Fired DOJ Lawyer Alleges Corruption in Testimony \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Fired DOJ pardon attorney Liz Oyer testified before Congress, accusing department leadership of corruption and political retaliation. She detailed her abrupt dismissal after refusing to favorably act on a Trump ally’s case. Other former officials echoed her concerns, warning of a systemic assault on justice norms under Trump.
Quick Looks:
- Liz Oyer claims DOJ leadership punished dissent and prioritized political loyalty.
- Oyer was fired after refusing to support Mel Gibson’s gun rights restoration.
- She testified about armed marshals sent to intimidate her before the hearing.
- Ex-DOJ prosecutor Ryan Crosswell criticized dismissal of Eric Adams’ case.
- Hearing signals increasing concern over Trump administration’s treatment of civil servants.
- DOJ attempted to block Oyer’s testimony using executive privilege.
- Former officials warn of crumbling internal norms and political manipulation of justice.
Deep Look
Fired DOJ Lawyer Accuses Justice Department of Corruption and Political Retaliation in Explosive Congressional Testimony
In an explosive congressional hearing Monday, Liz Oyer, the recently terminated U.S. pardon attorney, delivered a searing indictment of the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump, accusing its leadership of “ongoing corruption” and a systematic purge of career public servants who resist political pressure.
Oyer, a veteran attorney who was abruptly fired last month, testified that her dismissal was directly tied to her refusal to support the restoration of gun rights for actor Mel Gibson — a Trump supporter with a prior domestic violence conviction. Her removal, she said, highlights a pattern of political loyalty being placed above the impartial administration of justice.
“It should alarm all Americans that the leadership of the Department of Justice appears to value political loyalty above the fair and responsible administration of justice,” Oyer told the joint hearing of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. “It should offend all Americans that our leaders are treating public servants with a lack of basic decency and humanity.”
Oyer described a chilling sequence of events that culminated in her ouster. She was fired without warning one day after declining to recommend Gibson’s rights be restored. Security officers were stationed in her office to escort her out. But even more alarming, she said, was what came days later — an attempt to silence her.
Just days before the hearing, she claimed, the Justice Department dispatched armed deputy U.S. Marshals to her home to deliver a letter warning her against testifying. Oyer was able to intervene before the officers arrived, but she interpreted the act as a blatant intimidation tactic. “The letter was a warning to me about the risks of testifying here today,” she said. “But I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice.”
The Justice Department has not commented publicly on her testimony, though Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche previously dismissed her allegations as inaccurate. The agency also invoked executive privilege in an effort to block Oyer from testifying — an argument her attorney, former DOJ Inspector General Michael Bromwich, said was “completely without merit.”
Monday’s hearing was the first major public forum since Trump’s return to office where former Justice Department lawyers offered firsthand accounts of alleged political interference and retaliatory dismissals. The testimonies painted a picture of a once-independent agency now under siege.
Another witness, Ryan Crosswell, a former public corruption prosecutor, resigned in protest after the DOJ dismissed a case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The move, he claimed, was politically motivated — an effort to co-opt Adams’ support for Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown.
Crosswell said the Justice Department’s dismissal of the Adams case represented a disturbing collapse of prosecutorial independence. “In a properly functioning justice system, any public official wishing to avoid prison has to live by one rule of thumb: obey our nation’s laws,” he said. “And this action raised an even more chilling question: Is the Justice Department that will drop charges against those who acquiesce to a political command a Justice Department that will bring charges against those who don’t?”
He testified that his team was instructed to identify prosecutors willing to file the motion to dismiss Adams’ case. The implication was clear: those who complied would be rewarded; those who resisted, punished. “I didn’t have a job lined up or insurance lined up,” Crosswell added. “But I’d rather be unemployed and not be insured than to work for someone that would do something like that to my colleagues.”
Former DOJ attorney Stacey Young, who left the department earlier this year, told lawmakers that a wave of firings and resignations had hollowed out the agency, leaving a dangerous leadership void. “The Trump administration has unleashed an all-out assault on these public servants, who are now facing attacks on their employment, their integrity, their well-being, and even their safety,” she said.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, a close Trump ally, has come under scrutiny for a series of disciplinary actions against attorneys perceived as disloyal — including the recent suspension of a government lawyer who admitted in court that a deportation decision had been a mistake. Critics say these actions reflect an increasingly authoritarian management style, one that brooks no dissent and demands total political alignment.
The testimonies raised fresh alarms about the direction of the Justice Department under Trump’s renewed leadership. Former career lawyers said they had never experienced this level of politicization, describing a toxic atmosphere where ethics and legal standards were secondary to political objectives.
While Trump administration officials argue that the reforms are necessary to “drain the swamp” and restore public trust, critics view the moves as part of a broader assault on democratic institutions — one that undermines the independence of federal agencies and threatens the rule of law.
The hearing closed with lawmakers vowing further investigations. Some called for whistleblower protections for career public servants, while others urged reforms to limit the president’s ability to override prosecutorial decisions for political purposes.
As the Justice Department remains under the microscope, testimonies like Oyer’s and Crosswell’s may only be the beginning of a wider reckoning — one that will determine the future of the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency.
Fired DOJ Lawyer Fired DOJ Lawyer
You must Register or Login to post a comment.