Former Congresswoman and former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard joined Fox News host Jesse Watters to discuss growing concerns over a social media post made by former FBI Director James Comey.
Which appeared to reference the phrase “86 Trump”—a term widely interpreted as a veiled call to assassinate President Donald Trump.
A matter with profound implications not only for national security but also for presidential protection liability insurance and domestic terrorism law enforcement protocols.
During the segment, Gabbard criticized Comey for using language she said he “absolutely” knew the implications of.
Given his extensive background in law enforcement, federal prosecution, and the legal obligations tied to his former office.
“Absolutely not, Jesse. That is a ridiculous and insane statement to make, certainly within this context, but especially coming from a guy who is the former director of the FBI.
A guy who spent most of his career prosecuting mobsters and gangsters — people who know and execute other humans and use this exact lingo of 86.”
Gabbard said, stressing the need for government-level threat assessment frameworks and legal accountability in politically charged threats.
Gabbard pointed out that Comey himself later acknowledged the political nature of his message, tying it to recent activist slogans.
“Comey himself admitted in his follow-on message that he knew that this was a political statement. Well, the only reason he knew that, Jesse, was because little over a month ago, a bunch of anti-Trump.
Anti-Elon Musk protesters were proliferating the use of this 8647 slogan, which was a veiled call to action to murder the sitting President of the United States,” she said.
Noting the need for federal investigative resources, and possibly the expansion of threat response insurance coverage for public officials.
Gabbard warned of the potential influence figures like Comey wield when making such statements, especially given his public stature, media presence, and potential implications for civil unrest and government liability exposure.
“This is the guy who is issuing a hit on President Trump, the President that the American people voted for,” she said.
When asked by Watters how seriously the administration is taking the matter, Gabbard confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security is actively investigating the situation.
A matter now involving federal legal procedures, public official security audits, and potentially criminal negligence in inciting threats.
“We’re taking this very seriously,” she said. “The Department of Homeland Security and specifically Sean Curran, the current Secret Service Director.
Takes this seriously and is leading the investigation into this threat.”
She added, referencing agencies responsible for coordinating executive protection insurance, high-risk intelligence analysis, and threat suppression operations.
Gabbard cited a recent Rutgers study that found over 55% of respondents considered the assassination of President Trump to be “somewhat justified”.
A shocking number with ramifications for political violence liability, law enforcement resourcing, and the role of mental health crisis management in monitoring ideological extremism.
She said such sentiments were directly influenced by rhetoric from high-profile figures like Comey.
“This study also pointed out that there is a quote, unquote, assassination culture that is starting to take over the views of what they call the extreme left,” she said.
Calling for not only legal scrutiny but institutional wellness assessments and government threat prevention funding.
“We, the American people, cannot take this lightly… We cannot allow people to get by without being held accountable for this kind of public call to assassinate the president of United States.”
Gabbard stated, underlining the risk of legal loopholes, and the potential need for legislative reforms on political speech liability.
Watters then asked if Comey might be goading the administration in order to portray himself as a political martyr.
Gabbard responded that intent doesn’t excuse the threat.
“There is a guy in Georgia who was issuing threats on my life about a month ago, and he’s in jail. Today,” Gabbard said.
Drawing a direct comparison to legal precedents in criminal threat prosecution, and the handling of such cases in state-level felony courts.
“So whatever James Comey’s intent, he and people like him need to be held to account according to the law,” she emphasized.
Pointing to a growing call for uniform enforcement, legal risk management, and cyber threat prevention in public discourse.
When asked directly if Comey should face jail time, Gabbard responded unequivocally:
“I do. Any other person with the position of influence that he has… I’m very concerned for the President’s life.
We’ve already seen assassination attempts. I’m very concerned for his life. And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this,” she concluded.
An argument now sparking legal commentary across constitutional law firms, federal prosecution offices, and homeland security risk consultancies.