The previous U.S. pardon attorney, Elizabeth G. Oyer, encountered an abrupt end to her tenure on Friday. Sources within the Justice Department and her spokesperson confirmed this to NBC News amid speculation that the termination might have been linked to her stance against reinstating celebrated actor Mel Gibson’s firearm privileges.
Oyer’s spokesperson communicated that she was not provided with a concrete explanation for her professional dismissal. Nonetheless, she surmises the surrounding circumstances might have been instrumental, particularly her opposition to a directive from the deputy attorney general. This office had requested that Gibson’s name be included in those to regain their firearm rights.
Known for his support of President Donald Trump, Mel Gibson saw his firearm privileges revoked post a 2011 misdemeanor conviction pertaining to domestic abuse. The connection between Gibson’s political alignment and the push for reinstating his gun rights has drawn substantial scrutiny.
In a statement given to NBC News, Oyer expressed concerns regarding the prevailing atmosphere within the Justice Department. She described an environment of intimidation, where professionals steeped in experience are apprehensive of raising their voices.
She voiced, ‘A concerning trend is that punishment has become the response to dissent. Decision making appears to be pivoting on relationships and loyalty, and not resting on concrete facts, expertise, or a sound analysis. The stakes involved pertain to public safety, which makes the situation alarmingly critical.’
A department official knowledgeable of the situation has, however, unequivocally stated to NBC News that Oyer’s dismissal was not implicated with the Gibson issue. This official maintained anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic.
‘The decision regarding Mel Gibson had no bearing on the resolution to terminate Elizabeth’s services,’ contended the official, thereby distancing the episode from any speculation linking the two.
Yet, a senior official from the Justice Department, who chose to remain unnamed due to not being authorized to comment publicly, provides a different perspective. He stated that Oyer’s exit aligns with a problematic trend of staffing changes across the federal body and the Department itself.
He expressed, ‘Officials who might be interpreted as obstructing the misuse of power are being shown the exit. It is difficult to determine whether Elizabeth’s removal was as a consequence of not adhering to a particular directive.’
This senior official concludes by stating, ‘But, crucially, we seem to be witnessing a decisive effort by the administrative leadership to dismantle the institutional checks and balances.’ This view underscores the doubt that there could be a broader political motive behind Oyer’s dismissal.