The Department of Justice (DOJ) took extreme measures to stop a former employee from speaking out about Mel Gibson’s gun rights case, planning to send armed U.S. marshals to her home in a bid to intimidate her.
Emails between Liz Oyer, the former Pardon Attorney, and the DOJ show that the department was preparing to use law enforcement to prevent her from testifying at a public event about the controversy surrounding Gibson’s gun rights restoration. Oyer, who was fired after resisting pressure from the Trump administration to recommend Gibson’s gun rights be reinstated, had planned to speak at a forum organized by prominent Democrats, including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The DOJ planned to have law enforcement show up between 9 and 10 p.m. on a Friday to deliver the letter. However, Oyer received the letter electronically before the marshals were sent. Despite this, Oyer’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, called the DOJ’s plan to send armed agents “an intimidation tactic.”
“This is a highly unusual and completely inappropriate step,” Bromwich said. “There’s no reason for armed law enforcement to go to the home of a former DOJ employee who has done nothing criminal, just to deliver a letter. This is an attempt to intimidate a whistleblower.”
Oyer has said that she was fired after she refused to recommend Gibson for gun rights restoration. She was pressured by the Trump administration to include the actor, who had a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence, in a list of people eligible for restored gun rights. Oyer, standing by her principles, told DOJ officials that the decision to restore Gibson’s rights should not be hers to make, but rather theirs. Shortly after, she was fired.
The letter from the DOJ made it clear that the department did not want Oyer to speak about her firing or internal deliberations on Gibson’s case. Associate Deputy Attorney General Kendra Wharton wrote that the DOJ expected Oyer to avoid discussing these matters, which could involve non-public attorney communications and work product, potentially covered by executive privilege.
Bromwich strongly rejected this argument, pointing out that Oyer had the legal right to speak as a whistleblower, protected under federal law. He argued that the DOJ’s claims of executive privilege were baseless and that privilege could never be used to cover up misconduct.
“Executive privilege cannot be used to protect wrongdoing,” Bromwich said. “And the department didn’t even inform Ms. Oyer of the whistleblower protections she is entitled to.”
Oyer made a powerful statement when she appeared at the hearing, titled “Restoring Accountability: Exposing Trump’s Attacks on the Rule of Law.” She revealed that her teenage child had been home alone when the marshals were scheduled to arrive at her door.
“The letter was meant to intimidate me into staying quiet,” Oyer said. “But I’m here because I refuse to be bullied into hiding the corruption and abuse of power at the DOJ.”
The DOJ has yet to respond to requests for comment on this issue. However, Oyer’s actions and the department’s overreach have sparked serious concerns about the use of law enforcement to silence former employees who are simply trying to expose potential wrongdoing.
