Currently the judicial landscape is strewn with cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Lettia James, former National Security Advisor John Bolton and others less well known.

Special grand juries are being formed to investigate former President Barrack Obama’s officials and other so-called “enemies” of President Trump.

Others on the “hit list” are former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, former FBI Director Christopher Wray, Congressman Eric Swalwell and more. The list seems endless.

Normally successfully claiming “vindictive prosecution” is difficult because defendants must prove genuine animus against them by the prosecution.

However, in the case involving Comey, he is attacking the issue of vindictive prosecution at four levels. First, he is saying that his prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed and is holding her office illegally.

Secondly, he claims that there were grievous errors committed by current FBI agents in testifying before the grand jury and divulging privileged information.

Third, Comey claims that Trump literally ordered his prosecution through various social media posts that were made public by Trump. Therefore, Comey was targeted.

And finally, it has been discovered that newly appointed prosecutor Halligan never showed the final indictment to the entire grand jury which is required. She just had the foreperson sign the indictment in a rush to get charges filed before the statute of limitations ran out against Comey.

On this episode of the podcast Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson make the whole concept of vindictive prosecutions understandable.

They delve into what the various federal judges must consider in making their decisions and specifically look in-depth at the allegations of vindictiveness in the Comey case.