Former Justice Department Officials Testify Against Alleged Political Meddling
The recently dismissed pardon attorney for the Justice Department gave a striking testimony on Monday, accusing the department leaders of “ongoing corruption.” This statement was made during a congressional hearing highlighting accusations that the Trump administration might be compromising the integrity of the rule of law, abusing authority, and driving out long-standing civil servants.
Liz Oyer, who claims her dismissal occurred after she declined to support the reinstatement of gun rights for actor Mel Gibson—a person known to back President Trump—expressed her concerns. “All Americans should be alarmed that the Justice Department’s leadership prioritizes political allegiance over fair and responsible justice,” Oyer remarked. She further criticized the lack of basic decency and humanity in how the agency treats public servants.
This hearing marked a significant moment as it was the first instance within the Trump administration where recently dismissed or resigned Justice Department lawyers publicly addressed Congress about their departure reasons and apprehensions about the department’s trajectory. The hearing occurred amidst numerous resignations and firings that have depleted the department’s experienced legal workforce. Moreover, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her team have shown little tolerance for dissenting views within the department, even suspending a lawyer who openly admitted an error in deporting a Maryland man to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
“The Trump administration has launched an all-out assault on these public servants, targeting their employment, integrity, well-being, and safety,” said Stacey Young, a former department lawyer who exited in January and now leads an advocacy group for department employees. She conveyed her insights to lawmakers at a joint session with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
The hearing conveyed grave warnings, with myriad lawyers describing relentless political pressures that made them uneasy and shattered institutional norms. Oyer criticized what she called the “callous cruelty” exhibited by DOJ leaders toward committed public servants. She recounted her sudden dismissal without explanation, a day after opposing the restoration of Gibson’s gun rights following a misdemeanor domestic violence charge, and mentioned being escorted out by security.
Oyer disclosed that the Justice Department sought to intimidate her into silence just days before the hearing, attempting to send armed marshals to her home with a letter cautioning against testifying. However, she managed to delay the officers’ arrival. “The letter warned me about the risks of testifying here today. But I refuse to be coerced into hiding the ongoing corruption and power abuses at the Department of Justice,” Oyer stated.
A Justice Department representative did not promptly comment on Oyer’s statements. Previously, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche dismissed her claims as inaccurate without further explanation. The department tried to cite executive privilege, aiming to halt Oyer from discussing her dismissal details with Congress. This legal principle generally protects presidential decision-making confidentiality from scrutiny. Oyer’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, argued that using executive privilege to block her testimony lacked merit.
Another testimony came from a former public corruption prosecutor who resigned over the Justice Department’s choice to dismiss charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Ryan Crosswell, though not part of the Adams case, found the dismissal—to aid Trump’s immigration plans—“one of the department’s saddest moments.”
Crosswell emphasized, “In a fair justice system, public officials must abide by laws to avoid imprisonment.” He questioned whether the department would drop charges for politically compliant figures while launching cases against those who oppose. Crosswell recounted being told to find prosecutors willing to drop the Adams case, with promises of career advancements for compliance and threats of repercussions for refusal. Ultimately, one person agreed, but Crosswell resigned.
“I didn’t have a job or insurance lined up, but I’d rather be jobless and uninsured than work for someone willing to betray colleagues like that,” Crosswell solemnly explained.