On Monday afternoon, Liz Oyer, who previously worked at the DoJ’s Special Litigation Section, was called to testify. As seen in the testimony she gave at last week’s hearing convened by the House and Senate Democratic strategy committees. The hearing raised alarm over the manner in which the Trump administration harassed justice department officials and private law firms. It especially focused on actions that ran counter to the former Republican president’s interests.
Oyer, who previously served as the pardon attorney during President Joe Biden’s administration, faced scrutiny during her testimony regarding her own treatment by the justice department. Just last week, she was terminated from that role. This occurred shortly after she publicly opposed restoring gun rights for actor Mel Gibson, whose rights were revoked following a domestic violence conviction in 2011. According to Oyer, her termination was the immediate result of her unwillingness to back Gibson’s lawsuit.
At the hearing, U.S. House representative Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) called the Trump administration’s actions “lawless.” He characterized their tactics as “cut and pasted directly from the gangster playbook.” He focused on the extreme measures they took to intimidate dissenters inside the DoJ.
Attorney General Oyer Oyer, shown here in a daybreak stock photo, pushed back against the controversial DOJ ‘Ferguson’ letter. They relied on executive privilege to prevent her from testifying before Congress. She countered that the letter would not prevent her from speaking the truth about her experiences and the department’s inner workings.
“I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice.” – Liz Oyer
Kendra Wharton, the associate deputy attorney general, signed the letter. She stressed that Oyer should be held to certain legal requirements should she choose to take the stand. Wharton highlighted that the matters included “the deliberative processes that underlie pardons, clemency, the restoration of firearm rights, and related decisions.”
Concerns immediately began to mount when news broke that galvanized the justice department’s plan. They planned to send federal armed U.S. marshals to serve the environment warning letter upon Oyer’s residence. Michael Bromwich, representing Oyer, criticized this decision as “both unprecedented and completely inappropriate,” noting that it targeted a former employee who had not engaged in any misconduct.
Bromwich took exception with the claim that Oyer’s testimony was forbidden by executive privilege, calling it “meritless.” He maintained that whistleblower laws should protect her. This level of protection would give her the freedom to talk about the department’s alleged corruption and abuse to whistleblowers.