There has been a certain escalatory logic in the resistance to Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency. In the very beginning, when few took him seriously, they laughed at him. Then they tried to defeat him in the 2016 election. Then some frantically searched for a way to prevent him from taking office.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies spied on his campaign and opened an investigation into him. Then they hoped the investigation would lead to impeachment, which would then lead to his removal. Then, when the Trump-Russia probe conducted by former Justice Department special counsel Robert Muller went bust, they impeached Trump for something else.

Then, after Trump left office — awaiting trial on a second impeachment — a Democratic attorney general in New York filed a lawsuit to destroy his business empire. Then a Democratic prosecutor in New York filed criminal charges over his businesses. Then a Democratic prosecutor in Georgia indicted him over the 2020 election. Then a prosecutor appointed by his successor, the Biden administration, indicted him twice, once over the 2020 election and once for his handling of classified information.

They didn’t work, and Trump was elected again in 2024.

So where could the escalatory logic go from there? It wasn’t brought up much in polite company, but everybody knew in the back of their minds that the next step was to kill him.

And so on July 13, 2024, an assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania, fired several shots at Trump. It was an absolute miracle Trump was not killed; he was saved by a last-second turn of his head that meant the high-powered bullet clipped his ear but did not otherwise harm him. Had he turned his head any other way, he would have died instantly. One man in the audience was killed, and others were wounded. Secret Service agents killed the would-be assassin, about whom little is known, even after nearly a year.

Then, in September, a man who had been planning for months to kill Trump was arrested in Florida after lying in wait with a rifle in the bushes by the course where Trump was playing golf. A Secret Service agent took a shot at him; he fled and was arrested later.

That brings the story to James Comey. Back in early 2017, when he was head of the FBI and when Trump was president-elect, Comey ambushed Trump with the false story that Trump had watched, and was recorded on videotape, as prostitutes performed a kinky sex act in a hotel room in Moscow in 2013. The Trump-Comey relationship went downhill from there, and Trump fired Comey in May 2017. Since then, Comey has been a pretty open resistance sympathizer.

Last week, Comey posted a picture on social media of shells arranged on a beach to make the number “8647.”The “8647” formulation is a resistance thing — the “86” being slang for dump, get rid of or kill, and the “47” being Trump, the 47th president. Back in Trump’s first term, when he was the 45th president of the United States, resistance types liked “8645.” Back then, you could buy stickers and other stuff printed with “8645” on Amazon; there is a picture on social media of Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer with an “8645” sign on her desk. Now, people can do the same thing with “8647.”

In his post, Comey seemed to pretend that the photo was just a “cool shell formation,” but he must have known what it meant. In any event, TrumpWorld accused the former head of the FBI of threatening to assassinate the president.

So was Comey actually calling for Trump’s assassination? He says no. He took down the “8647” post and wrote, “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assume were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

So assume — even though after the things he did as FBI director he doesn’t really deserve the benefit of the doubt — that Comey was not calling for Trump to be killed.

On the other hand, in the context of last summer’s assassination attempts, one could also say that “8647” has a new, even darker, meaning. In any event, it is remarkably irresponsible for a former head of the FBI to do something like that.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.