E-Pluribus | May 8, 2026
Comey Indictment a censorship time bomb. Spying on racist toddlers? Privacy of public officials v 1A.
A round-up of the latest and best insight on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Jacob Gaba: How the Comey Indictment Could Backfire on Republicans
Republicans should think long and hard about the consequences of indicting former FBI Director James Comey for a careless tweet. So argues Jacob Gaba at The Dispatch. If you’ll use power against your enemies, don’t be surprised when they use it against you:
The Department of Justice’s recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has been rightly criticized as flimsy and an affront to the First Amendment. This is nothing more than a naked use of federal authority to intimidate a notable critic of President Donald Trump. It’s also something that should make conservatives uneasy.
The Republican Party won’t always control the government, but by treating hostile political symbolism as a threat, the Department of Justice has opened a door that future administrations may be all too willing to walk through.
DOJ first sought to indict Comey in September 2025, alleging that he lied to Congress during testimony he gave in 2020. A federal judge dismissed that indictment in December on the grounds that the prosecutor, acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed. In late April, Comey was indicted again, this time over a nearly year-old social media post in which Comey had spelled out “86 47” in seashells. The government called that “a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States.”
How are numbers threatening? The indictment has no answer, but “86” commonly means to “get rid of” or “throw out” (with “47” meaning Trump, the 47th president). To argue that “86” means “assassinate” or “kill” requires taking an uncharitable interpretation of Comey’s post, to say the least. Even Amazon sells “8647” and “8646” (referring to former President Joe Biden) decals explicitly branded as “anti-Trump” and “funny Joe Biden bumper stickers.”
It stretches credulity to suggest that any American who buys and sells those stickers threatens death on the president. But if the DOJ’s theory were to hold, there’s no reason a future Democratic administration couldn’t say that anti-Biden or anti-Democratic Party slogans sold online, chanted at rallies, or posted on social media are evidence of criminal intent.
Craig Simpson: Nurseries urged to report ‘racist toddlers’ to police
It’s so overtly Orwellian you’d think it was a joke—yet it’s not. Day cares in the UK are being encouraged to report racist behavior among young children to the authorities. The Telegraph reports:
Welsh nurseries have been advised to report children for “racist incidents” in guidance backed by the Labour Government.
The taxpayer-funded guidance for childminders aims to make nurseries and play groups “anti-racist” environments.
Childcare workers are advised to call police if a “racist incident” occurs that could be deemed a hate crime.
Advised actions include calling 999 for emergencies, or otherwise speaking to police officers and taking “relevant action in conjunction with the police, ensuring you record all details of the incident”.
If the incident is not a hate crime, childcare workers can instead take steps including offering “age-appropriate learning support opportunities for the perpetrator”.
Should this be “met with resistance”, childcare workers are advised to draw up a “disciplinary route”, with various outcomes explained in a flowchart.
Those in the childcare, play and early years sector in Wales work with children aged 12 and below, including babies and toddlers.
The guidance advises staff in playgroups and other settings to conduct an “understanding audit” and to ask themselves, on a scale of one to five, how well they “understand what white privilege is and how it can affect my life and the lives of others”.
Olivia George: Activist who gave out fliers with Stephen Miller’s address won’t face charges
Activists who distributed fliers containing the home address of White House aide Stephen Miller won’t be charged, the Washington Post reports. Prosecutors in Arlington County, Virginia, say there wasn’t enough evidence the protestors intended to harass Miller and his family. Bringing charges would therefore violate the First Amendment:
A Virginia woman who distributed leaflets disclosing the home address of top White House aide Stephen Miller will not face state criminal charges, according to court documents filed Tuesday by Arlington County’s top prosecutor. Proceeding would violate the activist’s constitutionally protected free speech rights and “risk having a chilling effect on others wishing to engage in peaceful political protest.”
There was “insufficient evidence” to conclude the activist last year distributed the fliers with intent to harass Miller, wrote Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, a second-term Democrat who serves as Arlington’s lead prosecutor. The activist included Miller’s photograph with a red line through it and urged people to scan a QR code to “demand a congressional investigation.”
“Petitioning government is a clear and quintessentially protected activity,” Dehghani-Tafti wrote in court filings. She requested the Virginia State Police destroy all materials collected from the activist’s phone under a search warrant previously issued by the court.
Katie Miller, Stephen Miller’s wife, faulted the lack of prosecution in a text message to The Washington Post on Tuesday afternoon. She used an expletive and pointed out that Dehghani-Tafti had been backed by liberal donor George Soros in her campaigns. “This is a consistent theme across the country of prosecutor[s] and judges funded by Soros,” she wrote.
Around X
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) applauds ABC for standing up to the government’s bullying tactics.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sits down with Reason Magazine to discuss the importance of checking political power to safeguard individual liberty.
Daily Wire commentator Michael Knowles says the Trump Administration has consistently defended free speech. It’s certainly a provocative argument.
