By "vindictive prosecution" they mean someone higher up in the US government may have told the prosecutors to get Dan, and get him good. Which would explain a lot about this case. It would also be a violation of the US Constitution's protections that guarantee every American will be treated equally under the law - e.g., you don't seek a harsher punishment against Dan because he ticked off someone in the White House.
Such as why the case is proceeding at all - you'd think the Obama administration would want this thing to just go away, so they can get on with the business of convincing the gays that they really like us. Yet they're not moving on. Instead, they're charging Dan with a crime that they never usually charge people who protest the White House.
Did Dan tick them off? Is this another case of the President only finding his backbone when a liberal is the target of his ire? Again, it's very difficult to understand why the administration didn't tell the prosecutor to make this case go away. They certainly have influence over there, and prosecutors in DC certainly have enough - what do you call them? - that's right, murder cases to deal with, they really don't need to be spending their time on a civil rights activists.
You'd think. But never put it past the White House to miss an opportunity.
More from Metro Weekly:
The third day of the U.S. government's trial of former Lt. Dan Choi ended with a 10-day delay for the government to seek an order from a higher court stopping the decision made today by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola to allow Choi's lawyers to argue the government singled out Choi for "vindictive prosecution."
Facciola said this morning that he had found there was prima facie evidence for "vindictive prosecution," meaning enough evidence was presented to allow Choi's lawyers to pursue such a claim. As a result, Choi's lawyers would be able to ask for more documents and evidence from the government in order to investigate if higher-level officials advised their subordinates to try Choi in federal court rather than D.C. court and, if so, why.
A Department of Justice memorandum from its procedure manual for DOJ attorneys describes the standard in court "to establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution," stating, "[A] defendant must make a 'showing that charges of increased severity were filed because the accused exercised a statutory, procedural, or constitutional right in circumstances that give rise to an appearance of vindictiveness.'"
