In a twist that could only be scripted in the serpentine corridors of Washington, D.C., the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over his alleged role in derailing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign has hit a significant snag, this one appointed by none other than former President Donald Trump himself.

James Comey, who has been a central figure in several political firestorms, pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements to Congress and obstruction. His confidence in the federal judicial system remains unshaken, as evidenced by his optimistic statements on social media proclaiming his innocence.

The plot thickens with the involvement of John Durham, a special counsel who was also appointed by Trump. Durham spent four years probing the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge Comey with the alleged offences. These findings were reported to prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia before the indictment, potentially setting the stage for a defense of selective prosecution.

What’s more, federal prosecutors in Virginia, after meeting with Durham, seemed to align with his conclusions. This raises questions about the motivations behind the charges, especially given that another investigation from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., also concluded that Comey committed no chargeable offenses.

This accumulation of prosecutorial discretion against pursuing charges, contrasted with the actions of a former personal attorney for Trump who pushed the indictment, paints a complex picture of legal strategy and political rivalry.

The developments suggest a judicial and investigative environment deeply divided along lines of experience and political loyalty, with career prosecutors seemingly at odds with politically appointed figures. As the case unfolds, it promises to be a litmus test for the independence of the American judicial system and could potentially have far-reaching implications for the perception of justice in politically sensitive cases.