Former FBI Director James Comey found himself in the crosshairs of federal surveillance over a beachside photo of seashells. Yes, you read that right.
Mediaite reported that a social media post with a threatening message has spiraled into a saga of unmarked cars, phone tracking, and Secret Service interviews, raising eyebrows about government overreach.
The story boils down to this: Comey posted a picture of seashells spelling "86 47," which some in the Trump administration interpreted as a dangerous anti-Trump message, prompting the Secret Service to tail him from North Carolina to Virginia, monitor his phone, and haul him in for questioning despite no evidence of a real threat.
Let’s start at the beginning. The day after Comey shared his cryptic seashell artwork online, the Secret Service ordered law enforcement to keep tabs on him. Whether it was the Secret Service itself or local authorities doing the legwork remains a murky detail.
Picture this: Comey and his wife, enjoying a vacation in North Carolina, suddenly have unmarked cars and plainclothes officers on their tail.
They were followed back to their Virginia home. It’s the kind of scene you’d expect in a spy thriller, not the life of a former FBI chief.
Waiting for Comey at his Virginia residence were federal authorities, ready to escort him to Washington for an interview. Meanwhile, three government officials confirmed to The New York Times that his phone was under surveillance. Talk about Big Brother keeping a close eye.
Social media, predictably, exploded over the "86 47" post, with many in the president’s circle claiming it hinted at violence or even assassination plans against Donald Trump. Comey, for his part, quickly deleted the post. He later insisted he had no idea the phrase carried any violent undertone.
During a phone interview with the Secret Service, Comey assured them he posed no threat to the president. You’d think that would be the end of it, especially for someone with his background leading the nation’s top law enforcement agency. But the intensity of the tracking has left many scratching their heads.
Former Secret Service officials weighed in, noting that for someone like Comey—with no history of violence—an investigation should’ve wrapped up once it was clear there was no immediate danger.
As The New York Times reported, “Typically, that would have been the extent of an investigation.” Yet, here we are, with federal resources deployed as if he were a clear and present danger.
Let’s dismantle that quote for a moment. If the standard protocol is to de-escalate once there’s no threat, why the cloak-and-dagger routine? It smells like a political fishing expedition rather than a genuine security concern, especially given the bad blood between Comey and Trump since his 2017 firing.
Speaking of that firing, it’s no secret that Trump, who dismissed Comey during his first term, has publicly called for investigations into his former FBI director.
From IRS inquiries to FBI probes, the calls for retribution have been loud and clear. While a White House official claims the Secret Service acted independently, the timing and fervor of this pursuit raise questions.
The Secret Service justified their actions by citing “exigent” circumstances, though what exactly qualifies as urgent here is anyone’s guess.
With Trump traveling in the Middle East at the time, it’s hard to see how a seashell photo constituted an emergency. This feels more like bureaucratic overzealousness than a rational response.
Comey’s past as an Obama appointee and his rocky history with Trump only add fuel to the speculation of political motivations. Yet, both Comey’s representative and the Secret Service stayed tight-lipped when pressed for comment by The New York Times. Silence often speaks louder than words, doesn’t it?
Conservatives like us often champion limited government, so this kind of heavy-handed surveillance should give pause. If the state can justify tracking a high-profile figure over a misinterpreted photo, what’s stopping them from overreaching into the lives of everyday citizens? It’s a slippery slope, and we’d be wise to watch where it leads.