A high-ranking Justice Department official argued that enforcement privilege should ban lawyers who rejected supervisors and congressional testimony about disagreement with supervisors about restoring gun rights for Trump's actor and well-known supporter Mel Gibson.
Nevertheless, Elizabeth G. Oyer, a former pardon lawyer for the department, appeared before lawmakers on Monday afternoon. “Because I'm here, I can't be bullied by hiding the ongoing corruption and power abuse at the Department of Justice,” she told Democrats and representatives.
The dispute began Friday night and warned Oier, when the deputy attorney general's attorney general warned him that he was “not authorized to disclose” about the firearms rights issue, according to a letter reviewed by the New York Times.
Mr. Oyer's lawyers responded in kind, accusing him of attempting to blackmail a whistleblower about the cusp of a Congressional hearing.
The division's claim that internal conversations are covered by administrative privileges is a legal doctrine aimed at maintaining discussions from the administrative department with other departments of the government, and could have consequences for many other former Justice Department lawyers. Already, the department has fired dozens of career prosecutors. Some of them have spoken publicly about their experiences, but others may still do so.
On the same day the department informed Mr. Oyer of the plan, she also learned that Deputy US Former would be sent to her home to deliver the department's letter. The delivery was cancelled after Mr. Oier assured staff via email that he had received it.
Her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, pointed out that Oier's teenage son was at home alone at the time.
“This very unusual step of directing an armed law enforcement officer to the home of a former Justice Department who has not engaged in fraudulent activities is unprecedented and completely inappropriate, let alone criminal activity, simply to deliver the letter.” “You seem to be using the department's security resources to threaten former employees engaged in statutory protected whistleblowing acts.”
After Oier was fired last month, he was fired over the long term regarding whether the federal government should allow Gibson, who was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, to own a firearm again. A senior Justice Department official says he has not been fired due to the clash.
The Times reported last week that senior officials had decided to restore the gun rights of Gibson and nine other people after Oyer's firing. Oier said he resisted efforts to encourage his gun rights to be revived because of episodes like his previous convictions for domestic violence accusations.
In these conversations, Oyer said senior department officials proposed to change her mind due to Gibson's personal relationship with Trump.
“I don't want to be a part of what's going on within the Department of Justice. This is a misuse of departmental resources to benefit politically beneficial for the political loyalists who are friends with the president,” she told lawmakers.
In a letter to Mr. Oier, the department argued that internal deliberations relating to restoring firearm rights are “covered by one or more elements of enforcement privileges and are likely to be related to rules of occupational liability.”
A letter written by Kendra Wharton, who works for Blanche, warned Oier that “we are not permitted to disclose department records to Congress regarding departmental considerations regarding the restoration of firearm rights.”
The fight over Oyer's testimony reflects similar disagreements early in the first Trump administration. When a senior official signalled Sally Q. Yates, who was fired as deputy attorney general, details of her conversation were probably covered by enforcement privileges or the privileges of counsel and Clicalient, and could not be shared with participants.
The conflict centered around Yates' communication with the White House. Mr. Oier's argument was with other Department of Justice officials, including those who worked for her.
Bromwich said the executive privilege claims were “completely meritless” and that Trump has not claimed enforcement privileges on any of the issues. “In addition, executive privileges cannot be argued to protect fraud,” he added.
The hearing also featured the testimony of departmental public integrity prosecutor Ryan Crosswell, who resigned in protest after a departmental political appointee forced his colleagues to drop a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams.
Crosswell said the fallout is quick and devastating.
“The Public Integrity Section has been protecting Americans from power abuse for nearly 50 years, but it was almost eliminated in an hour,” Crosswell said.
