Each day brings a new demonstration of the idiocy of our politics. Today it’s the Comey story.

In light of the assassination attempts on (now) President Trump, to say nothing of his own hyperbolic rhetoric about Trump’s hyperbolic rhetoric prior to the Capitol riot, former FBI Director Jim Comey should not have published a picture of seashells arrayed in an “86 47” on Instagram. It’s bad judgment, and not for the first time. I take no joy in saying that about someone I’ve known and liked for nearly 40 years and who has never been anything but kind and gracious to me.

But the claims that “86” is a call to assassinate the 47th president? Coming from the Secretary of Homeland Security, national intelligence director, the FBI director, and a high-ranking Trump DOJ official, this is not just moronic talk. It is blatantly political and willfully inflammatory talk.

The term “86” is an old one and it just means to throw something away, to get rid of it because it has no useful purpose. In the glossary of words anti-Trumpers of the left and right have applied to the president, it is comparatively tame. It is tame, too, in comparison to the words and imagery Trump has applied to his political opponents. And that some lunatic fringe may invoke “86” to suggest assassination does not mean the term loses its familiar meaning — any more than the mafia’s use of “off” to refer to murder means the rest of us have to stop saying “off.”

Everybody knows Comey is deeply opposed to Trump and would like to see him impeached; nobody with a brain who is speaking honestly believes Comey wants Trump to be killed. It should not have been necessary to make this point, but in taking his foolish Instagram post down, Comey asserted that he opposes violence, had no thought that “86 47” was a call to violence, and had no intention of suggesting violence.

The people who are feigning great offense over this are the same people who staunchly defended Trump’s Ellipse speech and who bristled at the description of the January 6 riot as an insurrection.

Just as I think Comey should avoid using cyphers that others can easily misinterpret (intentionally or otherwise), I didn’t think, politically speaking, there was any defending Trump’s speech or the unrest at the Capitol. But legally speaking, it was utter distortion to portray Trump’s speech as criminal incitement, and what happened at the Capitol was clearly not an insurrection (a term Lincoln applied to the Civil War). That is why Trump, though indicted on scores of criminal counts, was never charged with incitement (the federal offense is called “solicitation to commit a crime of violence” — Section 373 of the penal code). And it’s why not a single one of the 1,600 people prosecuted over January 6 was charged with insurrection (Section 2383).

I made those points more times than I can count over the past four years (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here). That said, Trump’s Ellipse speech — in particular, his urging his followers to “fight,” knowing he was also exhorting them to march on the Capitol — was closer to incitement than anything Comey said. And it still wasn’t incitement. And experienced prosecutors, investigators, and security officials know that.

What a stupid time to be alive.

Author’s note: I’ve edited this post to remove a redundant use of “comparative.”