Senior officials at the Justice Department are trying to use executive privilege to prevent a lawyer dismissed from the department from testifying to Congress on Monday about the details of a disagreement with supervisors about restoring the gun rights of Mel Gibson, the actor and prominent supporter of President Trump.
In a letter reviewed by The New York Times, a lawyer in the office of Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, warned Elizabeth G. Oyer, the Justice Department’s former pardon attorney, that she was “not authorized to disclose” records about the firearms rights issue to lawmakers.
A lawyer for Ms. Oyer responded with his own missive, accusing the department of trying to intimidate a whistle-blower on the cusp of a congressional hearing.
While the facts of the dispute are limited to a relatively narrow issue, the potential ripple effects could be far-reaching. The administration has already fired dozens of career prosecutors, some of whom have spoken publicly about their experiences, while others may yet still.
The new conflict began Friday night, when Ms. Oyer learned that deputy U.S. Marshals were being sent to her home to deliver the Justice Department’s letter. After Ms. Oyer assured the department she had received the letter via email, the deputies’ delivery was canceled.
Her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, noted in his letter to Mr. Blanche that Ms. Oyer’s teenage son was home alone at the time.
“This highly unusual step of directing armed law enforcement officers to the home of a former Department of Justice employee who has engaged in no misconduct, let alone criminal conduct, simply to deliver a letter, is both unprecedented and completely inappropriate,” Mr. Bromwich wrote. “You appear to be using the department’s security resources to intimidate a former employee who is engaged in statutorily protected whistle-blower conduct.”
Ms. Oyer was fired last month, after days of disagreement about whether the federal government should allow Mr. Gibson, who has a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, to possess firearms again. Senior Justice Department officials have said she was not fired because of the Gibson issue.
The Times reported last week that after Ms. Oyer’s termination, senior officials at the department decided to restore the gun rights of Mr. Gibson and nine others. Ms. Oyer has said she resisted efforts to recommend his gun rights be restored because of his past domestic violence conviction and other incidents.
The letter to Ms. Oyer argued that internal deliberations related to the restoration of firearms rights were “likely covered by one or more components of executive privilege and would implicate the rules of professional responsibility.”
That letter, written by Kendra Wharton, who works for Mr. Blanche, warned Ms. Oyer, “you are not authorized to disclose any records of the department to Congress with respect to the department’s consideration of the restoration of firearm rights.”
The fight over Ms. Oyer’s pending testimony has parallels to a similar disagreement in the early days of the first Trump administration, when senior officials signaled to Sally Yates, who had been fired as deputy attorney general, that details of her conversations were probably covered by executive privilege or attorney-client privilege and could not be shared with Congress.
That dispute centered around Ms. Yates’ communications with the White House. Ms. Oyer’s discussions were with other Justice Department officials, including people who worked for her in the pardon office.
Mr. Bromwich said the claim of executive privilege against Ms. Oyer’s pending testimony was “completely without merit,” noting Mr. Trump had not asserted executive privilege over any of the issues. “Moreover, executive privilege cannot be asserted to protect misconduct,” he added.
Ms. Oyer, he said, “will not be deterred by the intimidation tactics deployed by your office from providing truthful, lawful testimony.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/justice-department-pardon-attorney.html
