Ep 66 - 86’d: When a Slang Term Becomes Evidence

One of the most aggravating realities in the era of Donald Trump is how quickly the absurd becomes consequential. It’s not just that ridiculous things dominate the conversation. It’s that they get elevated—turned into something that carries real weight, real consequences, and sometimes, real legal action.

The latest example? The number 86.

This wasn’t about the number. It was about what they needed it to mean.

Despite what the MAGA social media sphere, conservative media, or even Trump himself are insisting, “86” has not historically meant “kill.” And yet, that claim now sits at the center of a federal case involving former FBI Director James Comey.

Comey is facing charges tied to a social media post—an image of seashells arranged to read “8647.” No caption. No explanation. Just a number spelled out in sand and shell.

According to Trump and his allies, that wasn’t harmless or ambiguous. It was a threat. “86 him.” “Kill him.” “8647”—kill the 47th president. Trump even supplied a cinematic translation: a mob phrase meaning “eight miles out, six feet down.”

Trump's Truth Social post.

If that interpretation were accurate—if that were the clear, established meaning of the number—then the case would be straightforward. It would be an obvious, direct threat against the President of the United States.

But that immediately raises a basic question: if this was an obvious threat, why did it take nearly a year to bring charges?

Threats against a sitting president are not subtle matters that sit around waiting for a convenient moment. They are immediate, urgent, and aggressively investigated. So either this was that… or it wasn’t.

To understand which it is, you have to step back from the politics and look at the word doing all the work here.

For nearly a century, “86” has had a very simple, very unglamorous meaning. It comes out of diners and soda counters—fast-paced environments where shorthand mattered. “86 the meatloaf” meant you were out. Don’t sell it. Move on.

From there, the meaning expanded. In bars, to “86” someone meant removing them—kicking out a disruptive customer. In everyday speech, it came to mean rejecting or canceling something: “Let’s 86 that idea.”

Standard dictionary definitions reflect this long-standing usage. “86” means to refuse service, reject, or get rid of something. Not kill. Not threaten. Remove.

The origin of the number itself is less certain. The most widely accepted explanation is linguistic—“eighty-six” rhymes with “nix,” meaning to cancel or reject. It’s simple, practical, and consistent with how slang develops in working environments.

There are other, more colorful explanations—Prohibition-era codes, barroom folklore, secret signals—but they lack solid historical backing. And then there’s the version being promoted now: “eight miles out, six feet down.”

It’s vivid. It’s memorable. It sounds authoritative.

It’s also unsupported by any credible historical evidence.

This is what linguists call a back-formation—a story created after the fact to make a word seem more dramatic or meaningful than it originally was. And it works precisely because it’s compelling.

That’s how language gets distorted. Not through careful evolution, but through confident repetition. A fringe or exaggerated interpretation gets repeated often enough, loudly enough, and with enough certainty that it starts to feel like the obvious meaning.

Once that happens, the word itself becomes a tool.

Because the meaning of the word determines the meaning of the act. If “86” means “get rid of,” Comey’s post is ambiguous. If “86” means “kill,” it becomes a threat.

That single shift transforms interpretation into intent.

And that transformation matters, because it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Trump has repeatedly and publicly talked about wanting the Department of Justice to target people he believes have wronged him. That context doesn’t prove anything on its own—but it’s impossible to ignore.

The situation becomes even harder to reconcile when you look at how similar language has been treated in other contexts. While President Joe Biden was in office, right-wing activist Jack Posobiec posted “86 46.”

Same number. Same structure. Different president.

If “86” clearly means “kill,” then that post should have carried the same implication and triggered the same level of concern. It didn’t. There were no federal charges, no major legal escalation, no sustained narrative framing it as a direct assassination threat.

When Acting Attorney General Blanche was asked about the comparison, he declined to engage. But the comparison doesn’t require much explanation. If the definition is consistent, the response should be consistent.

It wasn’t.

Then there’s the timeline. Comey’s post appeared in May 2025. The indictment came nearly a year later, in April 2026.

That’s not how urgent threats are handled.

When law enforcement encounters a credible threat to the president, the response is immediate. It doesn’t sit. It doesn’t wait. It doesn’t get revisited months later after public narratives have had time to form.

So what explains the delay? Either this was clearly a serious threat that went unaddressed for months, or it wasn’t—and it took time to interpret, frame, and build into something actionable. ◊

At some point, you have to step back and look at all of this together. The definition that doesn’t hold up. The inconsistency in application. The timeline that doesn’t match the urgency of the claim. And the broader political context in which all of this is unfolding.

Because when you do, this stops looking like a straightforward legal question about a threatening statement.

It starts looking like something else.

It looks like a word being stretched just far enough to support a conclusion that was already waiting to be reached. It looks like ambiguity being turned into certainty through repetition and confidence.

And it looks like a case being built not on what a word has meant for decades, but on what it needs to mean right now.

At that point, it’s no longer a mystery.

It’s a method.

You don’t need a secret code to understand what’s happening here. You just need to recognize the pattern: redefine the word, reshape the intent, justify the response.

And once you see that pattern, this doesn’t feel like a misunderstanding. It doesn’t feel like a close call. It doesn’t even feel like a particularly strong argument.

It feels like a justification.

A way to get from point A to point B—even if the straight line between them doesn’t really exist.

And the more you look at it that way, the less this feels like justice—and the more it starts to look like something else entirely.

Something a whole lot closer to retribution.

SOURCES

Merriam-Webster — “Eighty-six” definition and origin — https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eighty-six

Merriam-Webster — Wordplay: “Why Do We Say 86?” — https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/eighty-six-meaning-origin

Green’s Dictionary of Slang — “86” entry — https://greensdictofslang.com

History.com — “Where Did the Term ‘86’ Come From?” — https://www.history.com/articles/86-meaning

PBS NewsHour — “James Comey indicted over social media post, Trump’s DOJ says crossed a line” — https://www.pbs.org/newshour

Reuters — “U.S. Justice Department indicts former FBI Director James Comey” — https://www.reuters.com

Britannica — Slang (language) overview — https://www.britannica.com/topic/slang

Linguistic Society of America — “What is Language?” — https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/what-language