**Something Dangerous Lurks Behind the Tweets: Tulsi Gabbard Raises Alarm Over Comey’s Alleged Call to “86 Trump”**
In a startling escalation of political tensions, former Hawaii Congresswoman and former acting Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has unleashed a scathing rebuke against ex-FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of crossing a dangerous line with what she believes is an incitement to violence.
Speaking candidly on *Jesse Watters Primetime* on Fox News, Gabbard claimed that a cryptic tweet from Comey—seemingly benign on the surface—might be far more sinister than casual political banter.
According to Gabbard, Comey’s post carried a dark subtext rooted in coded language, a message that may subtly encourage harm toward former President Donald Trump.
The phrase in question: “86 Trump.” While to some it might appear to be little more than slang or flippant online lingo, Gabbard points to its historical undercurrent—often associated with the idea of eliminating or “getting rid of” someone, including in violent terms. Given Comey’s decades-long career in law enforcement and his deep familiarity with criminal codes and street vernacular, Gabbard argued that the ambiguity was anything but accidental.
**A Chilling Message Cloaked in Code?**
“He knows exactly what that language implies,” Gabbard stated firmly, her voice edged with urgency. “This isn’t just a rhetorical jab. This is a man who spent years dismantling criminal enterprises—he understands how coded language works in orchestrating violence. He knows better.”
She went on to explain that the same phrase had recently appeared in protests against both Trump and Elon Musk, in the form of “86 47”—a message that, when unpacked, implies the desire to kill the 47th President of the United States, should Trump be re-elected. Gabbard insisted that Comey referencing the phrase now, given its timing and political charge, is deeply irresponsible—if not criminal.
**National Security on High Alert**
The conversation quickly shifted into the broader implications. Gabbard warned that such statements, even if couched in irony or ambiguity, can incite real-world violence—especially in an already volatile political climate. She urged immediate government action, including a federal investigation and the possible arrest of Comey.
“This isn’t just offensive—it’s a national security risk,” Gabbard said. “A former FBI director making a statement that could be construed as a green light for violence against a former president demands an immediate threat assessment and full legal scrutiny.”
Gabbard emphasized that political figures, no matter their stature or former titles, should not be allowed to shield dangerous rhetoric behind plausible deniability.
**A Troubling Climate of Political Extremism**
During the interview, Gabbard pointed to a recent Rutgers University study that revealed a disturbing statistic: more than half of respondents believed that assassinating Trump would be “somewhat justified” under certain political circumstances. She labeled the statistic “terrifying,” warning of an “emerging culture of assassination” taking root within fringe political movements.
“We’re not just talking about mean tweets or political disagreements anymore,” Gabbard said. “We’re talking about a real erosion of moral boundaries—where violent fantasies are now seen as acceptable political discourse by some. That’s terrifying, and leaders like Comey are pouring fuel on that fire.”
Gabbard called for robust funding for threat detection, including the expansion of protective services for political figures and tighter regulations on rhetoric that crosses into incitement territory.
**Holding Power to Account**
When asked whether she believed Comey should be criminally charged, Gabbard did not hesitate: “Yes. No one should be above the law. If this had been a lesser-known figure or an ordinary citizen posting that phrase with the same implications, there would already be an arrest.”
She pointed to her own recent experience, where she received death threats that led to swift law enforcement intervention. “Intent doesn’t excuse outcome,” she said. “It’s about the danger posed—not just the words, but how they are received and acted upon.”
Gabbard closed her interview with a sobering reminder of the stakes: “When leaders with influence use that power to encourage violence, even subtly, they betray everything public service is supposed to stand for. If we fail to hold them accountable, we invite the collapse of civil society.”
**Conclusion:**
Tulsi Gabbard’s explosive remarks surrounding James Comey’s alleged use of coded language to suggest violence against Donald Trump have ignited a renewed debate over the boundaries of political expression in the digital age. Her assertion—that what some see as free speech might, in fact, be a covert threat—has spotlighted the troubling intersection of power, language, and accountability.
As the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security reportedly take the matter seriously, the controversy underscores the growing urgency of establishing clearer legal and ethical frameworks around political speech, especially when delivered by high-profile figures with influence and reach. Whether or not Comey faces legal repercussions, Gabbard’s call to action signals a moment of reckoning for a nation grappling with how to reconcile free expression with the imperative to protect democratic institutions—and lives.