Secret Service 'illegally' surveilled Comey in Trump '8647' threat case: court filing
By Alma Cordero · Reporting from El Paso ·
I have spent my life watching how quickly the border becomes less about people living there and more about lines drawn by men in suits who need a photograph at the fence.
The State’s Memory for a Seashell Post and an Indictment
I have spent my life watching how quickly the border becomes less about people living there and more about lines drawn by men in suits who need a photograph at the fence. I know this choreography of fear, where the law is not a shield but a weapon, used to neutralize anyone whose story doesn't fit the official narrative. What we are seeing now—the elaborate legal drama surrounding James Comey’s Instagram post of seashells spelling "86 47"—is not about true threats; it is about power performing its own history. The government has once again mistaken political dissent for a crime, and they have done so with the same playbook that defined American surveillance for decades.
When Tracking Phones Becomes Political Punishment
The indictment charges Comey with threatening President Trump—a charge built on his posting of seashells while on vacation in North Carolina. According to filings detailed by carolinajournal.com, federal authorities allegedly conducted both physical and electronic surveillance on Comey and his wife the day after that post, tracking them as they drove back toward Virginia. The core allegation is that this was a threat to kill the President. But I want you to look past the seashells and focus on the process: the warrantless tracking of their phones.
The details are staggering. CNBC reports that Comey’s lawyers allege the U.S. Secret Service "knowingly conducted illegal electronic surveillance" at the request of a high-level official, even admitting internally that such monitoring was "legally questionable." The state apparatus—the DOJ, the Secret Service, and figures like President Trump himself, according to The Guardian—were so invested in manufacturing a threat that they ignored basic legal procedure. They didn't just investigate; they built a case against protected speech, using surveillance as both evidence and intimidation.
From Seashells to COINTELPRO’s Shadow
This is not merely a political disagreement; it is the pattern of state overreach. When the government uses its vast resources—the FBI, the Secret Service, the grand jury process—not to enforce law but to punish perceived opposition, we are looking at the mechanism of COINTELPRO. That historical precedent taught us that when the surveillance mandate shifts from catching criminals to neutralizing dissenters, the Constitution is the first thing sacrificed.
The shared mechanism here is undeniable: the use of covert and illegal monitoring tactics—the "pinging" of phones without a warrant, the intense focus on every word spoken or posted—to discredit and silence a political opponent. The goal remains identical to those Cold War operations: to make the opposition believe they are constantly watched, thereby chilling their ability to speak freely.
The Systemic Failure of Due Process
Comey’s lawyers argue that this prosecution is based not on law, but on "vindictive and selective prosecution," arguing that the government has singled him out because President Trump harbors animus toward his protected speech. When officials are so eager to build a narrative—that '8647' was coded language for violence—they omit facts known to them, as Comey’s attorneys noted in their filings.
The law must be applied equally, but the moment enforcement budgets swell because someone is billing them, and the people doing the country's hardest work have the least standing to complain about it, the system breaks down. The border region is a shared economy long before it is a security problem; the citizen’s life is lived long before it becomes an indictment.
The law does not grant any official—not a former FBI director, nor a sitting President—the right to operate outside of constitutional process. When power assumes the authority to conduct surveillance and prosecute based on suspicion rather than proof, it ceases being justice and becomes pure control.