and a gangster who talked his way onto the wrong team's witness list.