Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted for posting a picture of seashells arranged to spell "86 47." Anyone paying attention to the facts of this case knows that Comey will never be convicted in such an unserious case.

It is so unserious, in fact, that the Department of Justice is now claiming that Comey posted the photo to increase book sales, comparing him to the villain in his fictional book.

Still, this unserious case has broader implications. How this case is dismissed will be critical to the future of the pro-democracy movement. At stake is a system of criminal prosecution that could cripple political opponents of the president — or be reined in before it's too late.

Just as the facts of the case are straightforward, so too is the backstory.

Donald Trump hates James Comey and wants him punished. He has made this clear on many occasions, including in an infamous social media post that was clearly intended as a private message to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, in which he declared Comey — along with Adam Schiff and Letitia James — "guilty as hell."

Soon after being sworn in, Trump's new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Ellis Boyle, took over the investigation of the seashell matter. An indictment soon followed.

To ward off dismissal of the indictment for selective and vindictive prosecution, the government asserts that Boyle had no discussions about the investigation with higher-ups in the administration. Thus, the DOJ argues, Trump's motives are irrelevant because they were never communicated to the actual prosecutors on the case.

As surprising as it may sound, under current case law the DOJ's argument is not without force. To prove a constitutional violation in these circumstances typically requires a direct connection between the actual prosecutor and any improper motive. Courts are instructed to presume that the government — including the DOJ — acts regularly and in good faith.

Against that standard, the shortcomings of Comey's arguments are evident. He likely does not have direct evidence that the lawyers in North Carolina harbor unique ill will toward him or wish to engage in a sham prosecution.