Comey Alleges 'Shell-Shocked' First Amendment Under Threat of Literal Interpretation

In a legal maneuver that has left constitutional scholars weeping into their dry martinis, former FBI Director James Comey is contending that his artistic arrangement of seashells, which spell out the coded missive '86 47,' constitutes not a threat to the republic, but rather a profoundly misunderstood act of marine-themed interpretive dance. Comey's legal team, reportedly comprised entirely of former poetry slam finalists, argues that the prosecution's insistence on a literal reading of '86 47' (widely interpreted as 'Remove Trump') demonstrates a shocking lack of appreciation for the nuances of beach-derived semiotics and the inherent ambiguity of mollusk-based messaging. The defense further asserted that to criminalize such an eloquent display of coastal debris would set a dangerous precedent, forcing all future political dissenters to express their grievances exclusively through interpretive dance involving interpretive seaweed or, God forbid, interpretive driftwood. Critics suggest this entire kerfuffle highlights a larger societal ill: the inability of the populace to differentiate between literal insurrection and avant-garde shoreline art, especially when the artist in question has a penchant for dramatic press conferences and an uncanny resemblance to a bewildered giraffe.