- Motorcyclist fled police and drove the wrong way before crash, say N.S. RCMP
- Comey requests dismissal of indictment over Instagram post, citing First Amendment rights
- Remains of stillborn baby left on funeral home’s floor for two years
- Wildfire nears Bordeaux as emergency measures are implemented in France
- Us president trump renews threats against eu-us trade deal on anniversary
- Iran Accuses Ukraine of Deadly Attack on Vessel in Caspian Sea
- Sam Altman declares AI has reached singularity, raising concerns about control
- Wildfires near Clinton, B.C. merge, covering nearly 670 square kilometres
UK public borrowing exceeds official forecast in September
FT.com Tweet
Government borrowing overshot official projections in September, which is a sign of the difficult fiscal position that the Chancellor faces as she puts the finishing touches on her first tax and spending budget.
CITY AM Tweet
Get you up to speed: Motorcyclist fled police, drove wrong way before crash: N.S. RCMP
RCMP allege that a motorcyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, fled from police during an attempted stop. The incident involved the officer and the motorcyclist; further details on the situation have not been confirmed.
The RCMP is currently investigating the incident involving the motorcyclist, who is believed to have been in violation of traffic regulations. No further details about the possible location or outcome of the pursuit have been provided by the authorities.
The RCMP condemned the behaviour of the motorcyclist, highlighting the risks posed by not wearing a helmet and fleeing from law enforcement. Following the incident, authorities plan to review pursuit protocols to enhance public safety during such encounters.
What remains unclear — It is unknown what injuries, if any, the motorcyclist sustained after fleeing from police.
Motorcyclist fled police and drove the wrong way before crash, say N.S. RCMP

RCMP allege the motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet and fled from police when an officer tried to stop him.
Get you up to speed: Comey asks judge to drop case over seashells Instagram post, arguing speech is protected by First Amendment
Former FBI Director James Comey is challenging an indictment from a federal grand jury alleging he threatened President Trump’s life through an Instagram post. Comey’s lawyers argue that the charges violate the First Amendment, asserting that the phrase “86 47” does not imply violence.
Former FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to be arraigned in late September. He has filed motions seeking to dismiss the charges against him, asserting that the prosecution is both selective and vindictive.
Former FBI Director James Comey’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that it infringes on protected speech under the First Amendment and that the phrase “86 47” does not indicate a threat. Comey is set to be arraigned in late September and intends to pursue multiple motions to dismiss the charges on various grounds, citing potential selective prosecution.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how the court will rule on Comey’s motions to dismiss the charges against him.
Comey requests dismissal of indictment over Instagram post, citing First Amendment rights
Washington — Former FBI Director James Comey urged a federal judge on Monday to throw out an indictment alleging he threatened President Trump’s life, arguing that it targets speech protected by the First Amendment and that the phrase at the center of the charges, “86 47,” does not connote violence.
Lawyers for Comey wrote in their motion to dismiss the case that the indictment returned by a federal grand jury earlier this year “targets and chills” political speech. The First Amendment, they wrote, prohibits the government from using criminal prosecution to punish a political opponent.
“Forcing Mr. Comey to stand trial for a statement opposing the President — even if he is ultimately acquitted — would itself be an unconstitutional punishment of free speech,” Comey’s defense team wrote. “And it would invite future prosecutions by the Executive Branch against perceived political enemies for their opposition to the President.”
They argued that the indictment against Comey should be dismissed because it does not allege he made a true threat against Mr. Trump.
Comey faces two charges of threatening to kill the president, which stem from a photo he briefly posted to his Instagram account last year that showed seashells arranged in the sand to form the numbers “86 47.”
Prosecutors claim that a “reasonable recipient” would interpret the depiction of the shells “as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to President Trump.”
Comey deleted the image soon after he shared it and said at the time that he believed the shell formation was communicating a political message. He said in May 2025 that he didn’t realize that the numbers may be associated with violence and took the post down because “I oppose violence of any kind.”
The former FBI director is set to be arraigned in late September and has proclaimed he is innocent of the charges.
Comey is expected to file several motions seeking to have the charges against him dismissed on a variety of grounds, including that the prosecution against him is selective and vindictive.
In their first filing raising First Amendment issues with the indictment, his lawyers said that the phrase “86” means “to get rid of” or “eject,” and “has no violent connotation except in the most uncommon usages.” The defense team cited several other instances where the phrase “86” has been used, including by former Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida in response to the removal of several GOP leaders from their roles.
But even if Comey’s post is read to imply violence, his lawyers said, it would be recognized by a reasonable observer as political hyperbole, which is protected by the First Amendment.
“Whatever one thinks of Mr. Comey’s message, the only question here is whether his post is protected speech. Because it is, the indictment must be dismissed,” they wrote.
Comey’s lawyers warned of the consequences of letting the criminal case against him move forward.
Allowing the indictment to stand would “permit the government to chill political opposition merely by filing unfounded charges and imposing the burdens of a trial on someone who engaged in protected speech,” they said.
Comey is a frequent target of the president’s due to his role in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which the FBI launched in Mr. Trump’s first term.
He was indicted last year in a separate case that involved testimony Comey gave to Congress in September 2020. But those charges were dismissed when a judge found that the prosecutor who pursued and secured the indictment had been improperly appointed interim U.S. attorney.
The Justice Department has appealed that decision.
What to Watch
Amazon prime - TV & Netflix
What to Watch
Love Sports
- Readers Digest
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.


