Left: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche listens during a news conference about Kilmar Abrego Garcia at the Justice Department, Friday, June 6, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson). Right: Kilmar Abrego Garcia attends a protest rally at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Baltimore, Monday, Aug. 25, 2025 (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough).
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia roundly ridiculed the DOJ's sweeping efforts to quash subpoenas of high-ranking officials by calling such resistance to testifying in court about their "motivations" behind the "smuggling illegal aliens" prosecution "bizarre," "impossible to take seriously," and even cowardly.
Ever since U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, a Barack Obama appointee, ordered an evidentiary hearing on Abrego Garcia's vindictive prosecution claim, going so far as to say that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's June remarks on Fox News were potential "direct evidence of vindictiveness," the defense has attempted to haul Blanche into court to testify under oath.
While DOJ has countered that there were "non-vindictive reasons" to charge the wrongly deported Abrego Garcia when his return to the U.S. from El Salvador became the likely scenario — offering up the testimony of acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire, the "actual decisionmaker" behind the human smuggling prosecution, and describing the defense's "fishing expedition" as "extraordinarily weak" — the defense has answered that Blanche cannot hide behind "blanket" privilege claims to quash a subpoena.
Blanche, President Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney and the No. 2 DOJ official to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, put himself under the spotlight when he made comments on cable news that the judge said appeared to link the prosecution to the consequences of Abrego Garcia's lawsuit, which caused "embarrassment" to the government.
Calling Blanche's words "remarkable," and citing a case that said an "actual confession by the prosecutor" is the "clearest" way to show a vindictive prosecution, Crenshaw said the "statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego's criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights to bring suit against the Executive Official Defendants, rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct."
The DOJ said commanding Blanche's in-person testimony based on "nothing more" than "speculation" simply could not unearth the executive branch's "presumptively shielded" discussions "about official decision-making," let alone justify force an official as high-ranking as the deputy AG, among others, to take the stand.
Abrego Garcia's legal team answered Wednesday that it is not impressed with DOJ's opposition, likening it to an argument "that down is up."
"The government characterizes as 'irrelevant' testimony that is not just relevant but central to the issues before the Court. It labels as a 'fishing expedition' a request for testimony from a person the Court has already identified as a key witness," the filing said. "It describes as 'unsupported' and 'extraordinarily weak' a rare, successful prima facie showing of vindictiveness. It describes this as an ordinary case, feigning blindness when it is plain to any fair observer that the government's own conduct, time and time again, has made this case extraordinary."
Needling high-ranking DOJ officials for being "resolutely unwilling to show up" and not having the "courage to come to Court to defend themselves" and the government's "motivations" for bringing a criminal case the defense seeks to dismiss, Abrego Garcia called the resistance "bizarre" and "impossible to take seriously."
"[T]he government's bizarre claim that it is 'unknown altogether' what testimony Mr. Blanche might be asked to give is impossible to take seriously," the filing continued. "Mr. Blanche publicly claimed to know all about the motivations for this case. This Court has held that those motivations are a central issue at the upcoming hearing, and has already made clear that Mr. Blanche's testimony is relevant."
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox
Notably, Abrego Garcia also subpoenaed Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh and Blanche counselor James McHenry for testimony.
The filing, citing DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni, said that McHenry "reportedly supervised" the civil case that the defendant claims he's being persecuted for bringing and was "apparently involved in supervising plea negotiations in this case."
McHenry "was described in the whistleblower disclosure of Erez Reuveni, the former Acting Deputy Director for the Office of Immigration Litigation who represented the government in the early days of Mr. Abrego's civil lawsuit, as having 'directed' Reuveni, as of April 2 and 3, 'to stop asking for facts supporting any possible defense of the case, that no 'asks' of El Salvador of any sort should be made' in litigating Mr. Abrego's civil case—just two weeks before the investigation into Mr. Abrego was reopened," court documents said.
Reuveni, fired after admitting that Abrego Garcia should not have been deported from Maryland to El Salvador, went on to allege that former DOJ higher-up Emil Bove, now a 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals judge with a lifetime job, had suggested giving the courts an "f— you" if the Trump administration was blocked from carrying out sweeping Alien Enemies Act removals of alleged gang members.
The defendant said, given all of that background, the "valid" subpoenas cannot be quashed and "must be enforced."
Days ago, as reports swirled that the DOJ might deport the defendant to Liberia rather than prosecute him, Crenshaw additionally put Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "on notice" that sanctions may follow if they or their employees pose "a clear and present danger," through their words, to Abrego Garcia's right to a fair trial.
As things stand in the criminal human smuggling case, the vindictive prosecution evidentiary hearing is still on track for Nov. 4, but Abrego Garcia's lawyers are now wondering if it should even happen, claiming a lack of communication with and discovery from the government has "severely hamstrung" the defense's "ability to prepare for a hearing that is now five days away[.]"
"If the government's intention is to rehash arguments at the evidentiary hearing that this Court has rejected and to call only those witnesses who will not be able to testify to the motivations of the senior officials who set this prosecution in motion, this Court should find that the presumption [of vindictiveness] stands and dismiss this Indictment," a Thursday filing said.
Follow Law&Crime:
