A (76:23)
Wherever you get podcasts, Heads up folks. Stay tuned. Is going live. I'll be speaking with my friend and colleague, former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuaid at the 92nd Street Y in New York City on Sunday, May 31, about her new book, the Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob Style Government. To get in person or virtual tickets, head to cafe.com Barb that's cafe.com Barb don't miss it. I hope to see you there. Now, let's get to your questions. This question comes as an email from Brian Amazon currently lists over 3,000 items of clothing, mainly hats and T shirts imprinted with the numbers 8647. I'm thinking about buying an 8647 sweatshirt, but before I do, I have two questions. First, do people who wear this kind of apparel risk arrest and criminal charges for threatening President Trump's life? And second, do you think the Department of Justice will take action against Amazon and the makers of these products? Brian that's a very interesting question and gets to a particular, I think, contradiction slash hypocrisy of the charges that have been brought against Jim Comey. And you're not the only one wondering about this question. On last Sunday's episode of Meet the Press, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked almost the same exact question, though I'm not sure Kristen Welker was asking because she's considering buying such a sweatshirt. Before we get to Blanche's answer, let's just remind everyone quickly of the background. About a year ago, former FBI Director James Comey posted a photo on Instagram of seashells on a beach that he says he found arranged to form the numbers 864747 arguably refers to the 47th President Donald Trump. Now 86, as many people understand, it is common restaurant jargon, meaning to remove an item from a menu or to take something away from a table. So by extension, 86, I suppose, can mean to get rid of, cancel or discard something like let's 86 that idea. But some Trump supporters interpreted the post as a call for violence against the sitting president. And I guess the Department of Justice or certain people in the Department of Justice felt the same. DOJ investigated the Instagram post for roughly 11 months. And in April, a grand jury returned a two count indictment against Comey. The indictment is quite short, about two and a half pages. It alleges that, quote, a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret the seashell formation as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States, end quote. That's a conclusion that I don't think will be provable in court. The statute requires that Comey knowingly and willfully made the threat. It is not clear at all, based on the evidence we have, that he knew 86 could be interpreted as violent or even that 86 conveys violence at all. In fact, even Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley, with whom I pretty much always disagree, commented, quote, I believe that this indictment is facially unconstitutional absent some unknown new facts. So on Meet the Press, Welker pressed Blanche on how prosecutors intended to prove intent. Blanche responded by essentially acknowledging that the indictment itself, on its face, doesn't provide evidence or an understanding of how they're going to prove Jim Comey's intent. He said, quote, 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. Many people are interested in understanding what that, quote, unquote body of evidence could possibly be. When asked what that other evidence consists of, Blanche said, quote, we are talking about evidence of all sorts. That means documents, that means witnesses, end quote. But he did not provide any specifics. Later in the interview, Welker raised your question about Apparel on Amazon featuring 8647. Blanche answered, Every one of those statements does not result in indictments, of course, and emphasize that the Comey case isn't about a single incident, although we don't have any information to the contrary. And none of those other alleged incidents that he spoke of appears in the indictment. What documents or witnesses the DOJ may have uncovered that support their case remains unknown. And I'll say it's a little bit odd, given that there is a lot of public skepticism about the retribution campaign, the vengeance campaign of Donald Trump against various people, including Jim Comey. The fact that the earlier attempt to indict Jim Comey for making false statements to Congress fell flat and was dismissed and hasn't yet been resurrected. So if ever there was a time to make clear to the public so that they have faith and confidence in the doings of the Department of Justice about what evidence they have against Jim Comey before there's a trial. This was an opportunity to do so. And by the way, they know how to do it and have done it in other circumstances. In another, I think very, very weak case against the Southern Poverty Law center that Joyce Vance and I have talked about at some length on the Insider podcast, the indictment is not two and a half pages. It goes on at some length, giving some facts and details about the theory which I think is mistaken and ill founded, but at least giving some details about the theory of their evidence, the theory of their proof in their criminal case against that civil rights organization. Not so here. So Brian, unless you have other incidents hiding in your closet, you are probably safe adding the sweatshirt to your wardrobe this question comes in an email from Laura who writes, hey Preet, did you happen to catch the last episode of Saturday Night Live? If so, what did you think of Aziz Ansari's impression of Kash Patel? Laura, I'm so glad you asked me this question. My simple answer is nailed it. And there's a particular line that made me laugh out loud. And lots of members of my family too.