Federal prosecutors in Chicago delivered a full-throated defense Monday of the conspiracy case leveled against the so-called “Broadview Six,” insisting that any claim of selective or vindictive prosecution is “the product of fevered paranoia and delusional speculation.”They mocked the notion that White House officials “had such an interest in local Illinois government” to pick “politically obscure figures” like Kat Abughazaleh out of a crowd, “order their selective and vindictive prosecution, and blithely expect career prosecutors in Chicago to violate multiple ethical and legal standards.”They also seemed to take such accusations personally, complaining that “the unavoidable conclusions to be drawn” are that officials in Chicago’s U.S. attorney’s office “have not only acted in bad faith but have committed prosecutorial misconduct.” Related ‘Broadview Six’ ICE protesters can see White House communications about their case — if they exist Remaining ‘Broadview Six’ defendants want conspiracy charge tossed, argue protesting isn’t a crime Ultimately, prosecutors insisted that “there are no communications of any nature from, to, or with anyone” outside the U.S. attorney’s office regarding investigative or charging decisions in the case, aside from local FBI investigators.“To be crystal clear, this specifically includes anyone in the White House and all components and offices of Main Justice,” Assistant U.S. Attorney William Hogan wrote in Monday’s 21-page court filing.Hogan’s commentary came in the conspiracy case against a group of activists who protested outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview last fall, during the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz deportation campaign.The feds originally charged six of the activists but dropped charges against two. Still charged are former congressional candidate Abughazaleh, Oak Park village trustee Brian Straw, 45th Ward Democratic committeeperson Michael Rabbitt and Andre Martin, a member of Abughazaleh’s campaign staff.All four are involved in local Democratic politics.The four are accused of a conspiracy to impede a federal agent. But defense attorneys have argued the indictment is another example of President Donald Trump’s administration using the Justice Department to target his “perceived political enemies.”Defense attorneys have until Thursday to respond to Hogan’s court filing. Both sides are due back in U.S. District Judge April Perry’s courtroom April 7. The case is set for trial May 26. Oak Park Village Trustee Brian Straw leaves the Dirksen Federal Courthouse after a hearing in the so-called “Broadview Six” case on Thursday, March 19, 2026.Anthony Vazquez/Sun-Times The charges revolve around events on the morning of Sept. 26 outside the ICE facility. The indictment alleges that, while a federal agent drove a vehicle toward the facility, the defendants and others surrounded it. Members of the larger crowd allegedly banged on the vehicle, pushed against it, scratched it and even etched the word “PIG” into it.The crowd allegedly broke a side mirror and a rear windshield wiper and forced the agent “to drive at an extremely slow rate of speed.”Defense attorneys say the agent did not wait for police to clear a path, did not identify himself and did not order the crowd to move aside.Pushing back on the claims of selective prosecution, Hogan wrote Monday that videos "clearly show that most individuals who swarmed and impeded" the vehicle “could not be identified because they were wearing masks or other coverings that obscured their faces.” Related Remaining ‘Broadview Six’ defendants want conspiracy charge tossed, argue protesting isn’t a crime But the feds “faced no comparable difficulty in identifying the original six defendants, each of whom was unmasked,” Hogan wrote. Some of them also made public statements confirming their presence at the facility during the incident, he added.Even when the FBI positively identified others, prosecutors made the final call on who to charge “based on the strength of the evidence,” Hogan explained. They chose not to bring charges against a Chicago alderman, a “quasi-public figure who is well known” for protesting in Broadview, a prominent attorney and several others, the prosecutor added.Hogan did not identify those individuals by name.“Defendants have presented no evidence that individuals similarly situated to them were treated differently or that there was any improper purpose in the decision to charge them for the simple reason that there is no such evidence,” Hogan wrote. ...read more read less