Hundreds of products stamped with the number "8647" are for sale right now on Amazon, Etsy, and smaller online retailers, hats, T-shirts, stickers, mugs, and more. A Florida congressional candidate sells his own version for $29.99 and wears the hat around his conservative neighborhood. The merchandise has moved briskly since former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on two felony counts for posting a photograph of seashells arranged to spell out those same digits on Instagram. The question now hanging over every buyer, seller, and casual poster: Could you be next?
The answer, according to multiple former federal prosecutors, is almost certainly no. But the fact that the question must be asked at all tells you something about the moment.
Comey was indicted Tuesday on charges that his Instagram photo, seashells lined up on a beach to form "8647", constituted a threat against President Donald Trump. "86" is restaurant slang for removing or getting rid of something; "47" refers to the 47th president. The Department of Homeland Security had previously investigated Comey over the post, and the Secret Service questioned him about it. He deleted the photo and later posted that he assumed the shells were "a political message" and that he "didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence." He said he opposed violence "of any kind."
The two-count felony indictment could send the former FBI director to prison for years. It marks the second federal indictment of Comey, who was charged last year on suspicion of making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional proceedings. Those earlier charges were dismissed.
Comey maintains his innocence. But the indictment has turned a four-digit number into a cultural flashpoint, and a booming cottage industry.
Mark Davis is an Air Force veteran, a father of two, and a no-party-affiliated congressional candidate in Florida. He sells "8647" T-shirts and hats on his campaign website and plans to wear the merchandise every day until his election. He recently took a brief break from the hat but put it back on after Comey's indictment.
Davis is not shy about what he thinks the government should do about it. As NBC News reported, Davis issued a blunt challenge:
"Arrest us all. I dare you."
He did not stop there. In an interview, Davis laid out the stakes as he sees them:
"I am done staying quiet. I've got a family, I've got kids, and I'm watching this country get dragged through chaos while people are going to sit down and shut up. And I am not doing that, and millions of other people aren't doing it, either."
Davis said he views the expression as standard political speech, not a threat. He pointed to the term's origins in the restaurant industry: "I think it's silly. '86' is a restaurant term." He acknowledged that some interpret it differently but framed his position in terms of broader frustration with the current administration.
"Some say it's threatening... but it's a response to years of intimidation and bulls*** from this administration, and I'm just not playing that game."
Davis also stressed that his stance is not partisan in the conventional sense. He is not a Democrat. He described himself as a military patriot who is "disappointed in America right now", something he said he had never expressed before.
"This isn't about being left or right for me. I'm not even a Democrat. This is about people feeling like they're allowed to speak without getting targeted."
The legal consensus among former prosecutors quoted in the NBC report is clear: wearing an "8647" hat or selling the merchandise is protected political speech, and prosecuting ordinary citizens for it would face enormous constitutional obstacles.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, drew a sharp line between political expression and a true threat. He told NBC News that the number alone does not cross the legal threshold:
"8647 is not a true threat to the president. '86' means to kick someone out, not kill them."
Rahmani conceded that prosecutions of others are "possible" but said no judge would sustain them on the basis of the number alone:
"It's possible others get prosecuted, but no judge in the country will find that someone acted intentionally or that they willfully intended to communicate a threat to the president based on 86 alone."
He went further, predicting the Comey case itself will not survive. "I think the case will be dismissed and this will be another embarrassing loss for federal prosecutors," Rahmani said. If that assessment proves correct, the indictment will have accomplished little beyond generating headlines, and raising uncomfortable questions about selective enforcement.
Katie Cherkasky, another former federal prosecutor, explained that the case against Comey hinges on whether prosecutors can prove the Instagram post qualifies as a "true threat" and that Comey understood, or consciously disregarded, the risk that it would be taken as one. She noted the defense has a strong card to play:
"The defense will argue that '86' carries multiple widely understood meanings, with Merriam-Webster defining it as slang for ejecting, dismissing, or removing, and that ambiguity should resolve in favor of protected speech."
Cherkasky also referenced the fact that there have already been multiple attempts to assassinate Trump, a reality that adds weight to the government's concern, but does not, by itself, turn a slang number into a criminal act. Intent remains the crux.
Comey surrendered at a Virginia courthouse on the federal charges, and the legal process is now underway. Whether the case holds together or collapses will shape the boundaries of political speech for years to come.
The Comey indictment did not land in a vacuum. Critics immediately pointed to a parallel: during President Joe Biden's term, far-right political pundit Jack Posobiec posted "8646", the same formula, aimed at the 46th president, on X. Those posts remain live on the platform. No indictment followed. No Secret Service questioning was reported.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked about that apparent double standard on CBS Mornings Wednesday. His response was careful but notable for what it did not say. Blanche did not claim the government had investigated Posobiec's posts. He did not say the situations were materially different. He said he simply did not know:
"I have no idea whether there was an investigation into the other times that that post has been made and whether that investigation yielded different results. This investigation that we undertook resulted in a two-count indictment."
Blanche argued that the grand jury process involves more than reviewing a single image. "They don't just look at a single image and then say, 'OK, yes, we'll indict,' or 'OK, no, we won't indict.' They do an investigation," he said. He also noted the volume of threats directed at Trump daily:
"Every day there's comments made about President Trump, threats made against President Trump. Every one of those are not indicted. It depends on the facts of every case."
That framing may be legally sound in the abstract. Grand juries do weigh evidence beyond a single post. But it does not resolve the obvious tension: if "8647" aimed at the 47th president warrants a felony indictment, why did "8646" aimed at the 46th president warrant nothing? The history of politically selective investigations at the federal level makes the question harder to dismiss.
Meanwhile, the merchandise keeps selling. Amazon and Etsy both carry "8647" products, and, notably, still list shirts bearing "8646" from the Biden era. Neither company responded to requests for comment from NBC News. One listing for a "classic vintage 80s" style shirt was priced at $17.99. Davis charges $29.99 for his campaign gear.
The sheer volume, hundreds of products across multiple platforms, makes the enforcement question almost absurd on its face. Prosecuting Comey for a seashell photo while ignoring a nationwide retail industry built on the same number would require a theory of criminal intent so narrow it could only apply to one man. That is not law enforcement. That is a targeted action wearing a legal costume.
The broader accountability questions swirling around former intelligence officials extend well beyond Comey. A separate criminal probe involving former CIA Director John Brennan underscores how many of these cases are now in play simultaneously.
The legal experts quoted in this story largely agree: the First Amendment protects political speech, even speech that makes powerful people uncomfortable. The number "8647", shorthand for removing a president from office, is crude, provocative, and constitutionally protected. Merriam-Webster defines "86" as slang for ejecting, dismissing, or removing. It is not a death threat. It is not a plan. It is a bumper sticker with fewer syllables.
Whether you think James Comey deserves what he is getting, and his record at the FBI gives plenty of people reason to feel that way, the principle matters more than the man. If the government can turn a four-digit number into a felony when it is posted by a political opponent, but ignore the identical expression when it comes from a political ally, then the law is no longer the law. It is a weapon.
Mark Davis, the Florida veteran selling $29.99 hats, may have put it most plainly. He is not a Democrat. He is not a Republican. He is a man who served his country and now feels he has to dare the federal government to arrest him for wearing a hat. The broader pattern of politicized legal action that stretches back years has left millions of Americans feeling the same way.
When citizens have to wonder whether a T-shirt could land them in front of a grand jury, the problem is not the T-shirt.
