Court filing says FBI asked “Sammy the Bull” about whether James Comey knew meaning of “86”

A federal court filing described an FBI interview in which investigators asked former Gambino crime family underboss Samuel “Sammy the Bull” Gravano whether ex-prosecutor James Comey understood the meaning of the term “86,” according to a report by Fox News. The filing, which comes in the context of Comey’s federal case, ties the disputed exchange to competing accounts of what Comey knew about the phrase and what the phrase allegedly meant.

Fox News reported that Gravano told investigators that Comey “had to know” what “86” referred to. The report says Gravano treated the term as a code for killing someone, directly conflicting with Comey’s position in his own case, where he has denied knowledge or understanding of that alleged meaning.

The dispute centers on a specific word with stated significance in the criminal context. In the reporting described by Fox News, the FBI’s decision to ask Gravano about Comey’s understanding suggests prosecutors or litigants viewed Gravano’s interpretation as relevant to whether Comey’s alleged conduct involved awareness of the purported code.

Fox News’ account characterizes the court filing as evidence offered to rebut Comey’s denial. The filing reportedly uses Gravano’s supposed reaction to the “86” question to challenge Comey’s credibility and the completeness of his stated understanding. Because the item provided here does not include the full filing text or the underlying docket entries, specific procedural details such as the case number, the stage of litigation, and the exact requested relief were not included in the available record.

Gravano, also known as “Sammy the Bull” after his role in a major organized-crime prosecution, previously became a government witness and has remained a key figure in mob-related testimony. Comey, whose name has also been associated with high-profile federal investigations during his earlier government career, is described in the report as the subject of a dispute over whether he understood the alleged coded language during interactions referenced in the case.

The next steps depend on what the court filing seeks and how the judge handling the matter resolves disputes over admissibility and credibility. If the court considers the Gravano-related statements as part of the evidentiary record, the “86” exchange could become a focal point in resolving contested facts in Comey’s federal case. If the court limits the use of the statement or treats it as disputed, the impact could narrow to credibility arguments rather than substantive findings.