The article discusses the legal strategy in James Comey’s defense against charges brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney. Comey’s team argues that Halligan is a “stalking horse” for former President Donald Trump’s vendetta, claiming the prosecution is vindictive and politically motivated. To prove vindictive prosecution, defendants must show the prosecutor acted with animus and that the charges would not have been filed without it. Comey’s lawyers contend that Trump’s animus should be imputed to Halligan, citing case law and the president’s unprecedented control over the Justice Department, including installing loyalists like Halligan who lack prosecutorial experience and pursued indictments over career prosecutors’ objections.

The Department of Justice counters that only Halligan’s motives should be considered and denies Trump’s animus influenced the prosecution, noting the relevant appellate circuit has not endorsed imputing animus from one party to another. Meanwhile, similar “stalking horse” arguments are being made in related cases, including those involving New York Attorney General Letitia James. Additionally, judges are reviewing motions to dismiss based on Halligan’s potentially unlawful appointment, a separate legal issue that could lead to dismissal regardless of the vindictive prosecution claims. The outcome of these motions could significantly impact the viability of the prosecutions tied to Trump’s influence over the DOJ.