This week, a public interest group filed an ethics complaint against Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, citing the recent dismissal of a criminal indictment against Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. The ethics complaint is the latest example of the left’s self-perpetuating lawfare machine. Liberal courts and groups first prime allegations against conservatives, which are then eagerly picked up by media and advocacy groups. It is no accident that this hit job on Blanche called upon the New York courts and bar to deliver the coup de grâce.
The New York bar and courts have long been willing allies on lawfare, including abusive charges against President Donald Trump and bar charges against his allies. This case, however, is particularly illustrative of how this system feeds on itself.
At base, the complaint focused on a dubious decision by District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr., who dismissed the indictment against Abrego Garcia. The Clinton appointee found in his 32-page order that the prosecution was vindictive. However, Judge Crenshaw spent relatively little time actually addressing the evidence against Abrego Garcia, who was allegedly an associate of the vicious MS-13 gang in years of human trafficking.
Vindictive prosecution claims are notoriously difficult to prove. (I know because I have tried it as a criminal defense attorney). Under cases such as United States v. Goodwin (1982), you must show that the charges “could not be justified as a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”
In both cases of selective and vindictive prosecutions, the Supreme Court has recognized that, as the court explained in 1962, “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation.”
Moreover, in United States v. Armstrong, a case involving alleged selective prosecution, Chief Justice Rehnquist stressed that there is a ‘’presumption of regularity” in criminal cases.
There was ample reason for Abrego Garcia to have been charged entirely separate from any retaliatory or vindictive purpose. According to his indictment, Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 and allegedly conspired with six others to “transport and move aliens” illegally into and throughout the country starting in 2016. This included alleged smuggling into the country of known “MS-13 members and associates.”
The government accused him of over 100 such trips in specially outfitted vehicles as well as transporting firearms and narcotics. One witness testified that he had to warn Abrego Garcia against abusing some of the female aliens because it was “bad for business.” (Garcia was also previously charged with spousal abuse).
Judge Crenshaw, however, focused on the decision-making after Abrego Garcia was brought back from a deportation to El Salvador. I was one of those who wrote that he had to be returned in light of prior court orders. However, there were obvious reasons why, after he was returned, prosecutors decided to proceed with charges for his alleged criminal conduct in the United States.
Crenshaw’s decision simply works too hard to find a basis for dismissing the indictment and will now be appealed. In my view, it is likely to be reversed. However, in the interim, the same voices are being heard for the disbarment or punishment of Blanche in New York where a Trump association is treated as far more incriminating than an MS-13 association.
It is fair to note that the Trump Administration has undermined its own position in denouncing lawfare by pursuing past critics, including dubious prosecutions over seashell threats against James Comey. However, that does not have bearing on the merits of the claim against Blanche or the dismissal of the Abrego Garcia indictment.
The rage in New York has certainly not ebbed. There are ample rage addicts to applaud such claims inside the Bar. However, there are indicators that lawfare no longer holds the same cachet it once did.
Take Rep. Dan Goldman, who is fast becoming the Marie Antoinette of New York politics. Goldman was elected a few years ago on his pledge to investigate all things Trump and is still running on a “let-them-eat-impeachments” platform. In the meantime, his opponent, Mamdani-endorsed housing advocate Brad Lander, is running on bread-and-butter issues. Lander is reportedly 20 points ahead in the polls.
There is still hope that the New York courts and bar will restore a degree of apolitical, objective integrity to their ranks. The odds are still much greater that Blanche will stay in the bar than that Abrego Garcia will stay in the country. However, it is telling to see which of the two is being cheered on by the left.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I am unimpressed with Todd Blanche’s performance as acting attorney general. He may very well be an excellent lawyer and brilliant in some ways, but his lack of concern for the public relations aspect of his choices is harming his cause and that of his boss. The Abrego Garcia case was botched from day one, and the government’s subsequent game plan was weak and vindictive. Yes, I know that Professor Turley’s distinction between being vindictive and not may satisfy a judicial court, but the court of public opinion – the one that determines who holds office and who goes home for good on election day – sees things differently.
Blanche is a moron. That’s the problem.
So says the moron.
Sending Garcia to a place hostile to him is prima facia vindictive.
Trump is by humongous margin the worst president in my ancient lifetime. Still though if you compare Trump to progressivism , wokeism and the DNC on the whole, the latter is infinitely worse than Trump. In addition, on Trump’s worst subject which is his insatiable warmongering, trump and the DNC are on exactly the same page. So it’s not like voters have any hope of fixing the warmongering problem. In fact the very small number of outliers in Congress that are against the wars, all or most of them are members of the GOP.
This is not about warmongering idiot, DNC the worst liberal idiotic party by faaaaarrrrrrr!
Disclaimer: I never practiced in the criminal law arena (except for really simple isolated cases).
SO I have a Q. for those who have or now do:
Crenshaw’s decision states the following,”
“While the Court finds insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness. The evidence it labels as newly discovered was available to be obtained with due diligence long before April 2025.” (Garcia was deported in 2019.)
I focus on the “new evidence” part. The cases cited by Crenshaw seem to discredit the idea that incriminating evidence qualified as “new evidence.” But I ask the following: are prosecutors under “due diligence” obligation to pursue discovery and/or continue investigation on OTHER charges if the first charge already resulted in conviction and imprisonment?
Now substitute the above this way: are immigration prosecutors under “due diligence” obligation to pursue discovery and/or continue investigation on OTHER potential charges if the first charge already resulted in conviction and deportation?
In other words, if the answer is No, then I would argue that this would rightfully qualify as admissible ‘new evidence?’
Hope I am making sense.
oops. just realized I forgot to change the word “conviction” in the second example; it should actually read, “if the first charge already resulted in [a finding of deportable offense] and subsequent deportation?
@ Lin,
In federal criminal jurisprudence, “newly discovered evidence” has a strict definition. It does not mean evidence that a prosecutor just got around to looking at. It means evidence that could not have been discovered prior to or during the original timeline through the exercise of due diligence.
In Abrego Garcia’s case, the evidence the Department of Justice tried to claim was “new” was an uncharged traffic stop and related investigative files from 2016.The government already possessed these records, or had total access to them, well before they deported him in 2019.
Because the files were sitting in government databases for nearly a decade, they were legally “available.” The fact that prosecutors chose to leave those files sitting on a shelf while they pursued deportation does not alter the fact that the evidence itself is old not “new”.
You are entirely correct that the answer is no. The government is under no statutory obligation to build a second, separate criminal case against someone they have already removed from the country.
However, where your theory hits a wall is the legal consequence of that choice. While the government has no duty to investigate, they also cannot use their own choice to halt an investigation as an excuse to ignore the law against retaliation.
When the government decides to leave a file dormant, deport a man, and then suddenly yanks that moldy 2016 file off the shelf the exact moment the man wins a historic 9–0 Supreme Court case against them, the legal burden shifts.
The court doesn’t ask, “Did you have a duty to look at this in 2020?” The court asks, “Why did you suddenly decide to look at it five minutes after he beat you in the Supreme Court?”
I hope that helps.
Esquire: Yes it does help, thanks.
At least in the way you present it.
Yet I note that the DOJ, -within about a week after the SCOTUS 2025 decision, picked up where it left off in holding other charges in abeyance.
–So splicing what you said with the facts here, the only alternative for DOJ was to continue its investigation that it started in 2022–while Garcia was in El Salvador–and have it ready to go?? (in case SCOTUS ruled against its erroneous deportation–NOT ON THE MERITS OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR DEPORTATION*, BUT RATHER ON THE LOCATION SITE OF DEPORTATION (El Salvador)—* for which he had been granted withholding of removal?
* “Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for many years without lawful status….On April 24, 2019, Abrego Garcia appeared
before an immigration judge (“IJ”) where he conceded his deportability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.” https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvymbqzlvg/2025-04-06%20opinion%20Abrego%20Garcia.pdf
You see, THAT’s where I hit the wall…
lin
You keep missing the point, and you misunderstand the timeline.
You state, “the only alternative for DOJ was to continue its investigation that it started in 2022”
The DOJ did not start its investigation of the traffic stop in 2022. DOJ was not even aware of the traffic stop until AFTER the Supreme Court ordered his return from El Salvador.
There was NO “investigation” of the traffic stop by DOJ until April 2025.
After the order to return Garcia, DOJ simply went looking for something to charge him with, and came across the 2022 traffic stop that had only resulted in a warning with no citation or charges.
This action by the DOJ to resurrect an old traffic stop to a criminal indictment created the presumption of vindictiveness. The judge ordered the DOJ to present any evidence to rebut that presumption. They failed to do that. In fact discovery revealed that DOJ prosecutors had been pressured by Blanche to bring and indictment. In their attempted rebuttal DOJ prosecutors claimed that once the Supreme Court forced them to return Ábrego García to the U.S., he became a “potential danger” to the public. They argued that pursuing the human smuggling charges was in the best interest of public safety, rather than letting an alleged trafficker live freely in the country. In effect they confirmed that they were acting vindictively in a filing that supposedly rebutted that very presumption. Total incompetence.
The judge had no choice but to rule that there was a presumption of vindictiveness.
Actually, my point is different, not missed. This is what SCOTUS said,
“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’
Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to
ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the
Government should be prepared to share what it can con-
cerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps.”
MEANWHILE, in the interim between Garcia’s 2019 deportation and the 2025 SCOTUS decision, Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, 38, had been arrested for immigrant trafficking. He was the registered owner of the vehicle driven by Abrego Garcia when he was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022. Hernandez-Reyes was convicted in 2020 I think.
My inference was that Garcia, in Herndez’Reyes’s truck in 2022, was let go. Subsequently, now the gov’t had the name of Hernandez-Reyes from the vehicle registration, which resulted in investigation, arrest, and conviction. So following the 2025 SCOTUS ruling on Garcia, DOJ went back and interviewed Hernandez-Reyes and gathered more info, so that when Garcia was returned, they were ready with pistols loaded.
Also in the interim, we had the Judges Boasberg and Xinis rulings demanding return of inmates, and I presume that DOJ simply wanted a backup-and stronger case- instead of merely finding a different country for Garcia.
lin
You continue to miss and ignore the relevant point while trying to assert some other irrelevant point regarding whether DOJ found new evidence.
The matter is very simple.
Garcia was indicted on human smuggling charges. The defense answered the indictment with allegations of vindictive prosecution. Judge Crenshaw was then required to resolve the allegations. He ordered the DOJ to submit under seal all internal communications regarding the indictment. From that, he determined that there was clear evidence of vindictive prosecution, and that Todd Blanche had exerted undue pressure on career prosecutors to go forward with the indictment.
In addition, he ordered DOJ to submit arguments to rebut the defense allegations. DOJ responded that it wasn’t acting out of revenge, but rather because investigators had uncovered critical “newly discovered evidence” regarding the 2022 traffic stop. Prosecutors also claimed that once the Supreme Court forced them to return Ábrego García to the U.S., he became a “potential danger” to the public. They argued that pursuing the human smuggling charges was in the best interest of public safety, rather than letting an alleged trafficker live freely in the country. This was correctly interpreted by the judge as an admission that the primary motivation for proceeding with the indictment was revenge for Garcia’s successful appeal of his unlawful deportation. In their own rebuttal filing trying to disprove that they acted vindictively, they actually admitted that they were motivated by revenge. They shot themselves in the foot.
Not only that, the judge cited a June 2025 interview on Fox where Blanche admitted the criminal case was initiated because Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his deportation. This prompted him to issue a gag order on the DOJ to stop them from making prejudicial public comments.
The judge found clear and convincing evidence for a presumption of vindictive prosecution and dismissed the charges.
The judge did not have to get to the question of new evidence that you raise. Whether or not DOJ had found new evidence is irrelevant if it can be shown that they everything they did to bring the indictment was motivated by revenge. And that is what the judge correctly determined. The indictment was doomed by the vindictive motivation of DOJ. There was no need for the judge to rule on whether DOJ really had new evidence.
You liar. Look at what you just wrote, “From that, he determined that there was clear evidence of vindictive prosecution,”
What a fat lie!
The judge is not the trier of fact here, dope. what he ACTUALLY SAID, verbatim, was, “While the Court finds insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness.”
“INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL VINDICTIVENESS.”
“INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL VINDICTIVENESS.”
“INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL VINDICTIVENESS.”
And WTH is this “clear and convincing evidence for a presumption of vindictive prosecution.” No such standard or element. those are YOUR uninformed words.
Finally, regarding Blanche on Fox news, NO AGAIN. your idiotic statement that “he admitted the criminal case was initiated because Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his deportation.” all that means is that when DOJ learned that Garcia had filed, they went back to open the file and review all, question witnesses, etc. BECAUSE THEY KNEW HE DID NOT DESERVE TO BE HERE SCOT FREE.
You do not understand that the term “actual vindictiveness” is a very rigidly defined legal term, with a very high burden of proof that requires an explicit statement in writing or verbally on the record by the prosecution that that the sole purpose of bringing the indictment was in retaliation for some other act by the defendant. This burden is very high and almost never can be reached.
However a “presumption of vindictiveness” can be found based on the ACTIONS of the prosecution. If there is clear evidence that the prosecution is acting vindictively, then the judge can make a finding of presumptive vindictiveness, UNLESS the prosecution can rebut that presumption. The judge ordered the DOJ to submit a motion of rebuttal, but the DOJ failed in that rebuttal. In fact, in their attempted rebuttal they claimed that once the Supreme Court forced them to return Ábrego García to the U.S., he became a “potential danger” to the public. They argued that pursuing the human smuggling charges was in the best interest of public safety, rather than letting an alleged trafficker live freely in the country. In their incompetence, the DOJ failed to realize that this was an admission that the motivation to indict him was because he had won his appeal of deportation and been returned to the US. They shot themselves in the foot by admitting the real reason for the indictment.
If the prosecution fails to rebut an allegation of vindictive prosecution, then the judge must make a finding of presumptive vindictiveness and dismiss the indictment, which is exactly what the judge did.
And as you noted the judge clearly stated, “While the Court finds insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness.” He also said, “Because the presumption of vindictiveness remains unrebutted, the indictment must be dismissed.”
The judge correctly found that a finding of “actual vindictiveness” was not possible because there was no explicit statement by the prosecution on the record that the sole purpose of the indictment was retaliation or revenge. However, the failure by the DOJ to rebut the allegations of vindictiveness based on their ACTIONS required the judge to dismiss the indictment.
I am following this exchange. You continue to twist and manipulate your argument, which just makes your position more elusive. I do not see where the argument was made that there was no “presumption” of vindictiveness. You do sound like either X or his Three Faces of Eve counterpart. If you were to stick to what was actually said, as a court requires, you would lose your face on a motion.
See, you lied again! NO ONE questioned anything about “presumptions” of vindictiveness. But you’re the one who said “From that, he determined that there was clear evidence of vindictive prosecution.
when called on it,
Now you try to change your story to, “The judge correctly found that a finding of “actual vindictiveness” was not possible.
What a supercilious clown. Hope you don’t try to change what you said like that in court.
Hello Anonymous, I am the one who started this whole thread simply asking whether prosecutors are under “due diligence” obligation to pursue discovery and/or continue investigation on OTHER potential charges if the first charge already resulted in a finding of deportable offense and subsequent deportation.
I am now reviewing what you said.
I find some significant errors in what you stated, which results in my original query remaining unresolved.
For example, you expressly state that, “DOJ was not even aware of the traffic stop until AFTER the Supreme Court ordered his return from El Salvador.”
The actual file attached to Crenshaw’s decision states,
“November 30, 2022… THP referred information about the traffic stop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Homeland Security Investigations – Baltimore (“HSI-Baltimore”). ”
Were you saying that DOJ under Biden had no idea what FBI was doing? I will accept that as your presumption, but during my time clerking with the DOD, I knew that FBI always kept DOJ apprised of decisions it made regarding new info, queries, or requests for assistance.
Second, you keep framing your response justifying Crenshaw’s decision regarding “presumption of vindictiveness,” and I agree with the comment that no one/certainly not me, is arguing about that, so it appears that you went off on your own tangent here in order to make yourself look like you were on point?. In your original comment, you said the judge made a finding that “there was clear and convincing evidence” of vindictiveness.
Third, I note that the above-referenced timeline file attached to Crenshaw’s decision clearly notes that on April 1, 2025, “HSI-Baltimore closes the investigation on Abrego because he has been removed from the United States.
The ROI states: ‘Investigators have accomplished all goals for this case, and no further investigative
efforts will be attributed to the investigation.’” (Garcia is OOC at this time. I think SCOTUS issued its opinion nine days later, on April 10? the Gov’t attempts to get a stay on Xinis’ order, which fails under 4th Cir. on April 17, after which DOJ immediately reopens its halted investigation, which, in the interim (from 2022 to 2025), contains new information regarding hernandez and garcia, etc.
That is precisely what I had laid out in my original question which led to this thread.
Don’t want to belabor this, but I remain unconvinced of a dispositive answer, but thanks anyway. Of course, I have not concluded in my opinion; I’m just saying that you didn’t resolve it because of the errors and assumptions you made.
apologies for length of this.
You can respond (thank you in advance) but I am moving on.
There are supposedly 10 Million people who might be deported. They decided to act particularly against the one who was a Supreme Court victor. Imagine having 10 Million fish and deciding that catching one was more important than all the rest. Captain Ahab had a similar journey and the Trump administration appears heading to a similar fate.
Always a bad sign when a chief witness makes a deal to stay their own deportation.
“Records reviewed by The Washington Post show that Hernandez Reyes has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house and has been given permission to stay in the U.S. for at least a year.
Prosecutors have identified Hernandez Reyes as the “first cooperator” in the case against Abrego”
“There are supposedly 10 Million people who might be deported.”
– Anonymous
__________________
“From your lips to God’s ears!”
– Yiddish Idiom
WRONG, anony at 3:21. Tennessee state troopers testified that they notified the feds at the time (2022) but Biden officials told them to let him go.
So what is your point???
The issue is whether federal authorities were involved in an investigation of the traffic stop.
They declined to become involved and no federal investigation was initiated in 2022.
Federal authorities did not initiate an investigation until April 2025, after Garcia successfully appealed his deportation. This was a blatantly illegal vindictive prosecution.
Because they did not know about the hernandez connection with the car garcia was driving you twisted fool. That all came out later, when hernandez was prosecuted. but they didn’t file anything then because Garcia was already out of the country. WHat! you are arguing that DOJ should have opened it back up aFter the hernandez connection and indict garcia even though he wasn’t even here? Go back to crim law.
BECAUSE GARCIA WAS ALREADY GONE-OUT OF THE COUNTRY, YOU LITTLE FOOL. AND STOP PRETENDING YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, YOU SURE DO SOUND A LOT LIKE GEORGIE BOY/X/ YOU ARE NOT FOOLING US WITH YOUR ANONYMITY.
it IS X george. when he is unsure of his argument, he reverts to anonymous
Lin, I am not the first to say this, but Esquire is almost entirely AI, with a few words added to the mix. One AI detector lists the probability that AI is used at 100%. An AI generator says, “Yes, this definitely has some of the classic hallmarks of AI-generated text, but it’s a bit of a hybrid. It reads like an AI response.” It is easy to add a few words here and there.
If one is interested, one can ask where that AI response went wrong, and AI will answer because there are nuances, especially in the law that AI can’t grasp. A good lawyer in that specific field will spot errors because of AI hallucinations, and if prompted with things that have a verbal relationship, it can erroneously reply. There are many other things that AI does, so be careful.
George Svelaz X uses AI, and from what I see of Esquire, he always uses it. Some use AI to help them formulate and help write their ideas, but they are discussing what they believe. Some writers’ ways indeed appear AI, but it is completely theirs. Today, even Grammarly will help improve the written word with AI.
Everybody is using AI S. Meyer. Even you used AI to figure out some use it effectively to make their point. What you are not understanding is AI is getting into everything and those who avoid it tend to be left behind technologically. What you’re not saying is that any of the facts presented are wrong or incorrect.
FYI. Even Professor Turley who uses Grammarly uses AI.
You make a lot of assumptions, typical of an anonymous low-IQ type, but that is not important. What is important is that AI is here to stay, so we rely on the person’s integrity, which most anonymous dullards lack. State the source.
There is such a thing as quotation marks when one is copying another. Adding filler words doesn’t change the fact that one is plagiarizing.
In this case, Esquire and the case of George Svelaz X both use AI almost quoting verbatim. If you wish to do so, be ready to be called out. Though your morals and ethics are at the bottom, most function at a higher level.
lin
Garcia has NEVER been convicted of a crime.
Therefore your question, “are prosecutors under “due diligence” obligation to pursue discovery and/or continue investigation on OTHER charges if the first charge already resulted in conviction and imprisonment”, is completely irrelevant.
When he was deported, he was not charged with any crimes, and he had no criminal record. The deportation was a civil, administrative action that did not involve any criminal charges. The Trump administration later admitted in court that this deportation was an “administrative error” because it violated a standing 2019 judicial order that legally barred the U.S. government from removing him to El Salvador.
The allegations of human smuggling did not arise until after he had been deported, and after the court ordered his return.
Here is the timeline.
March 15, 2025: Garcia deported.
April 10, 2025: Scotus rules that his deportation was illegal and orders his return.
April 18, 2025: (The First Public Allegation): Eight days after the Supreme Court ruling, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publicly resurrected the 2022 traffic stop by releasing a “bombshell” investigative referral. This marked the first time the government officially accused him of human trafficking and gang affiliation.
April 27–30, 2025: Internal emails revealed that top senior officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) pressured career prosecutors, declaring the case a “top priority” just days after the Supreme Court loss.
June 6, 2025 (The Formal Indictment): The DOJ officially unsealed a federal criminal indictment charging him with the “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain”. He was arrested on these charges the exact same day the U.S. government flew him back from El Salvador.
The issue here is that the alleged human trafficking charges result from a traffic stop in 2022 where he was simply released with a warning. No citation, no conviction for any crimes.
The public did not become aware of this traffic stop until April 2025, and the formal charges were not laid until June 2025. This all happened AFTER he had been returned from El Salvador.
Garcia’s defense team pointed out that since the indictment was made AFTER his return from El Salvador, and related to a traffic stop in 2022 where he was simply given a warning, then this amounted to vindictive prosecution. Their position is that after he was returned from El Salvador, the DOJ simply went looking for something to charge him with in order to save face.
Judge Crenshaw took this pleading into consideration and ordered the following.
Because the defense established a “reasonable likelihood” of retaliation, Judge Crenshaw ordered DOJ to hand over highly sensitive internal files. He ordered prosecutors to produce documents under seal explaining Main DOJ’s sudden shift in position from wanting to “deport but not prosecute” to “prosecute and then deport”. This forced disclosure unsealed internal communications exposing that top officials—including a top assistant to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—had pressured career prosecutors to make charging Ábrego García a “top priority.”
Judge Crenshaw formally ordered the acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee to answer for gaps in the government’s story. He demanded the DOJ explain under oath exactly how a file that Homeland Security had officially closed on April 1, 2025, suddenly re-materialized on a prosecutor’s desk on April 27, 2025—just days after the Supreme Court ordered Ábrego García’s return.
Earlier in the proceedings, Judge Crenshaw ordered the DOJ and DHS to cease making “prejudicial” public statements about the case. This order was triggered after senior administration officials went on networks like Fox News to publicly brand Ábrego García an MS-13 gang member and explicitly suggest he was only being criminally charged because he won his immigration lawsuit.
The judge ordered DOJ to show why he should not rule that this was a vindictive prosecution.
The DOJ argued that it wasn’t acting out of revenge, but rather because investigators had uncovered critical “newly discovered evidence” regarding the 2022 traffic stop. Prosecutors claimed that once the Supreme Court forced them to return Ábrego García to the U.S., he became a “potential danger” to the public. They argued that pursuing the human smuggling charges was in the best interest of public safety, rather than letting an alleged trafficker live freely in the country. (Essentially they admitted that the motivation to indict him was because he had been returned to the US).
In his final 32-page opinion dismissing the case on May 22, 2026, Judge Crenshaw ruled that the DOJ completely failed to meet its burden. He dismantled the government’s defense on two core points:
He noted that all the facts the DOJ labeled as “newly discovered” had actually been readily available to them for years. The government had simply chosen to ignore them and close the file until it was politically embarrassed by the Supreme Court.
He also pointed out that the DOJ could not logically explain its sudden flip in position. He noted that the government’s original goal was to remove Ábrego García from the country without prosecuting him. It was completely illogical that they only decided they needed to prosecute and jail him after a court told them they weren’t allowed to deport him.
Ultimately, because the DOJ failed to satisfy the legal burden to prove that their prosecution was not a political stunt, Judge Crenshaw stripped the government of the case entirely.
To this day, Abrego Garcia has NEVER been convicted of any crime.
I should add that Turley should be perfectly aware of really happened here.
He is either ignorant of the facts, or willfully ignoring the facts for the sole purpose of agitating the MAGA mob.
Either way, this ridiculous piece he has published today is shameful.
X, why don’t you just admit that you do not understand the arguments, and all you can do is copy and reword.
YOU do not understand the arguments. That’s the problem. You think you do, but you never demonstrate that you actually do.
I do understand the issue just fine. It’s your inability to refute the facts that is causing you problems.
I just demonstrated that you were a fool in another thread, and now you are claiming the foolishness is from others? You are the fool.
I just KNEW it had to be X, hiding under anonymous login, because his intent is not to argue the case, but to cast doubt on other commenters who take him down everyday. X fell right into it.
That’s ok we will just let him live in your neighborhood and date your daughter. You people are so blind it make me sick!!!
Garcia has a wife and children. Why would he foul himself with your daughter?
You responded @ 1:45. Thank you.
(1) I had already addended my comment @ 1:13, noting that more correctly, “it should actually read, ‘if the first charge already resulted in [a finding of deportable offense] and subsequent deportation.'”
(2) the “new evidence” part is already discussed in exchange with commenter Esquire above.
Thanks anyway.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s illegal entry and illegal status have been corruptly established and perpetuated by an anti-American, pro-illegal alien invader judicial branch.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally.He entered the country on foot by wading across the Rio Grande river and crossing the border line. Legal Status: Illegally. He crossed without a visa, passport, or any legal inspection by customs officials. Physical Method: He crossed on foot. He traveled through Mexico to the border city of Reynosa, crossed the river into McAllen, Texas, and walked into the United States.
______________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Yes, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (Jennifer Vasquez Sura) filed for civil protective orders and restraining orders against him. The filings, which date back to August 2020 and May 2021, alleged verbal and physical abuse.
__________________________________________________
AI Overview
Yes, the Tennessee Highway Patrol pulled over Kilmar Abrego Garcia in December 2022 and released him without detention or arrest after consulting with federal authorities. While state troopers noted nine passengers traveling with no luggage and suspected human trafficking, federal agencies ultimately instructed them not to detain him, and he was sent on his way with an expired license warning.The 2022 Traffic StopThe Stop: State troopers pulled Abrego Garcia over for speeding on Interstate 40 in Tennessee.The Suspicions: Officers found eight passengers inside a vehicle registered to a convicted human smuggler. Nobody in the vehicle carried luggage, and all listed Abrego Garcia’s home address.The Police Response: Body camera footage shows troopers explicitly discussing their suspicions. They contacted federal immigration officials, but those agencies [of the Biden administration] instructed the local police not to detain him. He was released with only a warning.
Democrats, the Left and the lawyers who fuel and propel the lawfare machine against conservatives and their defense of law and order…, are evil. Full stop.
From the Complaint:
“Mr. Blanche’s conduct in connection with the Abrego Garcia matter is a serious abuse of public office, *undermines the
integrity of the Department of Justice, and erodes public confidence in the legal profession and in the fair administration of justice*.” (emphasis added)
Where was this “Campaign for Accountability” in Colorado, Maine, Manhattan and Albany, Atlanta, and DC under Garland?
The American Bar Association is not a government agency, it is a private advocacy group. It should have zero authority over lawyers doing business – especially non-members. This is equivalent to the teamsters deciding who gets to drive a truck. They can kick out attorneys who don’t meet ABA established standards but that should NOT limit who can practice law. The state governments need to set standards and issue licenses and, in the case of wrong doing, assess fines or revoke licenses but the ABA should not be involved. They have shown their bias.
The ABA does not have any such power. The authority to determine who is licensed to practice in a specific state is with the state supreme court. See my comment at 11:31 below.
. . . including dubious prosecutions over seashell threats . . .
I predict the case will be dismissed. Comey has now explained that he is taking Hebrew classes in preparation for a belated bar mitzvah, and, on the way back from two hours of tutoring he ran across the shells and accidentally read them as 7468 (right to left), which reminded him of H.R. 7468 – the First-Time Home Buyer Empowerment Act. Given that a relative was looking to purchase a first home but finding them unaffordable, Comey wanted to endorse passage of the bill. Once that information was made known to Matthew Petracca, the prosecutor, he stepped aside believing the prosecution was improvident.
Oof, Turley seems to be getting very sloppy lately. Especially when he tries to defend Trump’s incompetent DOJ. A few things to point out.l,
Chief U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. is not a Clinton appointee. He was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2015 and was confirmed by a Republican-led U.S. Senate in 2016 by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 92–0.
Second,
Turley completely hides the timeline of events that legally triggered the “vindictive prosecution” ruling. The federal government did not target Abrego Garcia based on fresh, ongoing investigative evidence. Instead, the DOJ under Todd Blanche suddenly revived a dormant, uncharged 2016 traffic stop only after Abrego Garcia won a historic, unanimous 9–0 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the administration for illegally deporting him. Reviving old, uncharged conduct specifically to punish a person for exercising their constitutional right to sue the government is the textbook, literal definition of vindictive prosecution under federal law. Abrego Garcia had an airtight case of vindictive prosecution against Trump’s incompetent DOJ.
Third,
The ethics complaint is a direct, mandatory institutional response to a sitting federal judge’s formal court order. When a federal judge issues a 32-page legal opinion explicitly finding that top Department of Justice officials engaged in unconstitutional, retaliatory misconduct, legal watchdogs and bar associations are ethically obligated to investigate. The complaint wasn’t “primed by liberals”; it was triggered by a federal court finding that the Acting Attorney General weaponized the justice system to exact personal revenge against a successful Supreme Court litigant. Turley, a law professor, should know that.
Fourth,
Turley leaves out the most critical caveat of that legal doctrine: the presumption of regularity evaporates completely when there is clear, objective evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while prosecutors have wide discretion, they are strictly forbidden from using that discretion to penalize a defendant for exercising their legal and constitutional rights. Judge Crenshaw’s order didn’t “work too hard”; it applied established Supreme Court precedent to an obvious case of state retaliation.
And lastly.
Turley spends paragraphs detailing unproven allegations regarding MS-13, human trafficking, and firearms to claim the defendant is too dangerous to protect.
This is a classic rhetorical deflection. The severe nature of an allegation does not grant the federal government a license to violate the United States Constitution. In an American court of law, a defendant’s alleged background does not give political appointees at the DOJ the right to engage in unlawful, retaliatory prosecutions. Turley uses inflammatory language about gang violence specifically to distract the reader from the fact that the government broke the rules.
An independent federal judge—confirmed unanimously by the Senate—caught the Department of Justice red-handed using its immense power to punish a man for winning a case at the Supreme Court. Defending that behavior by lying about the judge’s appointment and screaming “lawfare” is a complete abandonment of legal ethics.
X- found this in AI results:
“Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. was originally nominated by President Bill Clinton in 2000, but his nomination expired without a confirmation. He was later nominated by President Barack Obama on February 4, 2015, and confirmed on April 11, 2016.
Wikipedia tba.org
Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr.’s Judicial Nominations
Initial Nomination
Nominated by: Bill Clinton
Date of Nomination: October 12, 2000
Outcome: Nomination expired without confirmation
Subsequent Nomination
Nominated by: Barack Obama
Date of Nomination: February 4, 2015
Confirmation Date: April 11, 2016
Vote Count: Confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote of 92-0
Which makes it correct that Crenshaw was nominated by Obama and the senate confirmed him. The nomination that counts is Obama’s. Not Clinton’s. Turley should have known that.
your failure to mention, i.e. your omitting of, what was just told to you about Clinton nominating Crenshaw does everything to evidence your relentless attempt to discredit Turley. You fool no one. You are a failure, with or without AI.
So? Are you saying Turley should have been more thorough?
“thoroughness” has nothing to do with it. The worst case scenario is that Turley said “appointed” rather than “nominated.” You are the clown who was not “thorough” in your AI investigation. Talk about “vindictive.” That be you, airhead, or better, ai-head,
LOL!!
Turley, a law professor, should understand the difference and be more thorough.
Darren, Kristen, and Professor Turley: Can you please correct the Clinton apppointee statement. Thanks.
Darren, Kristen, and Professor Turley, could you please combine all of Concern Citizen / X / Svelaz / Gigi / Sally / Anonymous factorial into one post so that we do not have to scroll so much? We are developing ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injury.
Can’t stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
I would say that Turley should have been honest and being thorough is a big part of that.
Would it be better if the AI result did not reflect the historical record?
Turley writes what his patrons ask him to write. Retirement is coming soon and his income benefits from the supplemental income.
Crenshaw’s decision simply works too hard to find a basis for dismissing the indictment and will now be appealed.
So, another politician wearing a black robe. These kinds of result-oriented decisions are a blemish on the judiciary. The only remedy is at the ballot box – not for the judge, who has lifetime tenure, but for the president and senate who appoint and confirm judges, including especially circuit court judges who are on the front lines in keeping these rogue district-court political operatives, er, judges, in check.
Oldmanfromkansas, nope. Judge Crenshaw’s order didn’t “work too hard”; it applied established Supreme Court precedent to an obvious case of state retaliation.
Obama appointed Crenshaw. Not Clinton. It’s a bit late to vote them out.
There’s nothing “rogue” about these judges. They are applying the law as it is written.
Is that you Judge Crenshaw? I realize you’re trying to justify your decision, and as such spouting mere talking points and bald assertions, but I predict you’ll be reversed on appeal.
And Clive Johnston was using a bullhorn, right?
And the Kelo dissenters agreed that private property can be taken for private use, right?
And the judicial branch doesn’t declare the law, right?
Congratulations, you’re batting exactly zero on your other assertions. Rotsa ruck on this one.
Oldmanfromkansas,
A sitting federal judge—who was unanimously confirmed 92–0 by a bipartisan Senate—did not make “bald assertions.” He applied established Supreme Court precedent to the government’s own timeline, which proved they revived a dormant 2016 traffic stop only after the defendant won a unanimous 9–0 Supreme Court victory against the administration.
Everything else you cited has zero relevance to the case or the fact that the judge used evidence the DOJ could not dispute. It was as clear a case of vindictive prosecution as it can get. Turley doesn’t want to admit it because it would undermine the administration and he doesn’t want to be a target for similar treatment.
George/X says: “It was as clear a case of vindictive prosecution as it can get.”
Did you read the court’s decision, X, which expressly said:
““While the Court finds insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness.”
Perhaps you should send a little letter to the court, advising them that “It was as clear a case of vindictive prosecution as it can get,” and telling the court why its decision was “disingenuous” and “naive” and “hyperbolic” and “hilarious.” The court might appreciate your insight.
Lin, I would have thought you of all people, a lawyer, would get the ‘gist’ of the totality of the facts. Even without direct evidence the intent behind the prosecution of Garcia was obvious.
Once Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. looked at the timeline—noting that the DOJ suddenly revived a dead, uncharged 2016 traffic stop only after the defendant won a 9–0 Supreme Court victory against them—the burden of proof shifted entirely to the government.
The DOJ was given full opportunity to prove they had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for suddenly digging up this old case. They failed completely. Because the government could not offer a single credible, legal defense for their sudden pivot, the judge ruled that their actions were unconstitutional and threw out the entire indictment.
The reality is unassailable: the court ruled that the timeline established a clear presumption of state-sponsored revenge, the government failed to justify its actions, and the judge dismissed the criminal indictment as an unconstitutional abuse of power.
“a dead, uncharged 2016 traffic stop?” Gee, I thought it was 2022.
Meanwhile, as I note above, Hernandez-Reyes (HR) was the owner of the vehicle Garcia was driving, but he (HR) wasn’t arrested or convicted yet. That happened in 2020 after Garcia was deported in 2019. So Tennessee troopers had nothing to go on but to instigate federal looking into HR, which eventually went full circle back to Garcia. Please read everything I said above. and please stay away from AI. It really does deprive you of comprehension and context. Thanks, George/X.
My apologies Lin. You’re correct it was 2022. I only got the year wrong. The fact of the matter is the Trump DOJ still got caught trying to pull off a vindictive prosecution of Garcia.
The timeline still posed a huge problem for the DOJ. Thanks.
your tactical concession of a little flaw like dates wholly circumvents your avoidance of everything else I asked that you look into (regarding HR and his triggering connection to garcia). but Thanks anyway.
“My client didn’t say “I’m going to murder you,” he said “Screw you buddy” before emptying the revolver into the dead guy’s head. Because he didn’t say it was a murder, it’s obvious that my client did not commit a murder. ”
This is the argument you are making in regards to the order about vindictive prosecution, that unless Blanche himself used the exact phrase, then it cannot be that, even if every action taken was vindictive.
Man just invite the garcia to your house….pri**
Now law enforcement is retaliation if it involves illegal aliens, who are minorities with no possibility of ever actually being an actual American???
“Population Replacement” is counterintuitive, antithetical, illegal and unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY….
– The Preamble
___________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
“… self-perpetuating lawfare machine …”
The instance of Abrego Garcia’s arrest was perpetuated to stellar heights by the Left-Media Syndicate, It was that arm of the “lawfare machine” that brought Garcia’s due process of law into a Democratic Party Cause.
The facts remain, Abrego Garcia was on the Highway carting illegal aliens from place to place, that is not refutable, the rest of Garcia’s tribulations was manufactured by the Left-Media Syndicate and Left-Leaning Justices that create the spin.
The “self-perpetuating lawfare machine” is exactly the ‘Washing Cycle-of-Injustice’ the American Political-Party Media atmosphere sustains (perpetuates). It’s now time for Garcia to enter the ‘Dryer’ phase of this saga, and his ‘Dirty Laundry’ neatly folded and tucked away into the closet.
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has announced his intention to sip margaritas with every serial killer in CECOT by the end of his term.
The same is true if the people in the vehicle had gotten on a public bus or took a taxi.
“spent relatively little time actually addressing the evidence”
Oh another biased lefty in our judicary. Great.
We need the House and Senate to step up. Elevate any crime committed by a person here illegally to a felony and streamline the deportation process for all illegals. Due process for someone here illegally should be different than for a citizen.
Eliminate H1-B, F1, OPT
Everyone must go.
The economic fallout will hurt. For a while. But we’ll be better for it.
Our nation’s future hinges on the outcome of the birthright citizenship case with SCOTUS.
Elevating it to a felony makes no difference if there isn’t a court case and a prosecution to go with it.
Due process is necessary to determine if someone is here unlawfully and so must be applied the same to everyone.
Please correct me if I am wrong since I am not a lawyer.
Years ago I got my California General Contractors License. The test was administrated by the state run Contractors License Board. If you passed you got your license and were then required to perform per regulations.. There is the same kind of licensing board in NV and AZ and I am sure most states. Any customer could file a complaint that was thoroughly investigated and action could be taken from discipline to revocation of license and court action. I do not under stand why or how a association, (kind of like a HOA) can determine the livelihood of an individual. Yes there is a chance of political retribution from the Contractors license boards but is less likely due to the investigations and possible court battles for restitution. Whereas with an association, you get all kinds of people running for and appointed that are either friends or political allies.
As and after thought: If the a bar association revokes a license, is the person prevented from practicing in that state or everywhere? If so, it appears as though the ABA is running the judicial system in each state as well as the federal government.
It’s not the ABA, each individual state has a bar that regulates the attorneys in that state. If you are disbarred in one state, any other state you’re admitted to, will likely do the same. I suppose they wouldn’t have to but they probably would. This is a major problem that has to be addressed at some point. State bars are overwhelming leftist. The two biggest donors to the democratic party are trial lawyer groups. They have no problem politicizing disbarments. What they need to do is eliminate state bars, allowing reciprocity nationwide, and adopt a national bar that can be better regulated. This would allow some oversight for what is happening. Clinesmith was the FBI lawyer that altered evidence, an email, that was submitted to the FISA court, that was an outrageous act that should have ended his career. The DC bar gave him a slap on the wrist, he was reinstated even before his probation was up.
Thanks for clarifying for me.
Just to clarify, each state has a bar – the licensed attorneys in that state – with the state supreme court being the ultimate deciders of who is a member of the bar. The state supreme court is kind of like a board of directors in that regard, i.e., multi-person highest authority. States also have a disciplinary apparatus, such as an office of disciplinary counsel (to investigate ethical violations) and a disciplinary board (to impose punishment, up to and including disbarment). Any attorney subjected to discipline, who disagrees with the discipline, can challenge it through an adjudicative system with the state supreme court being the court of last resort.
The standards for admission to the bar, and for attorney discipline, are at the state level. I personally believe it is unlikely that 50 state supreme courts will willingly give up their role in this regard to a national entity that doesn’t account for state-level differences.
thanks also
Hello NotSoOld: May I comment on your sentence, “What they need to do is eliminate state bars, allowing reciprocity nationwide, and adopt a national bar that can be better regulated.”
I like your idea, but the reality is that the ABA sets the standard with canons, dos and don’ts, and bar exams, and the ABA is independently rated as Left of Center, so we’re kind of back to square one?!
(one problem with nationwide reciprocity is that PENDING charges or cases against an attorney may not yet be part of state bar records, thus hastening his/her relocation to another state and gaining reciprocity before any previous state action is known or complete.) So in essence, eliminating state bars to better regulate a “Uniform” national practice standard for admission seems practical but maybe not practicable, considering the sheer numbers and workload.
Look Lin, everyone is left of center when the conservatives hold radical and extreme positions.
This may be a surprise, but lawyers are protective of their reputations and lawyers who have bad reputations are bad for business. Stealing money from clients is the #1 way to get disbarred, but using the law to harm innocent people is pretty high up there as cause for disbarment.
Pandora’s box has been opened and the leftist legal and judicial harpies are free to wreak havoc on our judicial system. The destruction of our foundational institutions continues. It is a bit ironic that the judge found the prosecution of Mr. Garcia to be vindictive resulting in a clearly vindictive action against the acting AG. Re the prosecution against Comey, I would point out that an ICE protestor was just arrested and charged with threatening a federal officer. The president has had 3 unsuccessful attempts on his life as a consequence of the rage rhetoric from the left. Comey’s posting of his too cute by half seashell beach are was a not so veiled threat on POTUS. if he had kept it to himself there would be no grounds to charge him. Conservatives have been prosecuted and convicted for much less.
Let’s see if Ross recuses.
Oops, I’ve got Georgia on my mind.
This is how Fascists operate: they use Fascist judges, nominated for life, to impose Fascism on all political opponents. Fascist Democrats are running amok, and show no inclination to slow down.
Well, whitey, if you’ve got a million dollars buy your way into Australia. EU , UK are cooked.
One of the most honorable characteristics of any society is the fairness of its courts. Ancient Athens and ancient Rome had a reputation for fair courts. But under pressure from the American, anti-American, Left, New York courts have gone a long way toward forfeiting any such reputation. It’s no wonder Republicans are leaving the state.
A perfect illustration of how the Judiciary has earned such disrespect and the contempt of The People. We all see the judicial abuse of power for political purposes. We are sick of it. And we are rapidly approaching the point of total disobedience and rebellion.
No, it’s idiots who have no idea how the judicial system works.
Viewpoint
All the more reason for 15 year term limits for federal district court judges, 20 years for federal appeals court, and then an age of 80 maximum for SCOTUS. This judge who dismissed all the charges would have already been timed out of office. No muss, no fuss. Just gone. Best constitutional amendment we need. Terms limits for Federal Judges, Senators, House of Representatives.
Also time to relieve judges and bar associations of their power outside of the court. All states need incensing boards either appointed by the governor and assented to by the legislature or make all state judges and licensing boards subject to elections, with laws stating the limits of their terms and the actual powers of the licensing board
We definitely need some turnover in the judiciary at the state and federal levels.
Term limits, all for it, especially for commenters here.
Then “Anonymous” would be term-limited out, and the number of trolls would go down. So, maybe not a bad idea.
Yes – it is essential to have an increase in inexperienced and politically appointed judges.
Good article, as always Professor.
I do however take issue with your characterization of the action against Comey. If citizens continue to see high ranking officials flaunting the law, while being enabled by the TDS left and media, the respect for the rule of law will continue to erode. In the case of Comey and the supposed surprise discovery of a sea shell message, to have the former head of the highest and largest law enforcement agency in the country send a social media message playing cute with death threats is a case worth pursuing.
Without such accountability, where does it end.
If Al Capone was charged with tax evasion, despite many other crimes, threatening the POTUS seems like a reasonable target.
Comey almost subverted the duly elected government of the USA.
Death threats are the least of the trouble he’s caused.
Come On Man – Abrego was just running an Employment Agency for a Gang (oops I mean Investor Group) that was trying to HELP low skilled personnel retrain in other occupations like sex worker (oops I mean Societal Pleasure Specialist) and forced labor (oops mean Aspirational Blue Collar Apprentice). He gave up the rough life at least a week before ICE showed up and was on the road to reform before DJT tried to tear him away from his sham marriage (oops I mean Wedded Bliss) and the phone calls to fellow gang members (Oops I mean former Associates) recently was just to reminisce and plan a BBQ get together. Idiot Democrap Black Robe Faux Illuminati.
Abrego is congressional candidate material. The bigger picture is: will the Constitution survive a land grab? No.