CNN Analyst Says Comey’s Trump Post Does Merit Formal Investigation: ‘Very, Very Dangerous’

CNN law enforcement analyst and former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow, on Friday, said that the administration is correct to say a post from former FBI Director James Comey regarding President Donald Trump does, in fact, merit a formal investigation.

A post on Instagram from the former FBI chief featured seashells arranged as the numbers “86 47.” Posting photos and videos featuring the sequence has become a trend on TikTok and other social media in protest of Trump, and is used on signs at protests against the administration. It is a regular sight alongside many signs featuring guillotines and calls for Trump to be beheaded at protests such as one in Denver last month.

Anchor Brianna Keilar spoke with Wackrow on Friday’s News Central on CNN, and asked first for his reaction to the story and whether Comey should’ve known better.

While much coverage has focused on whether the administration and the president are overreacting, Wackrow said that it’s actually a very serious situation that warrants a real investigation, and called the post “both disappointing and alarming at the same time.”

“Disappointing because the director should have known better,” he said. “But it’s alarming, given the fact that President Trump was recently the victim of targeted political violence, having survived two assassination attempts within the last year.”

When Keilar asked if the situation rises to the level of meriting a Secret Service investigation, Wackrow said, “Yes it does.”

He said that while he agrees that a call to violence was not the “intent” of Comey sharing the image, it’s still dangerous.

“We’re really living — unfortunately, since the, you know, assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO — we’re really living in this culture of assassination,” he explained.

Wackrow concluded that Comey has “a very broad social media reach, and some of those people may take this as an acceptable act to create, you know, engage in violence, violence against, not necessarily the president, but maybe something that’s symbolic of the president, like a member of his family. So these, in this moment in time, these types of actions are very, very dangerous.” Here is their exchange:

KEILAR: Jonathan, first off, your reaction to what Comey posted here. Should he have known better?

WACKROW: Well, good afternoon Brianna. Now, listen this post to me is both disappointing and alarming at the same time. Disappointing because the director should have known better. You know, he carries the institutional weight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His public commentary should reflect that standard. But it’s alarming, given the fact that President Trump was recently the victim of targeted political violence, having survived two assassination attempts within the last year.

So, to answer your question, my biggest concern right now is that this image could be misinterpreted as an implied endorsement of violence, and we’re seeing that more and more. And I, but I don’t think that, you know, Comey intended that. But that could be the consequence. And in today’s environment, images such as this are now tools that really reinforce ideologies that can lead to justifying violence. And finally, to me, this post is a symbol. It’s very symbolic. Really, in today’s hyper-polarized environment, these symbols are being weaponized.

KEILAR: Does this merit a Secret Service investigation? What is typically the threshold, and what do you think about how that part of this is being handled?

WACKROW: Well, I think the answer is going to be in two parts. First, let’s just quickly look at, you know, it is a federal crime to threaten the president. And under the structure that the courts have determined, a true threat is something that is defined as a serious expression of the intent to commit an act, to commit harm. And that threat must be specific and credible, and it can’t be, you know, leaning towards political satire. At the surface level, this image and the associated words that he put with it really don’t meet that court standard.

So is it protected speech? Most likely yes. Protected by the First Amendment and it’s most likely, you know, political satire. But does it warrant an investigation. My answer is yes, it does. And the reason being is because the way that this image could be interpreted today. We’re really living — unfortunately, since the, you know, assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO — we’re really living in this culture of assassination.

And, you know, the way that people are interpreting these, you know, these memes and images online are dangerous. So to me, this is less about the legality of the post and more about the leadership that Comey should’ve, you know, conveyed.

KEILAR: Yeah, I mean, you have the president and his allies seizing on this as saying that this is Comey calling for Trump’s assassination but to your point about his intent. He said he thought it was a political statement, he ended up pulling this down. And he doesn’t endorse any connotation of violence. That may be true when it came to his intent, his personal intent. But what are you worried about when it comes to someone who maybe does not, you know, has a different point of view when it comes to restraint. Looking at what he is saying, what is your… The worst case scenario here?

WACKROW: Well, I think we have to look back at where we are today. And again, I go back to Luigi Mangione and sort of this groundswell of support that he had. For engaging in murder, right? We’re living in an ecosystem where violence is currently treated as acceptable political response, and that is unacceptable. So to me, the way that this message, this post could be interpreted by others –again I don’t believe that the intent by Director Comey was you know, to, you know a call to arms. But the way it is interpreted by individuals.

Again, he has a very broad social media reach, and some of those people may take this as an acceptable act to create, you know, engage in violence, violence against, not necessarily the president, but maybe something that’s symbolic of the president, like a member of his family. So these, in this moment in time, these types of actions are very, very dangerous.

Watch the clip above via CNN.