The media fell in love with a kitchen ghost story. When the term "86" appeared in the legal drama surrounding James Comey, journalists rushed to the nearest gastropub to find a line cook who could explain the "everyday lingo" of the hospitality industry. They wanted a cozy narrative about menus and out-of-stock sea bass.
They missed the point entirely. Meanwhile, you can find other events here: Why the Nepal Airlines Map Error is a Major Diplomatic Headache.
To suggest "86 it" is just harmless restaurant talk is a massive failure of context. It’s the kind of lazy consensus that gets people fired—or worse, indicted. In a kitchen, 86 means you’re out of scallops. In the world of high-stakes federal investigations and corporate governance, 86 is a command for deletion, erasure, and the systematic removal of a person or a record from existence.
Stop pretending these two worlds share the same dictionary. To see the bigger picture, check out the detailed article by Al Jazeera.
The Etymology of Erasure
The "86" origin story is a mess of urban legends. Some say it’s from Article 86 of the New York State Liquor Code (which doesn't exist). Others claim it’s shorthand for "eight miles out and six feet under." Most likely, it’s just rhyming slang for "nix."
But let’s look at the actual mechanics of the word. In a restaurant, an 86 is a failure of supply. You didn't plan for the Friday night rush, so the ribeye is gone. It is a passive consequence of poor inventory management.
In a political or legal setting, an 86 is an active intervention. It is a choice to make something disappear that was previously there. When power players use the term, they aren't talking about running out of supplies. They are talking about neutralizing a threat or scrubbing a digital footprint. To treat these as the same "lingo" is like saying a surgeon and a butcher are doing the same job because they both use knives.
The Myth of Casual Intent
The competitor articles on this topic love to quote servers saying, "We say it all the time!"
Congratulations. You work at a Chili's. Your intent when you 86 the molten lava cake is fundamentally different from a high-ranking official or a CEO discussing a sensitive document. Context dictates the definition.
In law, we look at mens rea—the guilty mind. If a restaurant worker 86s a burger, there is no intent to obstruct. If a director tells an assistant to "86 those notes," the intent is the destruction of evidence.
I have seen executives lose everything because they thought they could hide behind "industry jargon." They think using "cool" or "casual" slang provides a layer of plausible deniability. It doesn’t. It actually does the opposite. Using a term like 86 suggests a level of premeditation and a specific desire to "nix" a record. It’s a red flag for any investigator worth their salt.
Why 86 is a Power Move Not a Kitchen Term
In the restaurant world, 86 is a service announcement.
In the halls of power, 86 is an execution order.
When you analyze the James Comey situation, or any high-level organizational conflict, the language used is rarely accidental. People at that level do not "accidentally" slip into the dialect of a short-order cook. They use specific, punchy verbs to convey a sense of finality.
- Scrub: Implies a cleaning of a mess.
- Burn: Implies a total destruction of a bridge or an asset.
- 86: Implies a removal from the "menu" of options.
By "86-ing" someone or something, you are stating that they are no longer available for consumption or consideration. It is the ultimate act of gatekeeping. It isn't "everyday lingo" for these people; it is a tactical tool.
The Legal Reality of Deletion
If you are a manager and you tell your team to 86 a file, you have just created a nightmare for your legal department.
The "86" defense—claiming it's just common slang—is a losing strategy. Courts don't care about the vibes of your vocabulary. They care about the spoliation of evidence. Spoliation is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.
Imagine a scenario where a company is being sued for harassment. An internal email surfaces where the VP of HR says, "86 those complaints from the 2023 folder."
Does a judge care that the VP worked at a pizza parlor in 1994 and likes the "lingo"? No. The judge sees a directive to destroy records.
The media’s attempt to "demystify" this by interviewing waitstaff is a distraction from the actual danger: the normalization of erasure in professional environments.
The Hierarchy of Slang
We need to be honest about how language moves through social classes.
Upper-class professionals often co-opt "blue-collar" or "street" slang to appear grounded or tough. This is a performance. When a tech mogul says they are "grinding" or "hustling," they aren't working in a coal mine. They are sitting in a Herman Miller chair.
When Comey or his associates are linked to the term 86, it’s not because they’ve been spending their weekends flipping omelets. It’s because the term has been sterilized and repurposed as a "tough guy" way to say "get rid of it."
This co-opting is dangerous. It masks the severity of the action. Telling a subordinate to "delete these records" sounds like a crime. Telling them to "86 these files" sounds like a task.
The Actionable Truth for Professionals
If you are in a position of any authority, you need to excise this kind of "cool" language from your professional vocabulary immediately. The "86" defense is a myth manufactured by lifestyle reporters who don't understand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Direct Language Only: If you want something removed for a legitimate reason (e.g., outdated data), say "Archive this because it is no longer relevant."
- Audit the Context: Before you use a term, ask yourself: if this were read in a deposition, how would it look? If the answer is "like a mob movie," don't say it.
- Kill the Plausible Deniability: It doesn't exist anymore. Digital trails and metadata make "slang" irrelevant. You can't 86 a ghost in the machine.
The restaurant workers quoted in these fluffy articles are right about one thing: 86 is everyday lingo for them. But they aren't the ones being subpoenaed. They aren't the ones whose private communications are being dissected by the DOJ.
The next time you see a headline trying to normalize a term used in a criminal or political investigation, look at the stakes. The server 86s the soup because they ran out. The powerful 86 the truth because they are afraid of what happens if it stays on the menu.
Stop conflating a kitchen shortage with a cover-up.
If you're still using "86" in your emails, you aren't being "industry." You're being a liability.
The menu is set. The records are permanent. There is no such thing as a casual deletion.
Get out of the kitchen before you get burned by your own jargon.
