About a month ago, as Donald Trump’s Justice Department purged a remarkable number of officials without cause, the U.S. pardon attorney, Elizabeth Oyer, was allegedly terminated for a ridiculous reason: According to her version of events, administration officials wanted her to restore actor Mel Gibson’s rights to carry a gun, and when she declined, Oyer’s career came to an abrupt end.
And while the administration has denied her assertions, this week, as The New York Times reported, the story took an unexpected turn.
Senior officials at the Justice Department have claimed that executive privilege should bar a lawyer dismissed from the department from testifying to Congress about a disagreement with supervisors over restoring the gun rights of Mel Gibson, the actor and prominent supporter of President Trump. Nevertheless, Elizabeth G. Oyer, the department’s former pardon attorney, appeared before lawmakers on Monday afternoon.
“I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” she told Democratic lawmakers.
Among the elements that make this story interesting is the degree to which Team Trump seemed eager to pressure Oyer not to share information ahead of her appearance on Capitol Hill. Indeed, NBC News reported that her lawyer complained about the Justice Department using “security resources to intimidate” Oyer, even dispatching special deputy U.S. marshals to her home.
But stepping back, there’s a related question that might not be immediately obvious: Given the fact that there are Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, and GOP committee chairs wouldn’t dare hold oversight hearings into Justice Department abuses, who invited Oyer to talk to lawmakers about her experiences?
The answer is, two congressional Democrats — Sen. Adam Schiff of California and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland — organized a “shadow” hearing, inviting relevant witnesses to shed fresh light on the administration’s attacks on the rule of law.
It wasn’t an official hearing, but it effectively served the purpose of one — and in this instance, the gathering generated new and important information.
It was also emblematic of new signs of life among congressional Democrats who’ve been under pressure for months to do more, and who appear to have gotten the message.








