NBCs Meet the Press turned into a pointed cross-examination this weekend as moderator Kristen Welker pressed Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over the Justice Departments indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and whether the move reflects a legitimate prosecution or political payback on behalf of President Donald Trump.
The high-stakes exchange unfolded against the backdrop of a deeply polarized country and a justice system conservatives argue has been weaponized for years against Trump and his allies, as reported by Mediaite. Welker, echoing concerns from the left and some legal commentators, repeatedly questioned whether the case against Comey centered on an Instagram image of seashells spelling out 86 47 was constitutionally sound or a thinly veiled act of retribution against a prominent Trump critic.
Welker began by underscoring the legal hurdle facing prosecutors, noting that Blanches Department of Justice must prove that Comey intended to threaten the presidents life with the now-infamous social media post. The image, which depicted seashells arranged to read 86 47, has been interpreted by critics as coded language for eliminating the 47th president a reference to Trump but Comey has publicly claimed he did not understand that some would see it as a call to violence.
How do you prove intent, Mr. Blanche, when Mr. Comey himself said he didnt understand that some people would look at that and think about violence? Welker asked. Her question captured a central tension in the case: whether a former FBI directors claimed ignorance of a widely recognized slang term can shield him from accountability when the target is a sitting president.
Blanche, who has become a key figure in Trumps effort to reorient the Justice Department, pushed back firmly on the notion that the case rests on a single ambiguous post. You prove intent like you always prove intent, Blanche replied. You prove intent with witnesses, you prove intent with documents, with materials. So again, this is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And its not the government. Its not the Department of Justice. Its not Todd Blanche that returns an indictment against James Comey. Its the grand jury.
That emphasis on the grand jury process a traditional conservative touchstone for due process and the rule of law was clearly intended to rebut the narrative that Trump is personally directing prosecutions of his political adversaries. Yet Welker quickly pivoted to criticism from within the legal community, highlighting a prominent voice who has raised constitutional alarms about the case.
Welker cited Fox News contributor and law professor Jonathan Turley, who has warned that the indictment appears to run afoul of the First Amendment unless prosecutors can show additional, undisclosed evidence. Turley, she noted, had called the indictment facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new facts, a phrase that has circulated widely among critics of the case.
Are there, are you in fact saying that there are facts beyond this Instagram post that clearly establish an intent to threaten the presidents life? Welker asked. Her question went to the heart of the publics skepticism: is there more here than a controversial meme?
Blanche insisted that the investigation was far more extensive than a single social media image and suggested that critics like Turley are speculating without access to the full record. Ive said repeatedly this was an investigation that lasted 11 months, Blanche said. If the only facts that existed was the posting of the Instagram, obviously that wouldnt have taken 11 months. And so when Mr. Turley talks about whether its facially unconstitutional absent unknown facts or circumstances, we will necessarily have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, at trial, every element of this crime which were prepared to do.
Pressed on whether the Justice Department would disclose those additional facts before trial, Blanche signaled that the courtroom not the press would be the venue for full transparency. Can you and will you let the public know what any of those other facts are? Welker asked. Absolutely, Blanche replied. Its called a trial. Thats what happens at every single case. We indict thousands of cases every year. Every one of those cases, theres an indictment and then eventually there is a trial or some sort of disposition. At the trial, a public trial, that will be open to the public, everybody in this country will know exactly what evidence the government has against Mr. Comey.
That answer reflects a traditional prosecutorial posture, but it also aligns with a conservative insistence that justice be worked out in open court rather than in the media echo chamber. Still, Welker was not finished probing the broader implications of the case, particularly for ordinary Americans who have used or purchased 86 47 merchandise as a form of political expression.
Welker raised the specter of selective prosecution by pointing to the widespread commercial use of the same phrase that now sits at the center of the Comey indictment. It is worth noting that on Amazon.com we looked this up there are dozens of products with the same terminology, were showing it right here, 86 47 being sold and purchased right now, Welker said. Should individuals selling or buying 86 47? merchandise be concerned that theyre going to be prosecuted by the DOJ?
Blanche responded by drawing a sharp line between protected speech and criminal threats, stressing that context and evidence matter. This isnt about a single incident, OK? Blanche said. I mean, of course not. Thats posted constantly. That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in indictments, of course. There are facts, there are circumstances, there are investigations that have to take place. And we have charged dozens and dozens of men and women this year with threatening President Trump and others. So this isnt a new charge were bringing.
Welker sought to clarify whether the seashell arrangement itself was central to the governments theory or merely one piece of a larger evidentiary puzzle. Just to be very clear, you are suggesting the seashells themselves are not at the root of this indictment? Welker asked. Blanche answered by reiterating that each case turns on its specific record, while acknowledging that the image is indeed part of the file. No, I am suggesting that every single case depends on the investigation thats done, Blanche said, adding, of course the seashells are part of that case.
From there, the conversation shifted to the broader political context and to the charge, frequently leveled by Democrats and the media, that Trump is using the Justice Department to settle scores with his perceived enemies. Welker zeroed in on a message Trump sent to thenAttorney General Pam Bondi, which she described as a pressure campaign to prosecute several high-profile Trump antagonists.
Back on September 20th, President Trump publicly posted a private message to then Attorney General Pam Bondi pressuring her to prosecute Senator Adam Schiff, James Comey, and Letitia James, writing, quote, Theyre all guilty as hell. But nothing is going to be done. They impeached me twice, they indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now. Why should the public believe that any case brought against the individuals listed there is an independent law enforcement decision and not retribution? Welker asked.
Blanche countered by emphasizing the institutional processes that stand between a presidential statement and a criminal indictment, and by rejecting the idea that a public post proves improper influence. Well, because you have investigations and you have indictments and you have the result. I mean, listen, if years later youre judged by a simple note from President Trump. By the way, that wasnt a private message. That was a message delivered to the entire world. And so this is not being done behind closed doors, he said.
Welker pushed back, asserting that the message was initially intended to be confidential, citing her own reporting. But it was meant to be private initially based on my conversations, she said. Blanche immediately challenged that characterization. How do you know it was meant to be private? he asked. Welker stood by her account, replying, Based on my conversations, it was meant to be only to be interrupted by Blanche, who said, Well, Im not aware of those conversations
Welker continued, With top administration officials, it was meant to be private and Blanche again interjected to refocus on Trumps public posture. But President Trump he began, before Welker added, and posted by mistake. Blanche then framed Trumps conduct as transparent and aligned with his mandate from voters. President Trump is very clear with the American people what he expects as president of the United States. That is not something he hides from the American people. He wants justice, he wants full investigations where appropriate. And by the way, thats a good thing. Thats not a bad thing. Everybody in this country should want that. And so no, I dont operate based upon concern or fear. The American people will know exactly what were doing and why were doing it.
Welker noted that the Justice Department has already indicted Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James in prior matters, only to see those cases dismissed by a federal judge a fact critics have used to argue that Trumps push for charges has outpaced the law. And yet, Mr. Acting Attorney General, the Justice Department has already indicted former FBI Director James Comey, as you know, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And a federal judge dismissed both of those cases. Why should people have confidence that this case will actually move forward and is rooted in fact? she asked.
Blanche responded by correcting what he described as a misleading narrative about those dismissals, stressing that the judge did not reject the underlying allegations. Well, lets be accurate, okay? The judge dismissed those cases not based on a factual finding that President Trump did something wrong or that there was something wrong with the underlying facts leading to that indictment. The federal judge dismissed that case because he found that the U.S. attorney was not properly appointed. There was no final finding on the facts or anything like that. So those cases are on appeal. We will see what happens. But again, youre comparing apples to oranges when you say, Just because that indictment was dismissed, theres something wrong with the underlying investigation, he said.
Welker returned to the perception problem, arguing that Trumps direct calls for indictments, followed by charges that were later dropped, could erode public trust in the Justice Departments independence. Well, again, he did directly push to have those people indicted. Charges were brought. And then they were dropped. Does that not undercut potentially the trust that people have in the Justice Department? she asked.
Blanche rejected that premise outright and suggested that critics underestimate the length and complexity of federal investigations. Absolutely not. And by the way, do you think, or do the American people think that nothing was done on those cases until President Trump posted that truth in September? No, these are ongoing investigations. Investigations take time, investigations take effort. And so no, I am not concerned. What we do at the Department of Justice, the American people can judge us. And they will. And Im ready to be judged because were doing the right thing. Were restoring justice, which nobody saw for four years. There werent guests on your show for four years during the last administration being overly critical of what the Department of Justice was doing, and that was a problem and we fixed it, he said.
For conservatives who have long argued that the justice system was bent against Trump while his opponents enjoyed impunity, Blanches comments will resonate as a long-overdue course correction rather than a partisan vendetta. The Comey indictment, built around a phrase that has become a staple of anti-Trump merchandise and online rhetoric, now stands as a test case for whether the Justice Department can distinguish between constitutionally protected political speech and genuine threats against a sitting president and whether it can do so in a way that convinces a skeptical public that the law, not ideology, is driving its decisions.
Login