Attorneys representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia have sharply criticized the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempts to prevent high-ranking officials from being subpoenaed. They labeled the DOJ’s reluctance to allow testimony regarding the motives behind the “smuggling illegal aliens” case as “bizarre,” “implausible,” and even cowardly.

The controversy stems from U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s directive to hold an evidentiary hearing on Abrego Garcia’s claim of vindictive prosecution. Judge Crenshaw, appointed by former President Barack Obama, suggested that comments made by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Fox News might serve as “direct evidence of vindictiveness.” In response, the defense has been pushing for Blanche to testify in court under oath.

The DOJ, however, argues there were legitimate, non-vindictive reasons for charging Abrego Garcia, who was deported but potentially returning from El Salvador. They have offered the testimony of acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire, who they claim is the “actual decisionmaker” in the human smuggling case. The DOJ dismissed the defense’s efforts as a “fishing expedition” and described their arguments as “extraordinarily weak.” Nevertheless, the defense contends that Blanche cannot avoid testifying by citing “blanket” privilege to block the subpoena.

Todd Blanche, previously the criminal defense lawyer for former President Donald Trump and now the second-in-command at the DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi, attracted attention with his remarks on cable news. Judge Crenshaw noted that these comments seemed to connect the prosecution to the fallout from Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit, which allegedly caused the government embarrassment.

Judge Crenshaw characterized Blanche’s statements as “remarkable” and referred to a legal precedent stating that an “actual confession by the prosecutor” is the clearest indication of a vindictive prosecution. He pointed out that Blanche’s words might suggest that the charges against Abrego Garcia were motivated by his decision to sue the Executive Official Defendants, rather than by any genuine intent to prosecute alleged criminal activity.

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.”

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.