James Comey indictment goes beyond infamous '86 47' seashell post, covers full 'body of evidence,' Blanche says



The Trump administration’s indictment against former FBI Director James Comey is grounded in a “body of evidence” that goes beyond the infamous “86 47” social media post, according to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Blanche spoke with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday about the grand jury charges against Comey, which claimed that in May 2025, the former FBI director “knowingly and willfully” made a “threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon,” President Donald Trump.

'This is not just about a single Instagram post.'

The indictment referred to a since-deleted Instagram post from Comey that included a photograph of seashells arranged to read “86 47,” something “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States,” the indictment reads.

The phrase “86” is a slang term for getting rid of something, while “47” is assumed to be a reference to Trump, the 47th president.

The caption of Comey’s May 2025 post read, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” He later deleted the post and claimed that he “didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.”

“It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down,” Comey stated.

NBC’s Kristen Welker questioned Blanche about the Department of Justice’s indictment, asking how the seashell image could “amount to a serious threat against the president’s life.”

Blanche highlighted the federal government’s 11-month investigation into Comey, which included a “body of evidence” beyond the Instagram post.

RELATED: Comey's legal troubles just got worse as DOJ pursues ANOTHER indictment

James Comey. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

“I am not permitted to get into the details of what the grand jury heard or found, as you know. But rest assured that it’s not just the Instagram post that leads somebody to get indicted,” Blanche told Welker.

Welker then asked how the DOJ will “prove intent” after Comey claimed he was unaware his post could be interpreted as a call for violence.

“You prove intent like you always prove intent. You prove intent with witnesses, you prove intent with documents, with materials. So again, this is not just about a single Instagram post,” Blanche replied.

He mentioned that the case will proceed with a public trial, during which the government’s evidence will be revealed.

“We are talking about evidence of all sorts. And that means documents, that means witnesses, and that means the whole array of what we did,” Blanche said.

RELATED: James Comey ARRESTED after alleged threat against Trump

Todd Blanche. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Welker asked Blanche whether online vendors who sell “87 46” merchandise and their customers should be “concerned that they’re going to be prosecuted by the DOJ.”

“Of course not,” Blanche replied. “That’s posted constantly. That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in indictments, of course. There are facts, there are circumstances, there are investigations that have to take place.”

Comey reacted to the DOJ’s indictment in late April, insisting that he was “still innocent.”

“I’m still not afraid. And I still believe in an independent federal judiciary, so let’s go,” he stated.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Feds allege this Big Tech company violated federal law with bizarre scheme to avoid hiring US citizens



An American tech company is being sued by the Department of Justice for allegedly discriminating against U.S. workers.

Instead of hiring Americans, the company allegedly favored hiring workers with temporary visas, going to bizarre lengths to prevent U.S. workers from being able to properly apply for its vacant jobs.

'Employers cannot use the PERM sponsorship process as a back door for discriminating against US workers.'

Cloudera is a software company based in Santa Clara, California, that predominantly stores data and was started in 2008 by former engineers from Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the DOJ said the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by intentionally discriminating against Americans.

The federal lawsuit said the company "upended its normal hiring process and did exactly what the law prohibits. ... Cloudera did not consider the applications some U.S. worker candidates submitted because the company earmarked certain jobs for workers on temporary employment visas."

Cloudera was accused of posting openings for at least seven jobs — paying between $180,000 and $294,000 per year — that asked U.S. applicants to submit applications to a dedicated email address. However, the address did not accept messages from external email accounts, and applicants simply received an error message in response.

RELATED: Tesla unveils its driverless future — but you're only invited if you comply with these rules

Therefore Cloudera did not have any record of a person applying for particular roles, the DOJ stated.

The alleged end result was Cloudera attempting to fill the roles with temporary foreign workers through the permanent labor certification process, while "repeatedly" telling the Department of Labor that it couldn't find any qualified American workers.

"Employers cannot use the PERM sponsorship process as a back door for discriminating against U.S. workers," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon. "The Division will not hesitate to sue companies who intentionally deter U.S. workers from applying to American jobs."

The DOJ said an American worker alleged discrimination after attempting to apply to Cloudera via the designated email address but "received a bounce-back notification."

Cloudera spokeswoman Hannah Fairbanks said in a statement to Blaze News that the company is "proud to hire American workers."

"We do not discriminate against U.S. workers — or anyone — on the basis of citizenship status. We take the DOJ’s allegations seriously, and from the start, we have cooperated fully with the DOJ’s investigation, which stems from a recruiting email account that was simply not working as intended," she continued.

"We believe the government's claims misunderstand both our hiring processes and our intent, and we will address the matter through the appropriate legal channels. Cloudera is committed to fair, lawful, and open recruitment practices, and we will continue to cooperate with the DOJ as we work to resolve this matter. Because this is now pending litigation, we cannot comment further at this time."

RELATED: Data centers are devouring the electrical grid. Is a crash around the corner?

Cloudera co-founder Amr Awadallah. Anthony Kwan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Cloudera is charged with one count of discrimination in hiring: deterring U.S. workers; one count of discrimination in hiring: failing to consider U.S. workers; and one count of discrimination in hiring: failing to hire U.S. workers.

Cloudera had a reported revenue of $869.3 million for fiscal year 2021 and was sold that October in an all-cash deal for approximately $5.3 billion.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Comey's legal troubles just got worse as DOJ pursues ANOTHER indictment



Former FBI Director James Comey is reportedly facing another legal hurdle from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice.

Comey is potentially facing his third indictment under the Trump administration as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's DOJ pursues additional charges against the disgraced former director. This time, the DOJ is looking to indict Comey for allegedly leaking classified information, an accusation that Trump has frequently hurled at the former FBI head.

'James Comey, who is a Dirty Cop, one of the worst, knows this full well!'

This effort comes after the DOJ brought a second indictment against Comey for his infamous Instagram post in May 2025 with the numbers "86 47" displayed in a formation of seashells. The post was later deleted.

Just days after Trump was targeted in the third assassination attempt on Saturday, the DOJ argued that Comey's post was just another call for violence against the president.

"Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice," Blanche said at a press conference Tuesday.

RELATED: James Comey INDICTED amid assassination attempt against Trump over apparently threatening social media post

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

The phrase "86" in slang typically refers to getting rid of something, and Trump is the 47th president. Some argue that "86 47" was a call to remove Trump from office or to defeat him politically. At the same time, Trump and his allies have maintained that "86 47" meant "kill the president."

"'86' is a mob term for 'kill him,'" Trump said. "They say 86 him! 86 47 means 'kill President Trump.' James Comey, who is a Dirty Cop, one of the worst, knows this full well! EIGHT MILES OUT, SIX FEET DOWN! Didn't he also lie to the FBl about this??? I think so!"

Comey was also indicted in September for allegedly making false statements to Congress and for obstruction of a congressional proceeding, but the case was later dismissed.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s DOJ takes a side in high-stakes SCOTUS trucking dispute — and it may not be the one you expect



A battle over America's roads is unfolding in the Supreme Court, where demands for accountability clash with efforts to deregulate the industry, as the national spotlight remains on accidents caused by non-domiciled, non-English-speaking truck drivers.

The court's ruling could have major implications for the more than 150,000 Americans injured and the over 5,000 killed in large truck accidents each year, by potentially stripping or safeguarding the legal recourse available to victims and their families.

'Remove any legal accountability for brokers, and you remove the incentive for them to care.'

SCOTUS heard oral arguments on March 4 in the case of Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, which involves a December 2017 collision between two semi-trucks: one operated by the plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, and the other by an individual employed by Caribe Transport II, a small motor carrier hired by broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide.

The complaint explains that Montgomery was parked on the shoulder of Interstate Highway 70 in Cumberland County, Illinois, when another truck rear-ended his vehicle at high speed, resulting in severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of Montgomery's leg.

Montgomery's lawsuit was filed against the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson. He accused C.H. Robinson of "negligent hiring," citing Illinois common law. His case reached the Supreme Court after a lower court moved to dismiss it, arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act bars state-level negligence suits against brokers — third-party providers that connect shippers with carriers without owning trucks or hauling freight themselves — for their carrier selections.

The ongoing case has caught the attention of those in the trucking industry who are concerned that a SCOTUS ruling in favor of C.H. Robinson would set a precedent that prevents crash victims and their families from seeking legal recourse against brokers.

While President Donald Trump's administration has been receptive to concerns about reforming the nation's broken trucking industry, the U.S. position in the Montgomery v. Caribe case indicates a potential shift.

RELATED: DOT's Duffy earns high praise from American truckers for turning industry concerns into real policy wins

Luke Sharrett/Getty Images

Trump's Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief supporting C.H. Robinson, arguing that the FAAAA preempts any state law related to the "price, route, or service" of a broker. This, the DOJ claimed, includes how brokers select carriers. Although the rule carves out a safety exception allowing states to enforce such laws, the U.S. government contended that the exception does not apply to this case.

The U.S. argues that brokers are already required to select an authorized motor carrier, which means that the carrier has met the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's "rigorous safety standards." Allowing such lawsuits against freight brokers would "require brokers to second-guess federal registration decisions and independently evaluate the safety history of the carriers they select."

"A judgment for petitioner on that claim would thus necessarily impugn Caribe's overall operations, thereby undermining FMCSA's determination that Caribe satisfies federal registration requirements, including rigorous safety requirements," the U.S. amicus brief reads.

American Truckers United, an advocacy group, warned that if SCOTUS agreed with the U.S. government's argument and ruled in favor of the respondent, it could allow freight brokers to have "blanket immunity" when selecting unsafe and high-risk carriers, leading to a "race to the bottom."

ATU filed its own amicus brief, urging SCOTUS to side with Montgomery.

"If brokers are immunized from tort liability, they will have an unrestrained incentive to hire the cheapest motor carriers available for every load, regardless of poor safety records, regulatory non-compliance, defective equipment, and other red flags. Low-cost, low-quality carriers will completely displace safe carriers in the market," ATU wrote.

ATU noted that many carriers maintain only the minimum required liability insurance, which covers just a small portion of the cost for crash victims and their families. The group also pointed out the FMCSA's lack of resources to keep up with the "chameleon carrier" crisis, explaining that when carriers lose their operating authority due to noncompliance, they "dissolve, reincarnate themselves under new identities, and reenter the market."

A separate amicus brief filed by the Institute for Safer Trucking on behalf of Montgomery wrote, "The reality of the compliance-review scheme is bleak. FMCSA is apparently unable to conduct compliance reviews of carriers within a reasonable time. More than ninety-four percent of all active interstate freight carriers remain 'unrated' as of 2023."

The FMCSA has previously admitted its limitations. In a 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FMCSA stated that it "has resources to issue safety ratings to only a small percentage of motor carriers each year," adding that the agency's rating "does not necessarily reflect the current safety posture of a motor carrier."

FMCSA officials said that "they do not have the resources to vet all for-hire carriers that apply for new operating authority," according to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report.

The Truck Safety Coalition, a network of victim and survivor volunteers, also filed an amicus brief supporting Montgomery that referred to freight brokers as “gatekeepers in determining who hauls freight on the roadways and who doesn’t.” The TSC stated that the industry has exploded in recent decades, from just 70 brokers in 1975 to over 28,000 today.

Rena Leizerman, from the Law Firm for Truck Safety and co-counsel for Montgomery, told Blaze News in a statement, “Broker negligence lawsuits aren't filed in every crash. They get filed when there's evidence that a broker hired someone with a known, serious safety history and chose to look the other way.”

“C.H. Robinson argued to the court that it should be completely off the hook for negligence. No exceptions. Not even if it knowingly hires a carrier with no insurance. Not even if the carrier isn't legally registered to operate. Not even if it already knows the carrier has a dangerous record. Zero accountability, no matter what,” Leizerman’s statement continued.

“Brokers make money on the gap between what shippers pay them and what they pay the carrier. The wider the gap, the more profit. So they push carrier rates down, and carriers survive by cutting costs — driver screening, safety training, equipment upkeep, insurance — until the day everything goes wrong.

“Remove any legal accountability for brokers, and you remove the incentive for them to care. Safe carriers, the ones who invest in doing things right, end up getting underbid by carriers who skip basic safety. It's a race to the bottom, and it's the rest of us sharing the road who pay the price,” she added.

Dorothy Capers, chief legal officer at C.H. Robinson, also provided a statement to Blaze News.

"A single, uniform federal framework is essential to keeping interstate commerce safe, efficient, and consistent with Congress' design," Capers said. "Allowing a patchwork of state tort laws to regulate broker services would undermine that system, increase uncertainty, and disrupt the flow of goods Americans rely on every day."

RELATED: 'Use my daughter as an example': Trump DHS cheers as bill to stop illegal alien truck drivers crosses major hurdle

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Real-world impact

The stakes of the pending Montgomery case are already playing out in the nation’s courtrooms.

On May 24, 2024, a semi-truck driver allegedly blew through a stop sign on U.S. 84 in Texas, killing 28-year-old Tiana Moore and her mother, Tanya Maria King. Moore’s family sued the driver, the carrier, and the freight broker that had hired the carrier.

When the case was about to go to trial, the broker, citing the ongoing Montgomery case before the Supreme Court, requested and received a stay, leaving the family in limbo.

Moore's father, David Moore, spoke to Blaze News about the tragic accident. He expressed his goal of raising awareness to inspire policy changes and help the American public understand how regulations affecting the trucking industry impact lives nationwide.

"The impact that it's really had on our lives, and even this ongoing process, it's been, obviously, the most difficult thing that I've ever had to deal with — and not just me, but my family," David Moore said.

Ultimately, the Moore case was closed a short time later when the parties reached a confidential settlement. While in this instance the family was able to reach an agreement outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Montgomery case will determine whether crash victims and their families retain or lose a major avenue for accountability in the future.

SCOTUS is expected to give a decision in the Montgomery case by June.

The Department of Transportation deferred comment to the Department of Justice, which stated it had no further remarks beyond its amicus brief.

Legal counsel for Caribe Transport II did not respond to requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pardons Aren’t Enough. The FACE Act Must Go

Biden's DOJ weaponized the FACE Act against pro-lifers, and if Congress doesn't repeal it entirely, future administrations will do the same.

SPLC Finally Faces A Reckoning For The Political Violence It Stoked

Those who weaponize the language of justice while violating its core principles will ultimately answer for it.

Father, mother, daughter federally indicted for alleged assault on TPUSA reporter Savanah Hernandez



The Department of Justice revealed a federal indictment against three individuals accused of assaulting Turning Point USA reporter Savanah Hernandez during an anti-ICE protest in Minnesota.

Video footage of the April 11 incident appeared to show Paige Ostroushko, a Minnesota resident, blowing a whistle just inches from Hernandez's ear before pushing her to the ground.

'This incident isn't just about me, but about every single journalist who has been attacked while doing their job.'

After Hernandez returned to her feet, Deyanna Ostroushko, Paige's mother, confronted the reporter, claiming that Hernandez had instigated the physical altercation.

"Did you f**king hit my daughter?" Deyanna yelled in Hernandez's face, video showed.

Hernandez pushed Deyanna away and seemed to walk off to distance herself from the mob of anti-ICE protesters, according to the video.

"Stop touching me!" Hernandez shouted.

RELATED: TPUSA Frontlines reporter brutally attacked by Antifa mob tells Sara Gonzales the full story mainstream media won’t touch

Savanah Hernandez. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Chris Ostroushko, Paige's father, stepped into the chaos, approaching Hernandez and pushing her, causing her to fall onto the pavement, video showed.

Paige then appeared to go after Hernandez again, and the two got into a brief scuffle.

On Wednesday, a four-count federal indictment was unsealed by the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, charging each member of the Ostroushko family. The indictment did not name the victim.

Chris and Paige Ostroushko "did by force or by threat of force willfully injure, intimidate, and interfere with, and attempt to injure, intimidate, and interfere with the rights of another," the indictment read.

All three family members were accused of aiding and abetting the assault of the victim.

Hernandez sought medical treatment following the altercation and was told that she suffered a concussion and multiple sprains.

"I'm incredibly grateful to the FBI and DOJ for their swift response to the attack I experienced," Hernandez told Blaze News. "This incident isn't just about me, but about every single journalist who has been attacked while doing their job. Today's indictment sets an extremely important precedent for every American and is a strong message to the radical left wing that they are not allowed to violently attack people with impunity any more."

“Today, Christopher, Deyanna, and Paige Ostrouchko [sic] were indicted by a grand jury for allegedly assaulting journalist and Turning Point USA contributor Savannah [sic] Hernandez, while she was lawfully reporting on anti-ICE protests outside a federal building in St. Paul,” stated acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“Hernandez was allegedly surrounded, physically assaulted, and shoved to the ground — simply because she was identified by the defendants as a conservative journalist,” Blanche continued. “That is NOT ‘peaceful protest.’ These deplorable actions as charged in the indictment will not be tolerated in America, and this Department of Justice will always punish unhinged acts of political violence.”

RELATED: ‘The threats are real’: Glenn Beck issues urgent call for courage as violence against conservatives escalates

Savanah Hernandez. James Devaney/GC Images

In a recent interview with One America News Network, Chris Ostroushko, a 6', 51-year-old man who weighs 240 lbs., according to online court records, seemed shocked by the backlash he and his family have received.

"It's a little overwhelming and makes me second-guess even living in this country, to be honest with you, with all that's going on," Ostroushko told the news outlet.

He has described Hernandez as the aggressor and claimed that he was protecting his wife and daughter.

The Ostroushko family claimed that after the video went viral, they were doxxed and lost their jobs.

Paige Ostroushko started a GoFundMe requesting $12,000, claiming that she witnessed a "deeply triggering" verbal exchange with "an individual present" who was interviewing attendees about ICE. This "led to emotional distress and a confrontation between the individual and me," she said, claiming self-defense. She also stated that she suffered "head, neck and knee injuries." As of Wednesday afternoon, she had raised $900.

An additional GoFundMe page was started to support the family, requesting $8,000. It has so far raised $310.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump's Fed pick clears a major hurdle



President Donald Trump's pick to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell just got one step closer to confirmation.

The White House can breathe a sigh of relief after the Senate Banking Committee advanced Kevin Warsh's nomination along party lines in a 13-11 vote on Wednesday. Warsh's nomination is now headed to the Senate floor, where he is expected to be confirmed in a simple majority vote.

'This is a necessary and appropriate measure.'

Warsh's main hurdle was none other than Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who vowed to oppose the nominee until the administration dropped its investigation into Powell's overbudget construction project of the Fed building.

The retiring Republican's calls were heard by the White House, and the DOJ's investigation was punted to the inspector general, which was enough to regain Tillis' support for the committee vote.

RELATED: Trump administration calls off criminal probe into Fed Chair Powell

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"I welcome the Inspector General's investigation," Tillis said in a post on X, despite his vehement opposition to the DOJ-led investigation into Powell. "This is a necessary and appropriate measure, and I have confidence it will be conducted thoroughly and professionally."

"Only a criminal referral from the inspector general would cause a reopening of the investigation," Tillis added. "With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh's confirmation."

Powell, whose term expires in May, said he will remain in the role until his replacement is officially confirmed.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Senator: Biden Agency Used ‘Benghazi’ To Hide Emails On Planned Parenthood Loans

'... Perhaps now we know why the Biden administration did not want to share its Planned Parenthood records with Congress,' Sen. Ernst wrote.