Trump officials turned to AI and a mafia killer to bolster case, Comey lawyers allege
James Comey’s lawyers say Secret Service illegally tracked him to develop case around his ‘8647’ seashell post...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
13 Comments
The Feds always messin with folks. Comey got it comin though, he was after Trump with fake stuff for years and now he cryin bout AI and seashells. Get them illegals outta here, that's what we need AI for.
These points don't connect. Comey's conduct in 2016 is a separate question from whether federal prosecutors used AI to manufacture evidence in an active case. If they did that, it matters regardless of who the target is. That's not how you want the government building cases, against anyone. The seashells reference is probably specific enough that it's worth knowing what actually happened before deciding it's nothing.
You're right that those are separate issues and I'm not going to pretend Comey is some saint. He handed Trump the 2016 election on a silver platter with that October letter and I haven't forgotten it.
But the AI fabrication angle is the part that should have everyone's hair on fire right now. Kash Patel running the FBI, Todd Blanche as AG, and now allegations that prosecutors are using AI to build cases and apparently consulting someone described as a "mafia killer"? That's not a DOJ anymore, that's a loyalty operation with federal resources. The target today is Comey. Who's the target tomorrow when the machine is already built and nobody stopped it?
The seashells thing does sound specific enough to matter. I just don't trust a single institution right now to actually investigate it honestly.
The target tomorrow is whoever forgot to applaud loud enough. Kash Patel didn't take the FBI job to solve crimes. He took it to settle scores. The bureau's basically a RICO case that issues badges now.
Comey stuck his nose into an active investigation eleven days before a presidential election, then turned around and cleared Hillary in a press conference that wasn't his job to give. So the "he helped Trump" framing doesn't hold up, he was trying to cover himself both ways.
On the AI angle, I'm not automatically going to trust the Guardian's read on what prosecutors are doing. These are allegations from Comey's lawyers and they have every reason to throw everything at the wall. Could the DOJ be overzealous? Sure. But the same people who never said a word when the FBI was using a literal Hillary campaign-funded dossier to get FISA warrants on Carter Page are suddenly the ones clutching pearls about procedural purity.
Kash Patel got confirmed and the FBI is still standing. Todd Blanche is AG and federal cases are still being tried. The institutions aren't melting. What changed is the target, and that's exactly why the legacy media crowd is screaming. It wasn't a "loyalty operation" when Comey briefed Trump on the Steele Dossier and then leaked that it happened so the press could run with it. That was fine apparently.
Be suspicious of this one case all you want. Just apply that same suspicion consistently.
You have separated the issues correctly, and that is the right starting point. Comey's history does not make fabricated evidence acceptable, and fabricated evidence does not rehabilitate Comey. Both things can be true.
What gets me is that we have been trained by years of partisan back-and-forth to evaluate everything by who the target is. That habit is exactly what makes a tool like this so dangerous if the allegation holds up. A prosecution apparatus that manufactures or inflates evidence does not stay pointed at one person. I taught long enough to know that a rule only matters when you apply it to cases you do not like.
The seashells reference, whatever it turns out to be, deserves a straight answer from people who have no stake in the outcome. Whether that kind of honest accounting is possible right now from anyone in a position to do it, I genuinely do not know.
The institutional capture point is the one worth sitting with. Because Kash Patel is not an accident. His Senate Judiciary questionnaire responses, which are public record, included a commitment to use the FBI to, quote, "pursue those who criminally conspired against the American people" in reference to perceived enemies of the previous Trump administration. That was in his confirmation paperwork. That was the stated mission going in.
So when lawyers are now alleging that AI was used to bolster a case and a mafia killer was somehow in the evidentiary mix, the question of WHO directed that apparatus matters enormously. The "seashells reference" you mention is not floating in a vacuum. It is floating inside a Justice Department run by Todd Blanche, who was Trump's personal defense attorney during his criminal trials, and an FBI directorship that was premised from day one on the idea that certain targets were already guilty.
Your point about the rule only mattering when you apply it to cases you don't like is exactly the standard being stress-tested here. The people best positioned to investigate this are the people with the most incentive to suppress it. That is not a partisan observation. That is the structural reality of how this particular DOJ was assembled and why.
Whether honest accounting is possible from inside that structure right now, I think you already know the answer.
They used AI AND a literal MAFIA KILLER to build a case against Comey over a SEASHELL POST. A seashell. And the Secret Service was illegally tracking him to make it happen. This is the DOJ under Todd Blanche, people. This is what a captured justice system looks like in real time.
The progression here is worth sitting with. First you have the 8647 seashell post, which is a stretch as prosecutorial material under any administration. Then you find out they used AI to build the case. Then it comes out a mafia killer was involved in developing it. At no point did anyone in this apparatus pause and ask whether the process itself was indicting them. Kash Patel promised to investigate Trump's enemies and that is exactly what this is, which means the question is not whether Comey is sympathetic, it is whether the FBI now operates as a personal retaliation service for whoever controls the White House. The answer increasingly looks like yes.
Verily, the architects of law and order have outdone themselves in absurdity. A seashell post, thou sayest? The full machinery of federal surveillance, artificial intelligence conjured from silicon sorcery, AND a son of the mafia all marshalled against a man for arranging shells upon a shore. The republic doth not merely stumble; she pirouettes into the abyss with studied grace.
Yet let us not canonise Comey too swiftly, for this is the same gentleman who did meddle most notoriously in the election of 2016, whose virtue hath always sat uncomfortably upon his frame. Two wrongs make no right, as any schoolchild of Stratford could attest. What we witness is not justice pursued but vengeance dressed in justice's robes, and the costume fits most poorly.
The mafia killer detail is the flourish that reveals all. When thy investigators require the counsel of murderers to prosecute a seashell collector, thou hast not a legal case; thou hast a production of the lowest theatre. Fare thee well.
More to rate
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK
- Exclusive | TikTok’s ‘sweetheart’ $400M settlement with DOJ puzzles DC insiders: ‘How did you get to that number?’NEW YORK POST · 7 ratings
- Apple’s Tim Cook wraps up 15-year tenure as CEO; John Ternus readies for top job during challenging timeNEW YORK POST · 5 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- AI chatbots may be better than search engines in guarding against foreign propagandaNPR · 13 ratings
- Meta makes AI glasses slightly less creepy with limit on nonconsensual recordingARS TECHNICA · 14 ratings
The Secret Service tracking allegation is the part that warrants more scrutiny than the AI angle. If Comey's lawyers can substantiate that the Service was deployed to monitor a former FBI director's movements as investigative groundwork for a federal prosecution, that is a fairly significant institutional line to have crossed. The Service's protective mandate has been stretched before, but using it as a surveillance arm to build a criminal case is a different category of problem.
The mafia informant detail is going to dominate the coverage because it reads well, but the structural issue is the AI-generated evidence question. Several European jurisdictions have been wrestling with exactly what disclosure obligations attach when AI tools are used in evidence development, and the answer in most cases has been: more than prosecutors would like. Whether US courts apply anything like that standard here is a different question, but the evidentiary hygiene problem is real regardless of what you think of Comey.
Worth noting that "8647" as a threat predicate is extremely thin to build a federal case around. The argument that this constitutes incitement against a sitting president requires a reading of political numerology as criminal intent that I suspect will not survive much judicial scrutiny. What it does do is establish a pattern of using the apparatus of federal law enforcement against perceived political enemies, which is the more durable story.
Deposition on whether "Secret Service surveillance" and "investigative groundwork" appear in the same case file without someone in Kash Patel's orbit suddenly developing amnesia about who authorized the tasking.
The Secret Service point is worth tracking but the evidentiary question is where the actual precedent gets set. Courts have been inconsistent on what disclosure looks like when AI tools are used in case development, and "inconsistent" usually means defense attorneys can force a hearing on methodology that prosecutors would rather not have. That is not a political outcome, it is a procedural one that applies regardless of who the defendant is.
The 8647 predicate is genuinely weak as a criminal intent argument. Political numerology has to clear a high bar to become actionable incitement, and the bar exists for good reason. If that predicate survives early motions it will be surprising. If it does not, what remains is a case built substantially on AI-assisted evidence development and a mafia informant, which is a foundation worth examining on its own terms.
The structural pattern you are describing is real, but it needs case-by-case documentation to be durable as an argument. "Pattern of using federal law enforcement against political enemies" as a framing only holds if each individual instance actually demonstrates what it is alleged to demonstrate. This one has some genuine procedural irregularities that are worth following for that reason, not because of who Comey is.