Before you add John Bolton’s indictment to the growing pile of specious prosecutions of Donald Trump’s enemies, stop and read the Justice Department’s allegations that the former national security adviser systematically shared classified information with people who weren’t authorized to read it, all in the service of writing a tell-all book. The 18-count criminal indictment, filed yesterday, was compiled by experienced prosecutors, not political lackeys. It is detailed and precise, and relies on Bolton’s own words to implicate him.

You should question whether these charges would be brought if Trump weren’t president. Officials in Joe Biden’s administration passed on the chance to do so. And Bolton has plenty of basis to argue that he is being singled out because he is one of Trump’s most voluble and persistent critics. (He pleaded not guilty in court this morning.) But political animus doesn’t make the government’s charges baseless. This indictment does not belong in the same category as the ones against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Those cases are so weak that a U.S. attorney resigned rather than present them to a grand jury, and career prosecutors told his replacement that the government would probably lose at trial.

People I spoke with who are knowledgeable about the Bolton case—including what he allegedly did while serving in the White House in Trump’s first term, and internal deliberations over whether to charge him with mishandling classified information—say that indicting the former adviser was not an easy call. But the case, several said, is “righteous.” Reading the charges, I’m inclined to agree that if its facts are accurate, the government has a strong argument. I’ve covered a lot of cases of mishandling classified information and documents. Some people who have faced charges like those Bolton does now are in prison.

This indictment tells a story abo