Staff Reports
The latest twist in the James Comey indictment reads like a bad TV script: federal agents called Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano — a onetime Gambino underboss turned government witness — and asked him what “86” means. The answer, revealed in defense filings, is being tossed around in court like a soggy seashell: sometimes it means “get rid of,” sometimes, in mob talk, it can mean “to kill.” The question now is whether that interview helps prove a threat or exposes a shaky prosecution built on guesses and theatrical evidence.
Sammy the Bull takes the stand — on the phone
The new development centers on a May 8, 2026 contact and a roughly 25‑minute recorded interview the FBI had with Gravano. The affidavit filed by James Comey’s lawyer reports that Gravano told agents “86” generally means “to get rid of,” and that, to him as a “gangster,” it can mean “to kill.” Notice the last two words there: “to him.” Gravano did not say Comey ever used the term with him or that Comey meant “kill.” FBI searches of the Gambino case files reportedly turned up no use of “86,” either — which makes the FBI’s decision to ring up a mobster look less like careful investigation and more like desperate evidence-gathering.
Why the Gravano interview cuts both ways
Comey’s lawyers argue the mobile-phone mob confessional actually weakens the indictment. If the only way prosecutors can link Comey to a homicidal meaning of “86” is by citing a gangster who can’t recall talking to Comey, that’s a thin reed to hang a federal terrorism-style charge on. Dictionaries and usage guides still list the main meaning of “86” as “get rid of” or “throw out,” not a clear command to kill. The defense highlights that ambiguity, and Gravano’s wording — that this is gangster slang, not a universal definition — undercuts the idea that Comey personally threatened President Trump.
Prosecutors insist the jury should decide
DOJ’s view and the politics question
The Department of Justice isn’t folding. Prosecutors say the Gravano interview is one piece of a broader record showing a reasonable person could read “86 47” as a threat. They argue factual disputes like this belong before a jury, not tossed out on pretrial motions. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has framed the charges as routine enforcement: threats to the President will be prosecuted regardless of politics. That insistence on “routine” rings hollow to many critics given the high-profile players and Blanche’s prior work for President Trump — optics matter when an ideology‑soaked justice system claims neutrality.
What to watch next: Judge Louise W. Flanagan will decide whether the indictment survives Comey’s motions to dismiss and whether the Gravano interview gets air time in court. If the judge lets the case proceed, the government will try to glue together the social‑media post, timing of texts, Comey’s own statements, and witnesses like Gravano into a narrative of intent. If the judge dismisses the indictment, this episode will look like yet another example of prosecutors overreaching and of a political justice system hunting headlines instead of clear crimes. Either way, Americans should ask whether a phone call to a notorious mobster belongs at the center of a case that could chill political speech and reshape where we draw the line between a clever post and a federal crime.
