What Is Vindictive Prosecution in Abrego-Garcia's Case?

Military action is a stark theme this week, as Oregon and Illinois sue the Trump administration over its attempts to federalize National Guard troops for deployment into both states. Mary and Andrew break down not one, but two temporary restraining orders that block deployments to Oregon, as Trump appointed Judge Karin Immergut cites Trump’s own words to show the facts don’t support what he alleges about “war ravaged” cities. Then, they dig into the administration's fourth deadly boat strike on alleged drug traffickers near Venezuela, highlighting how the lack of apparent legal authority might play out, as Attorney General Pam Bondi answered questions from the Senate Judiciary committee Tuesday. Last up, Andrew and Mary turn to two consequential decisions that don’t bode well for the Trump administration: one decision out of Boston, barring efforts to deport non-citizen activists; and a second finding of a “likelihood of vindictive prosecution” from a Nashville judge as it relates to the seeming retaliatory charges against Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.

Further reading: 

• MSNBC’s Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian report: Top prosecutor is rejecting Trump pressure to charge New York AG
• Mary And Tess Bridgeman’s piece for Just Security:  What the Senate Judiciary Committee Should Ask A.G. Bondi on Drug Cartel Strikes
• Judge Karin Immergut’s two decisions in Oregon:
  • Immergut’s First TRO blocking federalization of the Oregon National Guard. 
  • Immergut’s Second TRO blocking deployment of any “federalized members of the National Guard” to the state.

Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.