Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump months into his first term, made his initial court appearance on Wednesday after being indicted by a grand jury earlier this week on charges that he threatened the life of the president.
Comey didn’t say anything during his roughly five-minute appearance before Magistrate Judge
William E. Fitzpatrick at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., and did not speak to reporters after his appearance.
But it was Fitzpatrick’s demeanor that surprised some court watchers.
The judge firmly rejected a government request to impose restrictions on Comey’s release and allowed him to leave the courthouse, pending a hearing in North Carolina where he will plead to the charges.
“I don’t think conditions of release are necessary,” the judge said. “They weren’t necessary the last time, and I don’t see why they’d be necessary this time.”
Fitzpatrick also oversaw Comey’s initial court appearance in a separate case from last year, where he faced charges of lying to Congress.
The indictment issued on Tuesday by a federal grand jury in North Carolina claims that a photo Comey posted on social media in 2025 represented a serious threat to the president. He is charged with one count of making threats against the president and another count of transmitting a threat across state lines, the Washington Post reported.
Nicole Parker, a former FBI special agent, Fox News contributor, and author of “The Two FBIs,” said the case against Comey could be difficult to prove, though she said prosecutors could still potentially secure a conviction.
Parker told Fox News Digital that alleged threat cases are often complicated, particularly when they depend on interpretation rather than explicit language, and can hinge on the specific facts and evidence gathered by investigators.
“These cases may be difficult to charge,” Parker said. “I have charged them before in the past, and it is certainly possible to come up with guilty verdicts. No one is above the law, and guilty verdicts do come down the pipeline.”
Retired judge and former Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano stated that the case against former FBI Director James Comey is unlikely to go to trial, arguing it is protected speech under the First Amendment.
“I don’t think this case will ever see a jury,” Napolitano said
during an appearance on Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.” “There’s no crime here under several Supreme Court opinions.”
Napolitano referenced legal precedent indicating that speech cannot be prosecuted if it can be interpreted in a non-criminal manner.
“The more important legal principle is free speech,” he continued. “If there is any non-criminal interpretation of the speech that trumps…the criminal aspect. So are there other meanings to 86 47 besides, ‘I want to kill the president?’”
He argued that the timing of the charge weakens the case, noting that the post in question was made long before the indictment.
“If this were a real threat to the president of the United States, Comey would have been charged a year and a half ago,” Napolitano said, adding he believes the case is “frivolous” and predicted it would ultimately be dismissed by the courts.
“I think Comey’s people will move to dismiss it, that it’s protected speech, and I think that motion will be granted,” he said. “This is so frivolous that Comey could actually end up getting his legal fees reimbursed by the government.”
The Justice Department, meanwhile, stated Wednesday that not every case of posting “86 47” would result in criminal charges. Officials emphasized that threat cases are assessed based on context, intent, and evidence.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche addressed this issue during a press conference, as scrutiny increases over the indictment of Comey related to a social media post that included the numbers.
“Every case is different, every threats case is different,” Blanche said. “That means the nature of the threat, the person who makes the threat, and the investigation around the threat.”
