Reply to Elon Musk’s Secret Weapon: the US Marshals Service

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Elon Musk’s Secret Weapon: the US Marshals Service"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They sent armed marshals to the home of a DOJ lawyer they fired because she doesn't think Mel Gibson should be allowed to have a gun.

The marshals were scheduled to arrive between 9 and 10 pm AT HER HOME. Wtf?!

The lawyer's teen child was home alone, and someone with a brain was persuaded to call them off so that the teen was not traumatized by armed men arriving at the house between 9 and 10 pm AT NIGHT.

Trump is sick.
Stephen Miller is sick.
Musk is sick.

[/quote]

You should have added the context, which is worse. 
The reason for the visit was to deliver a letter warning her about potential consequences of her testifying as a whistleblower at a Congressional hearing the next day. 
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25881543-20250407-letter-to-deputy-attorney-general-blanche-oyer-2025-04-07-12-09-133/

letter from her attorney:

[b]The April 4 letter from one of your subordinates warns Ms. Oyer about the purported risks of testifying at a congressional hearing. [/b]At no point does the letter advise Ms. Oyer of the legal protections in place for whistleblowers, which protect current an dformer federal employees reporting violations of laws, rules, or regulations; gross mismanagement or waste of funds; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health or safety. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A)(ii).

[b]Nor does your letter contain the limiting language that is statutorily required when the Department purports to prohibit disclosures by a whistleblower, [/b]such as Ms.Oyer. See id. § 2302(b)(13). On the contrary, your letter and the attempted manner of delivery appear calculated to deter Ms. Oyer from providing truthful testimony as a whistleblower, in further violation of these legal protections.Your tactics also appear to violate the Lloyd-LaFolette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7211), which provides that the right of employees “to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof,may not be interfered with or denied.”

[b]Executive branch employees are in fact required by federal regulation to “disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriatea uthorities,” which is precisely what Ms. Oyer seeks to do.[/b] Standards of Ethical Conductf or Federal Employees, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(11), available athttps://www.justice.gov/jmd/regulations-authorities-and-reference-materials.[b]As to the alleged legal basis for the attempt to intimidate Ms. Oyer from testifying—that her testimony is barred by executive privilege—the argument is c ompletely without merit. [/b]

[b]The President has not asserted executive privilege over any matter at issue here, nor have you identified specific information potentially subject to such privilege. Moreover, executive privilege cannot be asserted to protect misconduct—as expressly noted in the OLC opinion cited in your letter. [/b]Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files, 6 Op. O.L.C. 31, 36 (1982)(“These principles will not be employed to shield documents which contain evidence of criminal or unethical conduct by agency officials from proper review.”) (cited in your Letter at 1 n.1); see also, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.”).
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics