George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley responded to the DOJ’s second indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in an op-ed for Fox News titled: “Comey’s shell post may be crass, but charging him is a free speech trap.” The subtitle reads: “The ’86 47′ shell image was crude political speech, not a true threat under Supreme Court precedent.”
Turley wrote on social media: “Fox is out with my column on the Comey indictment. I have been one of Comey’s longest and most vocal critics. However, it is the Constitution, not Comey, that must drive this analysis. This indictment is unlikely to survive First Amendment challenges.”
Fox is out with my column on the Comey indictment. I have been one of Comey’s longest and most vocal critics. However, it is the Constitution, not Comey, that must drive this analysis. This indictment is unlikely to survive First Amendment challenges. https://t.co/KuHfviB47U
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 29, 2026
MAGA supporters are responding to Turley’s assessment, in some cases conceding his point while portraying extralegal aims. One commenter wrote: “It’s not about convicting him. It’s about making him see what it feels like to have the full weight of the Federal Government coming down on you. It couldn’t be happening to a more deserving candidate. You do in fact, reap what you sow on occasion.”
Another Comey detractor who concurred with Turley replied: “I think the prosecutors are bringing him in to let him know what’s coming (conspiracy, sedition, etc.). Maybe they’ll flip him, and he’ll give up the entire coup plan. P.S. I despise the man, but I think this is a lousy case.”
Representing a popular strain of online opinion, another commenter saw torment — not conviction — as the ultimate goal, writing: “Even if it doesn’t survive first amendment challenges, it’ll be nice to see him be put through the same hell that Trump was put through only Trump‘s hell was for naught. We know darn well that Comey put those stones together the way he did to send a message that he truly meant.”
Those focusing on legal precedent rather than schadenfreude seem mostly to believe the Comey case isn’t sound enough to result in a conviction. Litigator Patrick Jaicomo of the nonprofit libertarian Institute for Justice replied to Turley: “Stop hedging, Jonathan. This prosecution clearly violates the First Amendment.”