I have no idea how even you could have derived that conclusion from my statement as it is completely devoid of any such comment.

Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough to establish incitement to violence given the common meaning of "86" to be removing someone from an establishment.

Touche

So Trump should limit his speech and Comey is free to express himself. Too much TDS in your eye

you misspelled "i was wrong"...

I never said Trump can't or shouldn't say anything akin to what Comey said.

You also conflate "should" and "legal" . Lots of things shouldn't be said but are legal to say.

FOCUS
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56714.msg502301#msg502301

FOCUS
Are you claiming that "86" does not mean to remove someone from an establishment?

Maybe Comey was talking about Trump invading Panama as an act of war.

Show me where I said that. (You can't) 

please show me where i said that...

FOCUS
Are you claiming that "86" does not mean to remove someone from an establishment?

We do not yet know what prompted 22-year-old accused gunman
Jared Loughner to allegedly shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
and others, including a child and federal judge who died from their
wounds.

But critics of Sarah Palin have already drawn a link between the
shooting and the fact that the former Alaska governor put Giffords
on a "target list"of lawmakers Palin wanted to see unseated in the
midterm elections.

I think you’re permanently stuck on step one, which annoys the rest of us who have moved on long ago

Wrong

If there are several common meanings for a phrase, it's up to the reader/listener to interpret it, and it's up to the writer/speaker to know their audience and how they might take the words in or out of context.

That's why it's  important for highly visible public figures to choose their words and images carefully.  it doesn't matter what comey says he intended or didn't intend.  It's about how someone else will interpret his post.

Remember the uproar the Democrats raised when Sarah Palin used a crosshair image saying they needed to target certain candidates?  The Left went crazy saying she was inciting violence.  Her ads were also blamed by many for inciting the public assassination attempt of Rep. Gabby Giffords.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-criticized-over-gabrielle-giffords-presence-on-target-list/

Same exact thing -- intentional or not.  After the Palin ad situation, Comey knew better.  He chose to post it anyway.

I didn't say you said that. I said what "86" commonly means and you post a video saying Comey knew that 86 meant violence as if it were a rebuttal. Maybe what you don't realize is that threats have to be clear and specific. What that means is that if a term or phrase has multiple different meanings then it becomes difficult/impossible to prove the person meant the violent meaning instead of the non-violent meaning. Because of the term having multiple meanings, a prosecution of Comey for this would have to prove that Comey meant the violent meaning as opposed to the non-violent meaning, not merely that Comey knew or should have known the word could be interpreted as a threat.

The most simplest example would be if you scratched my car and I said "You will be sorry!" in an angry voice that could be interpreted as a threat of assault but I could have said it meaning I would sue you. To be a threat the statement cannot be ambiguous.

That’s what someone in denial would say

I didn't say you said that. I said what "86" commonly means and you post a video saying Comey knew that 86 meant violence as if it were a rebuttal. Maybe what you don't realize is that threats have to be clear and specific. What that means is that if a term or phrase has multiple different meanings then it becomes difficult/impossible to prove the person meant the violent meaning instead of the non-violent meaning. Because of the term having multiple meanings, a prosecution of Comey for this would have to prove that Comey meant the violent meaning as opposed to the non-violent meaning, not merely that Comey knew or should have known the word could be interpreted as a threat.

The most simplest example would be if you scratched my car and I said "You will be sorry!" in an angry voice that could be interpreted as a threat of assault but I could have said it meaning I would sue you. To be a threat the statement cannot be ambiguous.

that's not what you said
"Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough to establish incitement to violence given the common meaning of "86" to be removing someone from an establishment."
FOCUS
he never said that he was saying "remove trump"...

well said, officer...
you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence
objectively speaking, of course...