Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California posted "86 47" on his X account Sunday, the same phrase that led a federal grand jury to indict former FBI Director James Comey on charges of threatening to assassinate President Trump.
Lieu's post, dated May 3, 2026, came as a response to a clip of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's appearance on "Meet the Press." In it, the congressman predicted the Justice Department would lose the Comey case, that Comey would receive a large monetary settlement for selective prosecution under a future administration, and that Blanche himself would be disbarred. He signed off with "86 47."
The timing is hard to miss. Just days earlier, a federal grand jury indicted Comey on charges stemming from a May 2025 Instagram post that depicted seashells arranged to spell "8647." Federal prosecutors treated that post as a threat against the president. And now a sitting member of Congress has posted the same coded message to his public social media feed.
Lieu's full post read:
"Here are three things that will happen: 1. DOJ will lose the Comey case. 2. In the next Administration, Comey will get a big monetary settlement for selective prosecution. 3. After this Administration ends, @DAGToddBlanche will get disbarred. 86 47"
The phrase "86" has long carried a meaning in restaurant and bar slang: to remove, discard, or get rid of something. Paired with "47", the number of the current president, the implication is plain enough that federal prosecutors built an indictment around it when Comey used it.
Lieu did not offer any alternative explanation for his use of the phrase. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has expressed skepticism about the DOJ's case against Comey, saying it could fail on First Amendment grounds. Whether that legal uncertainty makes it wise for a congressman to repeat the phrase is another question entirely.
This is not the first time Lieu has drawn attention for provocative public statements. During a Feb. 3 press conference that aired on C-SPAN, the congressman accused President Trump of raping children, a claim the Department of Justice has characterized as false, based on files involving Jeffrey Epstein.
Lieu's district includes Torrance, California, the same city where Cole Allen resided. Allen, a teacher, was charged in connection with an April 25 incident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in which he allegedly attempted to kill President Trump. In a manifesto, Allen reportedly called Trump a "pedophile" and "rapist." The overlap between Lieu's rhetoric and the language used by a man charged with attempting to assassinate the president from his own district raises uncomfortable questions about the consequences of reckless speech from elected officials.
Lieu is far from the only House Democrat engaging in conduct that many Americans would find extreme. House Democrats recently pushed an alcohol test on FBI Director Kash Patel under penalty of perjury, a move that struck many observers as more performative than substantive.
The broader pattern extends well beyond Lieu. Democrats in the House have pursued an aggressive posture against Trump administration officials across multiple fronts, from filing five impeachment articles against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to invoking the most dramatic constitutional mechanisms available.
President Trump has survived multiple threats and attacks. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he survived two assassination attempts, one during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and another while playing golf in West Palm Beach, Florida. As far back as June 2016, a man tried to grab a law enforcement officer's gun at a Las Vegas campaign event to shoot Trump.
The April 25 incident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner added another entry to that list. Trump's Cabinet was evacuated from the White House in connection with the threat.
Against that backdrop, a congressman choosing to publicly post the same coded phrase that got a former FBI director indicted is not a matter of free expression alone. It is a question of judgment, responsibility, and the kind of political climate elected leaders are choosing to create.
Lieu's message was also parroted by leftists during protests on Friday, showing how quickly inflammatory language from an elected official can spread into the streets.
Some House Democrats have gone even further in their confrontational stance. Members have introduced a 25th Amendment bill targeting Trump's removal from office, and the caucus has held formal briefings on the subject.
The contrast in how political rhetoric is policed depending on who speaks it remains one of the defining double standards of this era. Attorneys Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman faced organized efforts to strip their licenses to practice law for representing Trump during disputes over the 2020 election results. Lieu, meanwhile, openly predicts that Blanche will be disbarred, not as legal analysis, but as a political threat dressed in the language of prophecy.
When Comey posted "8647" on Instagram, federal prosecutors treated it as serious enough to bring before a grand jury. When a sitting congressman posts the identical phrase days later, in full knowledge of the indictment, the question is not whether the First Amendment protects his right to say it. The question is what it tells voters about his character and his priorities.
The inflammatory rhetoric from Democratic members of Congress has become a recurring feature of this political moment. Rep. Moulton recently accused Pete Hegseth of war crimes and invoked a Nazi execution analogy on CNN, another example of language calibrated more for provocation than for governance.
Meanwhile, House Democratic leadership has embraced 25th Amendment discussions as a caucus-level strategy, signaling that the party's most aggressive impulses are not confined to individual members but are becoming institutional.
Several things remain unclear. The specific charges and statutes in the Comey indictment have not been detailed in full. The exact remarks from Blanche's "Meet the Press" appearance that prompted Lieu's response have not been specified. And the White House has not yet issued a public response to Lieu's post.
What is clear is the sequence. A former FBI director was indicted for posting "8647." Days later, a Democratic congressman posted the same phrase. He did so knowingly, publicly, and with apparent defiance.
When the people who write the laws treat a federal indictment as a dare, the rest of us are entitled to wonder who exactly is undermining the rule of law.
