Washington, D.C. (February 26, 2025)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, led subcommittee Democrats in a hearing examining Donald Trump’s lawless Department of Justice (DOJ).
The hearing included testimony from Brendan Ballou, Former Federal Prosecutor and Special Counsel for Private Equity in the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division; Chris Swecker, Former FBI Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigations Unit; Jonathan Fahey, Partner, Holtzman Vogel; and Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, Thomas More Society.
Subcommittee Democrats detailed how Trump is purging experienced career civil servants throughout the DOJ and filling their roles with inexperienced sycophants, which makes all of us less safe
- Rep. Johnson said: “Trump is purging experienced career civil servants and filling their roles with inexperienced sycophants who will do whatever they are told to do, no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional the ask.”
- Ranking Member Crockett said: “Where we see commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, the Trump DOJ sees reason for retribution. This has already taken shape in various forms, but notably, on January 27th, Trump’s then-Acting Attorney General James McHenry fired DOJ officials on who worked on the federal criminal investigations into Trump. Let me repeat this, they fired DOJ officials who did nothing wrong—these officials simply did their jobs.”
- Ranking Member Raskin said: “This hearing is entitled ‘Entering the Golden Age: Ending the Weaponization at the Department of Justice’ […] Perhaps you’re referring to a Golden Age for corrupt billionaires, lawless oligarchs and violent white nationalists. It’s no golden age for the DOJ, which is now mired in corruption, halting corruption prosecutions, disbanding anticorruption task forces, and purging veteran prosecutors and agents who are dedicated to public safety and have superior performance evaluations but run afoul of the new political correctness imposed on the Department.”
- Rep. Moskowitz said: “Chairman Drew mentioned something, he said, ‘the people’s Justice Department.’ I actually think that’s very important. Unfortunately, the D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin disagrees with him, because he calls himself ‘Trump’s Attorney’—his own words and his own statement. He doesn’t say ‘the people’s Attorney,’ he doesn’t say ‘the Justice Department’s Attorney.’ He said he’s ‘President Trump’s lawyer.’ And so, seems to me that those two things are not accurate.” Rep. Moskowitz asked Republican witness Mr. Swecker if the U.S. Attorney is the President’s attorney—as the D.C. U.S. Attorney has asserted—or the people’s Attorney, to which he confirmed: “The people’s Attorney.”
Subcommittee Democrats explained how Republicans are rehashing tired conspiracies as a means of distracting the American people from the DOJ’s slide toward lawlessness, while ignoring the concrete evidence of real government weaponization in the Trump Administration.
- Ranking Member Crockett said: “Last Congress, the House Judiciary Committee held numerous hearings on this notion of ‘weaponization.’ And in those hearings Republicans described weaponization as: ‘Corruption;’ ‘Government abuse and political treachery;’ having the government act ‘against people who were innocent and did nothing wrong; ‘targeting people of one political persuasion’ […] I am the first to admit that I don’t often agree with many things my Republican colleagues say but wholeheartedly concur with their descriptions here. What concerns me, however, is the inability of my colleagues on the other side to connect the dots that are in front of them while the rest of the American is watching as this DOJ weaponization takes hold right before our eyes.”
- Ranking Member Raskin said: “Last Congress, you zealously investigated the DOJ for allegedly hiring and firing employees based on political ideology. Nothing came of it. But now DOJ has openly fired dozens of career prosecutors for the sole reason that they worked on January 6 insurrection cases—in other words, for doing their jobs on a case Donald Trump now considers uncomfortable for him. How is that remotely acceptable?”
