Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
★★★
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Politics

Former Trump Prosecutor Defends Investigation Staff Before Senate Panel

Former Trump Prosecutor Defends Investigation Staff Before Senate Panel

The hearing places on the public record a direct dispute between a former federal prosecutor and Republican senators over whether career Justice Department attorneys were dismissed lawfully, a...

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · September 29, 2026

The former federal prosecutor who obtained grand jury indictments against Donald Trump appeared before a Senate panel on September 29, 2026, and told Republican senators that career prosecutors who worked on the Trump cases were fired illegally, according to Bloomberg reporting from the hearing.

The prosecutor's appearance before the committee marked the first time he publicly defended his former staff in a formal congressional setting since the Justice Department dismissed the attorneys following the change in administration.

The central factual dispute at the hearing concerned whether the terminations of the career prosecutors constituted lawful personnel actions or violated civil service protections that govern career federal employees. Career DOJ attorneys, unlike political appointees, are subject to removal procedures outlined in Title 5 of the United States Code. Which specific provisions the former prosecutor cited as the basis for his claim of illegality was not fully detailed in available reporting at publication time.

Republican senators on the panel disputed the prosecutor's characterization of the firings, though the specific statutory or regulatory arguments they advanced were not fully detailed in available reporting at publication time. The precise names of the senators who questioned him and the full scope of their objections would be found in the official Senate hearing transcript, which is published by the relevant committee and made available through Congress.gov.

The indictments the former prosecutor secured against Donald Trump represented two separate federal cases. The first, filed in the Southern District of Florida, concerned the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The second, filed in the District of Columbia, concerned events surrounding January 6, 2021. Both cases were dismissed by the Justice Department after Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025, a documented action reflected in public court dockets maintained by the federal judiciary.

Career prosecutors who worked on those cases were subsequently removed from the DOJ. The specific number of attorneys terminated, the dates of their terminations, and the formal reasons stated in their termination letters are matters of public record that would appear in any Merit Systems Protection Board proceedings filed on their behalf, though whether such proceedings have been initiated is not confirmed in available source material.

The hearing also addressed the integrity of the investigative process itself. The former prosecutor stated that the investigations were conducted properly, according to Bloomberg. Senators challenging that position would have the option of requesting investigative records through the Senate's oversight authority under Senate Rule XXVI, though no such formal request was reported as having been issued at the time of publication.

The political dimension of the hearing is straightforward as a matter of documented record. The prosecutor was appointed under a Democratic administration. The senators pressing him belong to the Republican majority that controls the Senate in the 119th Congress, as established by the January 2025 Senate organizational resolution. Both of those facts are public record.

Historically, disputes over the removal of career federal prosecutors have generated litigation. The Supreme Court addressed related questions of presidential removal power in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), though those cases dealt with agency directors rather than line prosecutors. Whether the current terminations will produce parallel litigation remains unknown.

Several material facts remain unresolved in publicly available records as of publication. The full names of all terminated prosecutors, the exact statutory basis cited by the former prosecutor for his illegality claim, and the committee's formal response or planned next steps are not confirmed. The Senate hearing transcript, once published on Congress.gov, would answer the statutory and procedural questions. Any Merit Systems Protection Board filings by terminated attorneys would be the primary document establishing the formal legal challenge to the firings.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
★
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
★
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
★
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
★
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com