In my previous opinion pieces, I have spoken of the brilliance of the Founding Fathers but also of the dark history of America.
The slavery leading to the Civil War and the structural racism we still have in America; the practice of eugenics; the Holocaust, and the violence against native Americans.
I needed to reeducate myself. My intent was to bring folks together to realize the historic importance of the very serious challenges we face today, in this 250th anniversary year of our nation.
And this week, we have presented to America what I believe is a significant challenge facing the American people.
The federal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over his “86 47” seashell post is absurd. To make this case, the prosecutors involved in the Comey case have to pretend they do not know what ordinary Americans mean when they say to “86” something.
I remember the phrase from childhood, when it was used in adult banter; adults were veterans of WWII, and children of the Great Depression.
These federal prosecutors want the public to believe that a common old slang term meaning “get rid of it,” “take it off the menu,” or “show someone the door” was really a secret call to assassinate a president.
That is not law enforcement. It is personal revenge wearing a legal costume.
The history of “86” makes that plain. Language experts say the most likely root is the slang word “nix,” which means to say no, reject, or cancel something.
In the 1930s, soda jerks, possibly the same adjective we can use for the prosecutors, and diner workers used number codes behind the counter, and “86” simply meant “all out of it.” If a dish was gone, it was “86.”
If a customer had to be cut off or thrown out, they were “86’d.” That is the main meaning Americans have known for decades: remove it, reject it, get rid of it.
Our standard dictionaries tell the same story. Yes, some later slang dictionaries list a second, much less common meaning: to kill or murder. But that is the point – it is a later and less common meaning, not the main one.
Most Americans do not use “86” to mean “kill.” Most have probably never heard it used that way. So, for prosecutors to grab that rare meaning and act as if it is the obvious one is either deeply ignorant or plainly dishonest.
That matters because the whole case depends on it. The phrase “86 47” is political speech; “47” refers to the 47th president, and when paired with “86,” it most naturally reads as “get rid of 47” in the political sense – vote him out, push him out, remove him from office or public life.
People may think that is rude, childish or offensive. But rude political speech is not the same thing as a death threat.
In my previous columns, I also wrote about the life and death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian who was hanged by the Nazis only weeks before the end of WWII.
He wrote, “Against stupidity we are defenseless,” and “stupidity” is a more dangerous enemy of the good than evil. The “stupid” were those who carried out the wishes and demands of the evil political leader of that terrible moment in history.
That is where this indictment becomes dangerous.
In America, the law is supposed to punish real threats, not interpretations of slang. Courts have long recognized a distinction between a true threat and speech that is heated, exaggerated, or mocking.
A seashell display with a number code that needs television commentators and partisan officials to explain its “secret” violent meaning does not look like a clear threat. It looks like speech prosecutors decided to criminalize because they did not like the target.
And if they can do that to Comey, they can do it to anyone. Today, it is a former FBI director. Tomorrow it could be a teacher, a doctor, a journalist, a veteran, or any ordinary person who posts a sharp joke or slogan about a president.
Once the government starts turning ambiguous speech into felonies by choosing the darkest possible meaning, nobody’s words are safe.
Americans should not shrug this off. Even people who dislike Comey, as I do, should recognize the problem.
This is not really about whether Comey is admirable. It is about whether prosecutors can twist language to punish critics of the president.
That should worry everyone, because free speech only matters if it protects speech that people in power dislike.
The public response should be clear. We should write letters, publish op-eds, raise the issue in professional groups, and press elected officials to do their jobs, as if they were Founding “Fathers.”
Today, prosecutors want the country to believe that a word long tied to tossing something out, cutting someone off, or clearing a room is really the language of assassination.
That claim is not just weak. It is ridiculous. And the fact that federal prosecutors are making it with a straight, contemptuous face tells us this indictment is less about public safety than about childish retribution by people who think raw power can redefine plain English.
Childish may not be the correct word — evil may be more appropriate.
Dr. Matthew G. Masiello is a pediatrician and public health practitioner, and is a former Johnstown pediatrician who served as the director of the office of health, promotion and disease prevention at Windber Research Institute. He is the father of a child who was wounded by a firearm while playing soccer as a 5-year-old, and is the author of “American Solidarity 2026: A Message from History. A Call to Action.”