ECHO Reverb: 86 the Threat—When Shells and Numbers Spook the State

What do four numbers, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director, and the Secret Service have in common? Together, they serve us as a reminder—playfully but depressingly—that hiring intelligence and law enforcement professionals from diverse, even unconventional backgrounds is more than a strength. In some cases, it’s insurance against wasting precious time and public trust on investigations that never should have happened.

On Thursday, May 15, 2025, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Kristi Noem, announced that former FBI Director James Comey would be investigated for an alleged “assassination threat” directed toward President Trump (POTUS).

The alleged threat is comical at best: Earlier that day, Comey posted an image to his personal Instagram account depicting seashells in the sand forming “8647” with the caption “Cool formation on my beach walk.”

After an immediate backlash from political figures and pundits attempting to impose malicious meaning on the post, Comey deleted the photo and replaced it with a clarification: “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

As someone who once worked professionally to distinguish actual threats from noise in support of federal, state, and local partners—including USSS—this is embarrassing. Worse, it reflects a growing inability or blatant disinterest to distinguish between digital theatre and physical danger.

Several notes need to be made regarding DHS and USSS classifying this as a threat:

1. First, Observation ≠ Threat

According to Comey’s post, the shell formation was something he observed. If—and that’s a very cynical if— law enforcement were to prosecute this as a threat of assassination, the prosecution would be akin to arresting someone for photographing graffiti of a swastika and accusing them of hate speech.

2. Second, Context (Or Lack Thereof) Matters

Absent a caption implying harm and or explicit reference to any individual, the numbers “8647” are contextless. For investigators to classify this as a threat, they must assume an interpretation and impute intent—without evidence of either. As we all know—quoting Lee Child’s Jack Reacher character: “Assumptions kill.”

3. Legal Precedent Doesn’t Support It

In Watts v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that political hyperbole—even targeting the president—is protected speech. Watts said: “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”

SCOTUS ruled it was not a true threat. By comparison, Comey’s shell Instagram post barely meets the criteria of political innuendo, much less an incitement to or threat of violence.

4. Misreading “86”

The number “86” is interpreted here as a coded call to “take out” the president. But for anyone who’s ever worked long shifts in a diner, bar, or kitchen, “86” simply means “we’re out of it.”

“86 the special” = We’re sold out.

It seems neither POTUS, DHS Secretary Noem, nor the respective Secret Service personnel involved in this fiasco have worked a shift in food service—because if they had, this entire episode might have been 86’d before it started.

Widening the Scope: Why Background Diversity Matters

Joking aside, this incident is more than a social media misunderstanding. It underscores the critical need for professional and academic diversity in intelligence and law enforcement. People from outside the traditional pipeline—religious studies grads, systems engineers, even line cooks and wait staff—bring knowledge and instincts that can prevent wasteful investigations, avoid public embarrassment, and restore some balance to the signal-to-noise ratio in threat intelligence analysis.

So whether you’ve spent five years at a pizza joint or hold a degree in something DHS might not recognize as “relevant,” your common sense might be what these agencies have been missing.

Until next time—86 this post.

- Bishop