Another Stupid Media Uproar: Trump Paranoia and Comey's "86"

How sad is the state of our politics and corporate media, reporting on social media posts? The latest drama came from former FBI director James Comey. Add in Donald Trump's paranoid cult-leader persona and an alternative dictionary definition and—my gosh. Don't we have bigger problems to worry about?

You'd think that the New York Times could put a more even-keel assessment in place. Is this even a story—a social media post of sea shells forming the numbers "86" and "47" in the sand? The phrase "eighty-six forty-seven" has become a rally cry at anti-Trump protests. The Times offered the Merriam-Webster definition of the term "eighty-six" as slang for dismissing or removing. Forty-seven, of course, refers to President Trump, our forty-seventh president.

So what's the big deal?

Well, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was investigating it and Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, told Fox News that Comey should be jailed. Say what? Our own president is a guilty felon thirty-four times over and served no sentence. He was also judged liable for sexual assault. No pictures of seashells allowed? Did Comey arrange the shells or just take a picture of someone else's creation?

Comey deleted the Instagram post and was interviewed by the Secret Service. Comey said it didn't occur to him that 86 referred to violence. It hadn't occurred to me, either. Who did it occur to? Donald Trump.

I've only heard "eighty-six" used in reference to an out-of-hand drunk who is no longer allowed in a bar or club where offensive behavior occurred. That is it. I've never heard it used to propose physical violence, much less assassination. This is all Trump spin.

As happens too often, the New York Times was happy to let Trump take over the narrative, quoting him at length in his typical grind about grievances and imaginary victimhood. And, of course, they bother to quote his slander uncontested.

Speaking of violence and social media, let's remind ourselves of how the Trumps wield social media. Take, for example, the mocking, insensitive post from Donald Trump, Jr., in 2022, saying his Halloween costume would be white underwear and a hammer—a clear mockery of the violent attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband. It was a gruesome and vicious attack—and a pathetically tasteless joke. Donald Trump even mentioned Mr. Pelosi mockingly in a speech, sneering, "How's he doing?" Yet, despite this and much more crass psychopathy from the Trumps, Nancy Pelosi still posted publicly on X after the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania: "I thank God that former President Trump is safe."

In response to Comey's seashells post, Donald Trump, Jr., said on X that Comey was "causally [sic] calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!"

I think he meant "casually", but maybe he really did mean "causally". Either way, it's just like the Trumps to mock other people's misfortunes, even when it's a violent attack with a hammer that could have been fatal. But, then, to cry crocodile tears when someone sees a number formation of seashells in the sand. It's so sad not everyone loves Donald Trump.

We could go on and on about the Trumps' posts on Twitter, on X, on Truth Social. It's mostly lies and distortions, bloviating and insult comedy, endless cruelty and ridiculous overpromising. But never mind all that. Let's talk about seashells.

The Times quoted Trump at length from an appearance on Fox News (I'm sure they pressed him real hard). Trump claimed that Comey was inferring assassination with "eighty-six", and that Comey is "a dirty cop, he's a dirty cop" (always repeat for added emphasis).

Any counter claims from the Times? Nope. To put Trump's claims in context, the Times could have mentioned numerous other claims, lies, spin, and Trump's own social media posts to make clear that no interpretation Trump ever offers has any intention of accurately homing in on the truth. It's so much easier to lie when corporate media will simply repeat it all in obligatory quotes.

Trump claimed, "A child knows what that meant." Really? Should the Times have interviewed some children? I'm skeptical. I don't buy it. I asked my fifteen-year-son if he'd ever heard of anybody being eighty-sixed. He had no idea what I was talking about.

Trump fired Comey over the FBI investigation into collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. John Durham's report on the inquiry concluded that the FBI failed to include material information that contradicted the Trump/Russia coordination narrative. The report did not, however, deliver on Trump's hyped promises that widespread corruption would be revealed. No surprise, there.

Why didn't the Times interview Trump themselves? They're quoting Trump from a softball interview given on Fox News, where all the stories about Comey claim that his social media post was an obvious call for a "hit" on President Trump. You might also recall that Fox News paid nearly $800 million to Dominion Voting Systems to settle an embarrassing case showing that the network's entertainment fare of fake news propped up false claims about non-existent voting fraud. Why did Fox News continue to broadcast these falsehoods? Because the viewership demanded it!

Did the New York Times ever track down any supporting evidence of "eighty-six" being used to do violence, much less serve as a call for an assassination? No, they did not. Did they even look? They didn't even ask any children if they'd ever heard of the term.

If they had, they might have found that right-winger Jack Posobiec posted "86 46" on X in January 2022—referring to Joe Biden. Was he calling for his assassination? I don't necessarily think so. But that doesn't mean he doesn't peddle in the worst, dehumanizing depictions of his political opponents. The title of his screed about the political left is called, "Unhuman".

If no supporting evidence is there, perhaps this story should have wrapped up by reiterating the actual dictionary definition of "eighty-six". Definitions matter. Meaning and intention matter. Quoting a pathological liar and letting him dictate the definition of a word without contest, is a journalistic travesty. The Times is letting Trump play his mind games, using the tools of cult leaders: linguistic manipulation and informational dependency.

It reminds me of the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2021. We all learned just how contentious dictionary and historic definitions can be. Trump's supporters cried foul over calling the violent mob's attack on our Capitol an "insurrection", including an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that I argued against. Given Trump's obvious culpability, I say that what occurred met the definition of an insurrection. But even if it didn't, what does that change about the mob's attacking of police officers, desecration of government property, and interruption of the electoral vote counting? Nothing. No matter what you call it, the obvious culpability of the sitting president, who sat on his hands while the violence carried on, and later tried to blame it on antifa, does not change.

Perhaps we should instead define the actions of the now-pardoned rubes of Jan. 6 using Abrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:

INSURRECTION, n. An unsuccessful revolution. Disaffection's failure to substitute misrule for bad government.

This kind of social media-fueled story is all a distraction. As we move from chaotic stunt to chaotic stunt, from unconstitutional executive order to unconstitutional executive order, we are distracted from the history of malfeasance that's right before us. In playing into Trump's hands, the Times and others are just helping him "flood the zone with shit", as Steve Bannon infamously said.

We now have a presidential cabinet filled with TV personalities and podcasters, an orbit of conspiracy theorists and social media influencers. It's all just pathetic political theater. Just look at the list: Dr. Oz, Pete Hegseth, Dan Bongino, Jeanine Pirro. They're all media personalities. Trump hired them because he doesn't read—he watches TV. Trump is a media personality and he's surrounding himself with media personalities.

In light of all the problems facing our nation today, it would be nice if some deeply corrupt and ineffective people did get eighty-sixed—per the actual dictionary definition.