Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey. Fox News/Getty. 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump. Fox News. Comey posted on his Instagram account a picture of shells arranged to read "8647". The case hinges on the interpretation of that post. "86" is slang that means to remove or kill and "47" is a reference to Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States. Comey argues that his usage was of the "remove" meaning of 86 while the government argues his meaning is clear. Comey had removed the post and apologized claiming that he didn't know the other interpretation of the term. Comey's post came after two attempted assassinations of President Trump, but before the latest shooting at the White House Correspondents' dinner.  

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. On the one hand, it's going to extraordinarily difficult to prove that Comey actually meant the "kill' interpretation of 86. You have to prove intent and that is going to be extremely hard to do so. 

But I also think that Comey knew exactly what he was saying. I know the media is saying that "86" has never always meant "kill" but I have literally never heard it used in any other way. It's to the point where it feels like gaslighting. And it's not like there is a whole lot of difference between the two meanings, and least in intent. 

The context is that the same folks that are calling for violence against President Trump are also using the 8647 phrase, to an absurd degree. It's possible that Comey was just ignorant, but I don't see how anyone with a social media account would interpret it in any other way. 

But can it be proven in court? I really don't think so. The whole post seems like it was designed to get as close as possible to the line of a real threat without crossing it. He's got the defense of ignorance and arguing that he wasn't smart enough to know the implications of his post. He can also say that he was drawing attention to someone else's work and that he was just documenting it, which is a strong defense. I don't think for a moment that Comey's arguments are actually accurate, I think for sure he knew what he was doing was wrong.

But legally? I don't think it matters. The legal standard is that Comey posted this knowingly and willfully as a threat and that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't mean it in another way. Unless there is some kind of smoking gun where Comey had admitted that he absolutely meant it as a threat, I don't see how a jury will convict. 

So why pursue charges anyways? Some of it is due to Comey being a scumbag that skated other charges on a technicality. The powers that be want another shot at taking him down and a long shot is better than no shot as all. 

But mostly I think this is a message to folks making similar statements on social media that aren't at all ambiguous. That message is that if you make a threat against the President, even if you are being cheeky with it, you are getting charged. Even if you are someone like James Comey, a former FBI director, you will get charged. I do think that they believe that Comey's actions are illegal, but sending the message that nobody can threaten the President without consequences.  

Melania and Donald Trump call for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired again

 

Melania Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. New York Post/AFP. 

First Lady Melania Trump issued a rare public statement calling for the firing of ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel. New York Post. Melania and Donald Trump called for the firing after an exceptionally ill timed joke made by Kimmel. Kimmel said “Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” in a parody of the Whitehouse Correspondent's Dinner before the event happened. Of course, an assassination attempt on President Trump and other members of the White House occurred at the event. Melania Trump accused Kimmel of hiding behind ABC and called for the network to fire him. Kimmel was previously suspended for lying about the Charlie Kirk assassination, falsely claiming that Tyler Robinson was a Republican. 

My Comment:

Most media reports are absolutely downplaying the original incident that almost got Jimmy Kimmel fired in the first place. I absolutely think he should have been fired for that and if he gets fired now I would not be upset. His lies were incredibly damaging as there are still people that believe that Tyler Robinson was a Republican and not the LGBT activist he was. Robinson killed Kirk because he was angry that Kirk wasn't fully on board with transgender ideology and he was dating a male to female transgender person. 

Kimmel did serious damage with his statement that Robinson was conservative. And the worst part is that news had broken that day, well before Kimmel taped the show, Robinson's real motive. This wasn't a joke, it was a deliberate lie that Kimmel and his team absolutely shouldn't have done. 

This current controversy though? It seems a lot less serious. It was a bad joke for sure, you shouldn't be implying that a woman would be happy that her husband died under any circumstances. But if you do it to a woman who was married to a man that had multiple assassination plots against him and one that he was not only injured in but legitimately only survived due to what can only be described as divine intervention, you are going to make everyone mad. 

But it was just a joke and I am not really comfortable firing people over jokes, even when they are in extraordinarily bad taste. I will also say that Kimmel made the joke before the event and had no idea what was going to happen with the attempted assassin. If this was all Kimmel did I would not really support him getting fired. 

If Kimmel does get fired for this, it would be imperfect justice. I absolutely believe that he has no business surviving the original Charlie Kirk assassination controversy, but this current one is dramatically less serious. He should get fired for being a liar, not for being a crappy comedian that insulted the President and First Lady. 

I do feel for Melania Trump here. She has an absolute right to be disgusted by what Kimmel said. It's pretty clear she was traumatized by the attack and it some ways it was worse than Butler for her specifically. Not only was her husband in danger this time, but she was herself, along with a lot of people she knows and cares about. I don't blame her for being upset. 

As for Kimmel himself, I don't know if this will end up with him being fired. It really depends on how angry people get about this. He almost got fired the last time, mostly because ABC affiliates revolted and advertisers pulled out. Will that happen again? I am not sure. Like I said, this case isn't as serious as the last controversy and I don't know how sustained the anger will be for a failed assassination attempt that nobody died at. 

But I do think that Kimmel could be at risk. Late night TV is a joke now anyways and this is the 2nd incident in 7 months. ABC has to be thinking that the continued controversy with Kimmel isn't really worth it. If there is a groundswell of anger over Kimmel or yet another incident, Kimmel might be gone. 

Argentina renews claim to Falkland Islands over the UK.

 

Argentine President Javier Milei at a ceremony honoring war dead from the Falkland Islands war. Time/Getty.

Argentina has renewed claims of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as opposed to the United Kingdom. Time. Argentina and the UK fought a major war over the Islands, which the Argentines call he Maldives, but the war ended with a UK victory. America is officially neutral in the dispute but a leaked memo claims that the US may reassess that due to the fact that the UK was unwilling or unable to assist in the Iran War. The UK, under Keir Starmer, reasserted their own sovereignty over the Falklands. 

My Comment:

To be clear, I don't see a second round of the Falkland Islands war. Indeed, Milei opposes the idea and wants to gain control of the Islands through diplomatic means. This isn't really a change and the only possible difference is that the White House might be moving away from neutrality on the issue. 

A war is extremely unlikely in the short to mid term. The Royal Navy, though a shell of it's former self, still has a couple of aircraft carriers and a major submarine fleet. They are very short on escorting frigates and destroyers, and the ones they have are often not deployable, but they still have a lot of combat power. 

If Argentina had invested in their own military, they might have had a chance to win an actual war against the UK, given how weak the Royal Navy is right now. But Argentina is also weaker than they were during the Falklands War. They never really rebuilt their forces and all they have are some old destroyers and a bunch of corvettes. They have some modern F-16 fighters but I just don't see them beating the Royal Navy's carriers, and the considerable forces deployed to the Islands. 

I mention the weakness of the Royal Navy because it's a major reason why the United States and United Kingdom are on the rocks right now. Much has been made about the unwillingness of the UK to help with Iran conflict but the fact of the matter is that they were barely able to deploy the destroyer HMS Dragon to help protect their own assets in the region. They had a carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, but they did not have the destroyers and frigates and submarines available to actually protect it. There was some discussion of them pairing up with the French so that their ship would have been protected, but instead they did nothing. 

Given those circumstances, the United States is understandably angered at the UK. They not only refused to help, they were unable to do so. So in response the United States might be reevaluating their relationship with the UK. 

But I also think that the United States realizes that there isn't much of a point of being allies with a country that is so dysfunctional that it can afford an aircraft carrier but can't even deploy it without help. And I also think that they don't really believe that the UK has much of a future. Indeed, I have been saying that for years, very few countries in Europe are going to survive in their current state given the awful state of their economy, the absolute incompetence of their leadership and the massive damage and instability that immigration is causing. 

Argentina has none of that. Indeed, they seem like a country that has not only turned things around, but has a bright future. Milei seems like a competent leader and the country has none of the problems with immigration that the rest of the world has. 

Regardless, I don't see the actual control over the Falklands changing any time soon. The people there absolutely want to remain with the UK and unless that changes I don't see how Argentina can claim the territory without it being unjust. And as long as the Royal Navy has some inertia and Argentina doesn't start seriously investing in their military, I can't see anything changing. 

President Trump safe after shots fired at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

 

Agents draw weapons after the shots rang out. New York Post/AFP.

President Donald Trump is safe after an apparent assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence Dinner. New York Post. Trump was attending the dinner for the first time and an opening speech had already occurred. A man opened fire with a firearm, striking an agent who was saved by his bullet proof vest. The shooter had tried to get past the metal detectors at the event at a full sprint, but was stopped. CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that he heard around six shots. Another witness said the suspect had assembled an unusual long gun. Trump was not the only high ranking official at the dinner, as Vice President JD Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Health and Human Service Director RFK Jr. were all in attendance. No motive has been released for the attack.

The AP has live updates for this story.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump DROPS SECURITY FOOTAGE appearing to show tonight’s shooting breaking out at the WHCA dinner

Glad the Secret Service got the scumbag and everyone is SAFE 👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/uuZ8YGbzYP

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 26, 2026

 

My Comment:

This marks the fourth major assassination attempt against Donald Trump since his political life began. There was the illegal alien that tried to disarm a cop in 2016 in Las Vegas, the Butler assassination attempt, the Florida Golf course assassination attempt and now this. There were other attempts as well, but these were the major ones and the ones that at least had a plausible chance of succeeding. I do believe that this incident means that Trump has faced more threats to his life than any other American President. 

This was extraordinarily concerning, not just because of the attack against Trump, but the fact that most of the Presidential Line of Succession was there too, at the very least the top three. Trump, Vance and Mike Johnson were all there and if this assassin wasn't stopped when he was, we might have been swearing in Chuck Grassley as President... And it wasn't just Republicans at this dinner, at the very least Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats leader in Congress, and Senator John Fetterman were there as well. 

The suspect has been identified online but it's too early to tell what his motivation is. President Trump said it he was likely a "lone wolf nutjob" and that's probably accurate. He's been identified as Cole Allen, a 31 year old teacher from California but no motive has been released. Trump said it was unlikely that it was related to the Iran conflict but as of right now, it is a possibility. 

I did listen to Trump's press conference and I have to say, it seemed like this affected him pretty deeply. He praised the folks that protected him and said that it's a risk of his job. Trump was his usual braggadocios self, but I did notice that his voice cracked a little when he was talking about his wife Melania's reaction to the shooting. Trump remained fairly calm during the shooting but it's also clear that he understands just how dangerous his job is, and mentioned that race car drivers and bull riders have a lower chance of death than an American President. 

The political implications of this are yet to be seen, but I do think that the press realizes that this was an attack on them as well. I don't think that means they will suddenly start giving Trump a fair shake, but they might indeed tone down the rhetoric a bit. Indeed, Wolf Blitzer was put in physical danger in this incident so maybe things will change? Same with the Democrats in the audience, Trump and his team might have been the targets but they were in the line of fire too. 

One thing that I don't think will change is the rhetoric coming from the far left in this country. The leadership of the Democrats is condemning this attack, but the message from Reddit and BlueSky appears to be that "this was staged and Trump deserves it anyways". I just don't think those folks have any shame anymore, and little connection to reality, and if Trump getting shot on stage in Butler didn't change anything, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk didn't change anything, I don't know why this would either...

President Trump has rescheduled Marijuana making it legal for medical purposes

 

File photo of a marijuana plant. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has rescheduled marijuana making it legal for medical purposes federally and allowing medical research. NPR. The drug has been moved from Schedule I, which includes drugs like heroin and LSD, to Schedule III, which includes drugs like Codeine and steroids. Schedule I drugs are ones that the government have ruled have no medical purposes, but Schedule III drugs are recognized to have legitimate medical uses. The change will not legalize private use but will allow patients to use FDA approved drugs and state regulated ones as well, while other forms of the drug will remain Schedule I. Medical marijuana companies and companies are big winners in the change as they will be able to operate more openly. Anti-marijuana groups may attempt to block the rescheduling of the drug. 

My Comment:

I am not sure what the reaction to this will be. Obviously anti-pot groups are going to be upset and there are a lot of people that believe that marijuana has no medicinal use. Those people are not going to be happy. But pro-pot people? I am not sure they will be happy either as this doesn't go far enough for them. 

I don't really think this will be blocked though. The anti-pot people are a minority and this seems like an easy thing that Trump can do. I don't know on what basis they can challenge this. My guess is these anti-drug groups are going to file lawsuits but those lawsuits will absolutely fail. 

As for pro-pot groups, they are absolutely going to want to go further than this, they want full legalization and simply rescheduling some of the forms of marijuana for medical use only is not going to be enough for them. They want pot to be as easy to buy as alcohol and obviously this doesn't go that far. 

So is this the right move? I think so. I don't know if I support full legalization but I do think it's worth it at the very least to study pot to see if it can actually help sick people. I do think there is pretty good evidence that it can help people with glaucoma and cancer patients so I have zero problem with those people having better access to these drugs. 

It does seem like this will be the first step for full legalization of pot. 24 states, plus Washington DC, have legalized recreational use while 40 have medical marijuana laws in force. My state, Wisconsin, has essentially a full ban, but even here cracks are forming. 

Is that going to be a good thing? I am not sure. Obviously, legalizing pot has been an economic boon for states that have legalized it. Indeed, folks in Wisconsin often drive north to Menominee Michigan just for pot, helping the economy of that town quite a bit. Millions in tax dollars are collected as well. 

There are downsides as well. Folks don't like seeing people high on weed while out in public. And a lot of people drive while high, which is obviously dangerous. I also think that the younger generation's switch from alcohol to pot is a major reason why they have so many problems forming friendships and relationships. Pot makes you satisfied with doing nothing while booze acts as a social lubricant and gets people to loosen up. 

Regardless, I do think that this half-measure is probably the right way to do this. The people that could benefit medically will at least get a chance to try and more research can be done. We will, at least in states where it isn't fully legal, avoid the downsides of the drug and the folks that need help will get it. I think that's a positive development.