Ask A Genius 1388: James Comey’s “86 47” Tweet: Misinterpretation, Political Fallout, and Historical Parallels
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27
Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Rick Rosner talks about James Comey’s cryptic “86 47” tweet sparked backlash, with critics accusing him of inciting violence against Trump. Experts argue the phrase more likely implies political rejection. The controversy echoes past misjudgments by Comey and others, as media attention shifts from substantive issues like Republican tax proposals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The current controversy circulating on Twitter involves James Comey, the former Director of the FBI, who is often cited—particularly by critics of Hillary Clinton—as having contributed to Donald Trump’s election in 2016. Comey, sometimes perceived as politically miscalibrated, posted a tweet that simply read “86 47.” In this context, “47” is interpreted by many to refer to the 47th President of the United States, a title Donald Trump would hold if re-elected. The term “86” is widely used in the restaurant and bar industry to mean removing something from availability or ejecting a person.
Rick Rosner: This tweet has triggered backlash among Trump supporters. Some allege that Comey was encouraging violence, referencing a less common slang definition of “86” as meaning to kill or eliminate someone. While that interpretation does exist, it is obscure and rarely used in mainstream discourse. It is highly unlikely that Comey intended this meaning. Given the context and his background, it is more plausible that he was referencing the colloquial expression of rejecting or ejecting someone—in this case, suggesting that Trump should be politically rejected or removed from consideration for re-election.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
Despite this, accusations have surfaced on social media claiming that the tweet constituted a threat against Trump. Others have pushed back strongly, arguing that such claims are disingenuous or deliberately inflammatory. As someone with 25 years of experience working in bars, I am familiar with the most common meaning of “86,” which aligns with Comey’s likely intent. Moreover, a cultural reference that further illustrates the point is the 1960s sitcom Get Smart, in which the protagonist was Agent 86. Across seven seasons, the character never killed anyone and was often portrayed as inept or comedic, reinforcing the idea that “86” more often denotes removal or failure, not violence.
Meanwhile, while public discourse is consumed by this linguistic debate, Republican lawmakers are advancing a tax proposal that could have far-reaching consequences, including potential cuts to programs like Medicare. These developments are receiving comparatively little media attention.
A related reflection: I noted a superficial parallel between Tiger Woods and James Comey. Both are highly accomplished individuals who have made significant public missteps. Tiger Woods rose to fame as a golf prodigy and became a household name by age 21. During his personal controversies—particularly his extramarital affairs—he reportedly relied on friends and associates who facilitated his behavior. His lack of discretion and judgment led to scandal, physical injury, and a decline in his career.
James Comey, likewise, held a position of great responsibility as FBI Director. In 2016, he made the controversial decision to publicly announce the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails just 11 days before the election, despite guidance from the Department of Justice to avoid such disclosures so close to an election. Comey has said he felt duty-bound to inform Congress, but many observers argue that the move significantly damaged Clinton’s campaign. Compounding this, the FBI had been investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia since July 2016, but this was not disclosed to the public until after the election. Comey’s failure to present a balanced communication strategy is widely regarded as a key factor that may have helped tip the election toward Trump.
Finally, former President Barack Obama has also been criticized for his caution during this period. In 2016, the Obama administration was aware of Russian efforts to interfere in the election. According to reporting, Obama sought bipartisan support to make a public announcement, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to cooperate and reportedly threatened to frame such a move as partisan. In an effort to avoid politicizing intelligence, Obama chose not to make the full extent of Russian interference public before the election. In retrospect, many believe this decision underestimated the seriousness of the threat and had lasting consequences.
Rosner: Mitch McConnell also obstructed President Obama in the matter of appointing a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia—not Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away later, in 2020. When Scalia died in early 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but McConnell refused to hold hearings or a vote, arguing that the nomination should wait until after the presidential election. Obama could have potentially explored constitutional or political workarounds but opted not to escalate the conflict, believing institutional norms would hold. In hindsight, that belief was misplaced.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 