The post trial briefs are on file in the Middle District of Tennessee. And they paint a very damning picture — of Noem / McGuire’s efforts to punish Abrego Garcia — for asserting that he had a right to be free from being kidnapped, and dropped in a hell-hole prison in El Salvador.

Here is all 30 pages of that — and a bit — on the “disappearing VanWie” — a/k/a the dog that did NOT bark:

…As much as the government tried to sanitize the origins of this prosecution by casting Agent Saoud as an independent source of this investigation, all the government accomplished by shielding Agent VanWie from the Court was to make crystal clear that it will not answer the Court’s questions. The government failed to offer any explanation for the “close timing between developments in Abrego’s civil suit and HSI reopening its investigation into him” that this Court has already found particularly “alarming” and suggestive of retaliatory motive. (Dkt. 138 at 14)….

…Mr. Singh was not just receiving information; he was seeking it out on behalf of “Main Justice leadership,” because it was a “top priority” for them. (Tr. 135). He even received a copy of THP’s traffic stop incident report from HSI directly and inquired about a report — which Mr. McGuire did not have — about Mr. Abrego’s 2019 arrest in Maryland. (Id. at 137; GX 1 at 15). Over the next few weeks, Mr. McGuire sought Mr. Singh’s approval on the timing of presenting and unsealing the indictment and whether to involve the press. (GX 1 at 10-11). Mr. Singh then directed Mr. McGuire to “keep close hold [on the draft indictment] until we get clearance” to file. (Id. at 10). This was far from a “one-way street” of communication. (See Tr. 157): Mr. Singh gave Mr. McGuire his key witness, asked about additional evidence before Mr. McGuire had ever seen it, and pushed Mr. McGuire to draft charging documents at lightning speed….

Mr. McGuire claimed that he found Mr. Singh’s request “[c]an we sketch out a draft complaint” baffling and that it did not mean what it plainly states on its face. (Tr. 135-36). But the words speak for themselves and refer to a collaborative effort. The statement by Mr. Singh about jointly drafting a complaint is followed by a redaction, so the defense is unable to see whether Mr. Singh is in fact referring to specific charges. But the Court is privy to that language — as well as other redacted language in the emails — and can make its own determination….

For the foregoing reasons, the government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, and the Court should dismiss the Indictment….

For what it is worth (not much!) here’s the government’s lame attempt to explain it all. It fails to pass the straight face test. It is a tissue of fabrications. Onward. [No dial in details yet, for Judge Xinis’ hearing in Maryland. But the above may be more meaty, anyway.]

Updated @ 5 PM EDT — Judge Xinis’ hearing was over in under 40 minutes — and was restricted to lawyers and parties. As I said, the above was more meaningful — as developments go, anyway. USDC Judge Waverly Crenshaw is like to rule pretty quickly in Nashville to the effect that Abrego is free to go — no indictment remains. Onward.

नमस्ते