This president asks, and he shall receive.

Less than a week after Donald Trump fired off a Truth Social post specifically calling for a handful of his critics to be prosecuted, one of those targeted – former FBI director James Comey – has been indicted.

The Department of Justice announced a criminal case against Comey late on Thursday, fulfilling the president's desire to seek retribution and further raising concerns about whether US Attorney General Pam Bondi is weaponising the Justice Department to target Trump's political rivals.

Comey has been indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice in relation to his testimony before a Senate panel in 2020. Prosecutors allege he lied to Congress about whether he authorised the leak of classified information to members of the media.

It doesn't take much to connect the dots, even if Trump's Justice Department insists there is a solid case against the former FBI director and that this is an example of the powerful being held to account.

"Today's indictment reflects this Department of Justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people," Bondi posted on X as word of the indictment spread.

Her assertions aside, if there had been anything left of the once-strong firewall between the department and the White House – long considered sacrosanct by presidents of both parties – it is now gone.

Laurie Levinson, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Loyola Marymount University told the BBC News channel that the firewall had "completely collapsed" with this case.

"This is unprecedented, to have the president basically direct his people to indict a specific individual because he's angry at that person," Ms Levinson said, referring to Comey.

Last week, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to urge Bondi to bring charges against his political foes. He complained the Justice Department was slow to charge Comey, Democrat and California Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James - vocal critics who have long been in Trump's crosshairs.

Ms Levinson said Trump has gone further than former President Richard Nixon - who famously assembled an enemies list - by replacing prosecutors who have resisted his retribution agenda with ones who are willing to execute it.

Days after the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, resigned over fears he would be fired for failing to prosecute James for alleged mortgage fraud, Trump appointed a White House aide to the role.

Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump's former personal lawyers who has no experience as a federal prosecutor, swiftly brought the Comey case to a grand jury, which agreed there was enough evidence to prosecute.

"Everything about this smacks of vindictive prosecution," Ms Levinson said.

To secure an indictment, 12 members of a grand jury only need to vote for probable cause — not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the grand jury considers the case based solely on evidence by prosecutors, with no defence attorneys present.

Annemarie McAvoy, a legal expert and Columbia University professor, notes that prosecutors may have testimony and documentary evidence that supports their case against Comey – evidence that was presented to the grand jury and could be used to build the case against the former director during trial.

"There have been questions all along as to whether he was being honest when he said he didn't leak information," she said. "And you know if there are others who are willing to come forward and say, yes, I got the information from James Comey, then potentially they certainly have a case."

In a short statement provided to the media, Comey's attorney said that he denies the charges and that he looks forward to vindication in the courtroom.

If this case does, in fact, go to trial, it is poised to unearth long-buried drama from the Russian election-meddling investigation of Trump's first term, even though the perjury and obstruction charges are quite tangential and small-bore.

Trump and his supporters are already treating the prosecution of Comey as an avenue to undermine the credibility of the entire Russia investigation. While that probe found ample evidence of attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, it produced no concrete evidence tying Trump directly to those efforts.

Kash Patel, Trump's FBI director, called the investigation a "disgraceful chapter in history" in a post on X after the indictment was announced. He accused what he said was the "previous corrupt leadership" of weaponising the bureau's investigatory power.

Those same accusations are now being directed at Patel, Bondi and the rest of the Trump team. And perhaps the biggest question hanging over all of this is whether the Comey indictment is just an individual event – a move that might placate a clearly angry president – or a sign of more prosecutions to come.