FBI’s Question of Sammy the Bull Reveals Comey’s Knowledge of ‘86’
FBI’s Question of Sammy the Bull Reveals Comey’s Knowledge of ‘86’
In a surprising turn, former Gambino mob prosecutor Sammy the Bull testified that FBI agents asked him whether former FBI Director James Comey understood the slang term “86” as meaning to kill. This claim contradicts Comey’s public denial in his federal case, raising questions about the accuracy of his statements and the FBI’s investigative tactics.
What Is “86” and Why It Matters
The term “86” originates in organized crime slang, where it signifies the elimination of a person. In modern usage, it can also mean to dismiss or reject something. The FBI’s inquiry into whether Comey knew this meaning touches on the broader issue of how law‑enforcement officials interpret and communicate with informants and witnesses.
Sammy the Bull’s Testimony
During a court filing, Sammy the Bull—whose real name is Vincent “Sammy the Bull” Gravano—claimed that FBI agents had asked him if Comey was aware that “86” meant killing. Gravano’s statement suggests that Comey’s denial in his federal case may have been a deliberate misrepresentation, or that he was unaware of the term’s true connotation.
Implications for Comey’s Federal Case
Comey’s denial of knowledge about the term “86” was part of his defense in a federal case involving allegations of misconduct. If Gravano’s testimony is accurate, it could undermine Comey’s credibility and potentially affect the outcome of the case. Legal analysts note that such contradictions can be pivotal in court proceedings.
FBI’s Investigative Approach
The FBI’s decision to question Gravano about Comey’s understanding of “86” reflects a broader strategy of probing the backgrounds and knowledge of key witnesses. By exploring whether Comey was familiar with organized‑crime terminology, investigators aim to assess the reliability of his statements and the potential influence of criminal informants on his actions.
What This Means for Public Trust
Public confidence in federal agencies hinges on transparency and honesty. When a former FBI Director’s statements are called into question, it can erode trust in the institution. The case underscores the importance of accurate record‑keeping and the need for officials to be forthcoming about their knowledge and intentions.
For more details, read the full court filing and related coverage.
Watch and listen free on JASTORM – Follow radio and video broadcasts free in the JASTORM app with your free account.
