Attorneys representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia have sharply criticized the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) extensive attempts to block subpoenas targeting top officials. They described the DOJ’s effort to prevent these officials from appearing in court to discuss their motivations behind the prosecution for “smuggling illegal aliens” as “bizarre,” “untenable,” and even cowardly.

Following U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on Abrego Garcia’s claim of vindictive prosecution—a ruling that highlighted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s statements on Fox News as potential “direct evidence of vindictiveness”—the defense has been eager to have Blanche testify under oath.

The DOJ has argued that there were legitimate, non-vindictive reasons for charging Abrego Garcia, especially after his return to the U.S. from El Salvador seemed imminent. They offered the testimony of acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire, the “actual decisionmaker” in the human smuggling case, and labeled the defense’s actions as a “fishing expedition” lacking substance. However, the defense countered, asserting that Blanche could not evade a subpoena through “blanket” privilege claims.

Blanche, formerly the criminal defense attorney for President Donald Trump and currently the second-highest official in the DOJ under U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, drew attention with his televised comments. Judge Crenshaw noted that these remarks appeared to connect the prosecution to the fallout from Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit, which reportedly caused “embarrassment” for the government.

Judge Crenshaw described Blanche’s statements as “remarkable” and referenced a legal precedent stating that an “actual confession by the prosecutor” is the “clearest” proof of a vindictive prosecution. He suggested that these statements could directly reveal that the motivations for Abrego’s charges were more about retribution for his legal actions against the Executive Official Defendants than a genuine intention to pursue criminal charges.

The DOJ contended that requiring Blanche to testify in person, based solely on “speculation,” would not pierce the executive branch’s “presumptively shielded” discussions concerning official decision-making. They argued that this did not justify compelling a high-ranking official like the deputy AG to testify.

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.”

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 on track for Nov. 4.