On Thursday night, the Justice Department revealed an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, that lays out vague allegations that Comey made false statements to Congress.

The indictment is not at all surprising because, last week, President Donald Trump briefly posted, and then deleted, what appears to be a direct order to Attorney General Pam Bondi to target three of his perceived political enemies: Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).

Trump criticizes Pam Bondi for not charging his adversaries quickly enough, in a Truth Social post that looks a lot like a DM. https://t.co/fDMqVwXGF2 pic.twitter.com/Re4IjAgc0t

Among other things, Trump’s post, which appeared on his social media site Truth Social, appears to confirm that Erik Siebert, who until recently served as a US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was removed from office after he refused to bring criminal charges against James because his office was unable to find evidence that she committed a crime. Before leaving the Justice Department, Siebert also reportedly conveyed to his superiors that the case against Comey is weak.

And this isn’t the first time Trump’s Justice Department targeted one of the president’s perceived enemies. Months before Trump accidentally posted his message to Bondi, his administration already brought political charges against a Democratic member of Congress. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) faces up to 17 years in prison for an incident where she briefly made physical contact with federal law enforcement officers who were attempting to arrest another elected Democrat, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. The charges against Baraka were swiftly dropped, and a federal magistrate judge labeled Baraka’s arrest as a “worrisome misstep” — but the charges against her are still pending.

McIver is charged under a federal law that targets anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes” with a federal law enforcement officer carrying out their official duties. There’s no question that McIver, who joined a group of people attempting to block federal agents from seizing Baraka, impeded or interfered with that arrest. But she only committed a crime if she did so “forcibly,” and the Trump administration’s claim that she did is quite a stretch.

A video of Baraka’s arrest shows a chaotic scrum where officers repeatedly laid hands on McIver. McIver also made contact with the officers a few times; in the most significant interaction, she appears to have placed her forearm on an officer who had just knocked her off balance and pushed him away.

It may be unlikely that a jury would convict McIver, but the mere fact that she must hire lawyers to defend herself places an extraordinary burden on her. House ethics rules prevent her from accepting pro bono legal counsel, so she must either pay for her legal defense — which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more out of pocket — or use campaign funds to pay her attorneys.

It is these costs, which threaten to either bankrupt McIver or siphon away the money she needs to campaign for office, that make the Trump administration’s decision to target her so alarming. Even if McIver is eventually found innocent, the prosecution of LaMonica McIver tests a new authoritarian tactic that Trump could potentially deploy against any elected Democrat: Bring dubious criminal charges against them, and force them to drain their campaign funds, and maybe even their personal bank account, in order to fight those charges.

The charges against McIver also test a provision of the Constitution that is supposed to prevent the executive from weaponizing criminal charges against members of Congress. This provision, as the Supreme Court said in United States v. Johnson (1966), is supposed to “prevent intimidation” of members of Congress “by the executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary.” If the courts do not swiftly dismiss these charges, it will be a troubling sign that federal lawmakers can no longer rely on the Constitution to protect them from Trump.

The provision of the Constitution, known as the Speech and Debate Clause, explicitly protects members of Congress from prosecutions and other legal proceedings that interfere with........

© Vox