Elizabeth G. Oyer, the ex-pardon attorney of the United States, was dismissed from her post last Friday following her resistance to reinstate the firearm rights of popular Hollywood actor Mel Gibson. The information was confirmed through statements made by Oyer’s representative and two officials from the Justice Department to NBC News. It was stated that Oyer was not provided with a specific reason for her discharge. Regardless, Oyer assumes that her dismissal could be linked to her defiance of a request from the Deputy Attorney General’s office to include Gibson to a roster of individuals cleared for firearm rights restoration.
Mel Gibson, a well-known proponent of President Donald Trump’s administration, had lost his gun rights due to a 2011 misdemeanor conviction related to domestic violence. Oyer, in an official statement to NBC News, portrayed an unnerving environment within the Justice Department. She expressed that veterans in the department are hesitant to convey their perspectives due to a prevailing fear of retaliation against dissenting views.
Oyer further revealed her concerns about the decision-making process. She indicated an alarming shift from basing decisions on factual evidence, expertise, and detailed analysis to a process prioritizing relationships and loyalty. She deemed this change as troubling given the stakes involved, primarily, public safety.
An official from the Justice Department, who is privy to the matter and chose to remain anonymous, has perpetuated an entirely different narrative regarding Oyer’s dismissal. The official conveyed to NBC News that Oyer’s firing held no connection to the matter involving Gibson. The decision regarding Mel Gibson was reportedly not a factor in the final conclusion to terminate Oyer.
However, another high-ranking Justice Department official provides a contrasting viewpoint. This official, not authorized to make any public statements, has described Oyer’s departure as a part of an alarming chain of personnel movements within the federal government and at the Department of Justice. They asserted that this wave of dismissals is systematically targeting officials who could potentially serve as checks against authority abuse.
The official further elaborated on their apprehensions, articulating a degree of uncertainty about the specifics of what led to Oyer’s dismissal. The official expressed doubts about whether it was due to Oyer’s refusal to comply with a specific directive. They hinted at the possibility that it might be a systematic effort by the administration’s political leadership to dismantle the institution’s protective measures. The ambiguity of the current situation has only emphasized the official’s concerns and has highlighted the critical need for transparency within the Department.