Pardons, Dropped Cases and Cover-Ups

Justice for Connections

Trump's DOJ Restored Gibson's Gun Rights and Tried to Erase Bannon's Conviction

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

Chapter 2 — Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required

Chapter 3 — DOJ's Deal Kept Ticketmaster, the States Sought Its Sale

Chapter 4 — Public Power Must Answer to the Public

1 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

1 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights — select a subtopic

1.1 — The Recommendation Oyer Would Not Sign

1.2 — Gibson Got the Relief, Oyer Lost the Job

1.3 — Armed Marshals Sent Before She Spoke to Congress

1.4 — A General Program Followed the Special Grant

1 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

1.1 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

The Recommendation Oyer Would Not Sign

Elizabeth Oyer says Todd Blanche's staff pressed her to recommend restoring Mel Gibson's gun rights because he had a personal relationship with President Trump. She refused because she had not been allowed to investigate whether rearming him was safe. Blanche, whom Oyer identifies as Trump's former personal attorney, fired her hours later. Trump kept him in office and nominated him for Attorney General, and the Senate confirmed him.

Written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Todd Blanche's nomination

I was asked by Mr. Blanche’s office to recommend restoring firearm rights to Mel Gibson, a Hollywood actor who I was told has a personal relationship with President Trump.

Elizabeth G. Oyer, former Pardon Attorney of the United States · July 16, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Elizabeth G. Oyer, written testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General (July 16, 2026)

[2]Complaint and exhibits, Oyer v. Blanche and DOJ, No. 1:26-cv-03092 (D.D.C. Sept. 3, 2026), ECF 1

[3]Elizabeth G. Oyer, Statement for the bicameral spotlight hearing on restoring accountability and attacks on the rule of law (Apr. 7, 2025)

[10]U.S. Department of Justice, staff profile, 'Former Pardon Attorney Elizabeth G. Oyer' (archived; dates of service 2022–2025, updated Mar. 10, 2025)

1.2 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

Gibson Got the Relief, Oyer Lost the Job

Attorney General Pamela Bondi had legal authority to restore Mel Gibson's gun rights, and she granted the relief twenty-four days after Oyer's firing. Her notice says she found each recipient unlikely to endanger public safety and relief consistent with the public interest. Blanche denies knowing about the Gibson request and cites her clemency recommendations instead. Oyer is suing to be reinstated.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Complaint and exhibits, Oyer v. Blanche and DOJ, No. 1:26-cv-03092 (D.D.C. Sept. 3, 2026), ECF 1

[3]Elizabeth G. Oyer, Statement for the bicameral spotlight hearing on restoring accountability and attacks on the rule of law (Apr. 7, 2025)

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, 'Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms Privileges,' Docket No. OAG192, 90 Fed. Reg. 17835 (Apr. 29, 2025)

[11]U.S. Department of Justice, 'Withdrawing the Attorney General's Delegation of Authority,' Docket No. OLP-179, AG Order No. 6212-2025, 90 Fed. Reg. 13080 (Mar. 20, 2025)

[12]18 U.S.C. § 925(c) (Legal Information Institute)

[13]United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) (Legal Information Institute)

[14]Eric Tucker, Associated Press, Justice Department pardon lawyer who says she was fired in dispute over Mel Gibson's gun rights sues (Sept. 3, 2026), republished by ClickOrlando

[15]Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) (slip opinion)

1.3 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

Armed Marshals Sent Before She Spoke to Congress

Before Oyer spoke to members of Congress, she says Blanche's office directed two armed deputy marshals to deliver a warning letter to her home. Her teenage child was alone there during the delivery window. She confirmed receipt by email, the officers were recalled before arriving, and she spoke at the forum.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Elizabeth G. Oyer, written testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General (July 16, 2026)

[3]Elizabeth G. Oyer, Statement for the bicameral spotlight hearing on restoring accountability and attacks on the rule of law (Apr. 7, 2025)

[16]Office of Sen. Adam Schiff, 'Watch: Sen. Schiff, Ranking Member Raskin Lead Senate and House Democrats in Bicameral Spotlight Hearing on the Rule of Law' (Apr. 2025)

[17]Letter from Sens. Adam Schiff and Cory Booker and Rep. Jamie Raskin to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche regarding U.S. Marshals sent to Elizabeth Oyer's home (Apr. 23, 2025)

[18]Letter from Michael R. Bromwich (counsel to Elizabeth Oyer) to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (Apr. 7, 2025)

1.4 · A Career Official Fired, a Connected Applicant Granted Gun Rights

A General Program Followed the Special Grant

DOJ later established a broader firearms-restoration process, with three scheduled application stages: invited candidates on September 25, 2026; the first 5,000 public applicants on November 4, 2026; and 500 more public applicants on January 4, 2027, when the application fee would begin. The rule aims to protect firearm rights and public safety, with presumptive denials for domestic violence convictions. Gibson had received his relief more than a year before this general application system took effect.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, 'Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms Privileges,' Docket No. OAG192, 90 Fed. Reg. 17835 (Apr. 29, 2025)

[19]DOJ, Application for Relief From Disabilities Imposed by Federal Laws With Respect to Firearms, final rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 54054 (Aug. 20, 2026)

[20]DOJ, Federal Firearm Rights Restoration program page (captured Oct. 10, 2026)

[21]DOJ, Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Presumptive Disqualifiers (updated Aug. 17, 2026; captured Oct. 10)

2 · Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required

2 · Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required — select a subtopic

2.1 — Bannon's Conviction Was Not DOJ's to Erase by Assertion

2.2 — Bondi Named the Political Route to Moore's Dismissal

2.3 — Adani's Lawyers Had Access, DOJ's Evidence Contradicted Its Reasons

2 · Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required

2.1 · Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required

Bannon's Conviction Was Not DOJ's to Erase by Assertion

Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist, had served his prison sentence for defying Congress before DOJ asked to erase his conviction. DOJ supplied only a general assertion that dismissal served justice. Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, rejected the motion because prosecutors had not supplied their reasons and factual basis, while allowing them to try again.

Government's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Indictment, ECF 207

The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice. Defendant Bannon does not oppose this motion.

United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia · February 9, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[22]Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) (Legal Information Institute)

[23]Order, United States v. Bannon, No. 1:21-cr-00670-CJN, ECF 211 (Aug. 26, 2026), Carl J. Nichols, J.

[25]Alexander Mallin, ABC News, Judge declines to dismiss Steve Bannon's criminal contempt conviction (Aug. 26, 2026)

[26]H. Res. 730, 117th Congress (engrossed in the House, Oct. 21, 2021)

[27]H. Rept. 117-152, Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol recommending contempt (117th Cong.)

[28]U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, 'Stephen K. Bannon Sentenced to Four Months in Prison on Two Counts of Contempt of Congress,' Press Release No. 22-362 (Oct. 21, 2022) (archived)

[29]Government's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Indictment, United States v. Bannon, No. 1:21-cr-00670-CJN (D.D.C.), ECF 207 (Feb. 9, 2026)

[30]Docket, Bannon v. United States, No. 25-453 (Supreme Court of the United States), entries through May 8, 2026

[31]Brief for the United States in Opposition, Bannon v. United States, No. 25-453 (U.S. Feb. 2026) (D. John Sauer, Solicitor General)

2.2 · Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required

Bondi Named the Political Route to Moore's Dismissal

Pamela Bondi said she directed the dismissal of a Utah surgeon's prosecution after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene brought it to her attention. Prosecutors had alleged destroyed government vaccines, false vaccination cards, and saline shots given to children at their parents' request. Bondi defended the surgeon as giving patients a choice; the court motion offered no explanation beyond the interests of justice.

Post on X, archived

This would not have been possible without @RepMTG who brought this case to my attention. She has been a warrior for Dr. Moore and for ending the weaponization of government.

Pamela Bondi, Attorney General in 2025 · July 12, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[6]Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi), two posts on X (July 12, 2025) (archived)

[32]Second Superseding Indictment, United States v. Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah, Inc., No. 2:23-cr-00010-HCN (D. Utah), ECF 247 (Jan. 15, 2025)

[33]United States' Motion for Leave to Dismiss Indictment With Prejudice, United States v. Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah, Inc.; Michael Kirk Moore Jr.; and Kristin Jackson Andersen, No. 2:23-cr-00010-HCN (D. Utah), ECF 366 (July 12, 2025)

[34]Letter from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to Attorney General Pam Bondi regarding Dr. Michael Kirk Moore (July 12, 2025) (archived)

2.3 · Dismissals Without the Reasons Courts Required

Adani's Lawyers Had Access, DOJ's Evidence Contradicted Its Reasons

A lawyer representing both Gautam Adani and President Trump helped press DOJ to drop the Adani prosecution. The judge dismissed the fraud counts because DOJ identified a supported legal risk. He rejected the remaining bribery and obstruction dismissal request because DOJ lacked factual support for its reasons. Indian documents DOJ offered as clearing wrongdoing appeared instead to decline investigations, the court found.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[8]Memorandum and Order, United States v. Adani et al., No. 24-cr-0433-NGG, ECF 49 (Aug. 10, 2026), Nicholas G. Garaufis, J.

[24]Memorandum and Order, United States v. Adani et al., No. 24-cr-0433-NGG, ECF 57 (Sept. 3, 2026), Nicholas G. Garaufis, J.

3 · DOJ's Deal Kept Ticketmaster, the States Sought Its Sale

3 · DOJ's Deal Kept Ticketmaster, the States Sought Its Sale — select a subtopic

3.1 — Trump's Reported Direction and the Verdict DOJ Did Not Win

3 · DOJ's Deal Kept Ticketmaster, the States Sought Its Sale

3.1 · DOJ's Deal Kept Ticketmaster, the States Sought Its Sale

Trump's Reported Direction and the Verdict DOJ Did Not Win

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump told a senior DOJ official to settle the Live Nation case. The Journal also reported that DOJ had removed Ticketmaster divestiture from its proposal before Trump's meeting, and the eventual deal kept Ticketmaster inside the company. States that rejected the deal continued the trial, won a jury verdict, and, the Journal reported, asked the judge to force Live Nation to sell Ticketmaster, a remedy the liability verdict did not itself decide. Live Nation challenged the result and DOJ defended its settlement as quicker relief for fans.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[5]Roger P. Alford, 'The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Lobbyists,' Tech Policy Institute Aspen Forum (Aug. 18, 2025)

[9]Rebecca Ballhaus, Joe Palazzolo, Dana Mattioli, Josh Dawsey and Dave Michaels, The Wall Street Journal, The Trump intervention that got the DOJ off Live Nation's back (Aug. 23-24, 2026), republished by Mint Aug. 24

[35]Trump Vance Inaugural Committee, FEC Form 13, Schedule 13-A, p. 167 (filed April 20, 2025)

[36]Live Nation Entertainment, Exhibit 21.1, Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2025, filed with 2025 Form 10-K (SEC; archived)

[37]Executive Order 14254 of March 31, 2025, 'Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market,' 90 Fed. Reg. 14699 (Apr. 3, 2025)

[38]Hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, Serial No. 119-44 (Dec. 16, 2025)

[39]U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division leadership page (archived snapshot of July 13, 2025)

[40]U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division leadership page (archived snapshot of Aug. 9, 2025)

[41]Office of Sen. Cory Booker, 'Booker, Durbin Demand Answers on Trump Administration's Removal of DOJ Antitrust Chief Gail Slater' (Feb. 13, 2026)

[42]New York Attorney General, Attorney General James and Coalition of States Win Trial Against Live Nation and Ticketmaster (Apr. 15, 2026)

[43]Live Nation Entertainment, Statement From Live Nation Entertainment (Apr. 15, 2026)

[44]Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1) (Legal Information Institute)

[45]Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 'Live Nation Entertainment Reaches Settlement with U.S. Department of Justice' (Mar. 9, 2026)

[46]Proposed Final Judgment, United States et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C., No. 1:24-cv-3973-AS (S.D.N.Y.), ECF 1523-2 (filed June 12, 2026); Stipulation and Order, ECF 1523-1

[47]J.R. Lind, Pollstar, The Biz: Objections Roll In As Judge Reviews LN Settlement; UMG Wraps Buyback (Sept. 15, 2026)

4 · Public Power Must Answer to the Public

4 · Public Power Must Answer to the Public — select a subtopic

4.1 — Discretion Is a Power, Not an Explanation

4.2 — The Charge Against Trump

4 · Public Power Must Answer to the Public

4.1 · Public Power Must Answer to the Public

Discretion Is a Power, Not an Explanation

Presidents and prosecutors have broad enforcement discretion. The courts nevertheless required DOJ to explain the Bannon and Adani dismissal requests and support them with facts. The impeachment question is whether Trump and the officials he kept in power used that discretion to serve the public or to provide preferential relief.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[6]Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi), two posts on X (July 12, 2025) (archived)

[8]Memorandum and Order, United States v. Adani et al., No. 24-cr-0433-NGG, ECF 49 (Aug. 10, 2026), Nicholas G. Garaufis, J.

[22]Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) (Legal Information Institute)

[23]Order, United States v. Bannon, No. 1:21-cr-00670-CJN, ECF 211 (Aug. 26, 2026), Carl J. Nichols, J.

[24]Memorandum and Order, United States v. Adani et al., No. 24-cr-0433-NGG, ECF 57 (Sept. 3, 2026), Nicholas G. Garaufis, J.

[48]Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (slip opinion)

[49]United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

[50]Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (Legal Information Institute)

[51]U.S. Constitution, art. II, §§ 3, 4 (National Archives transcript)

[52]Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65 (1788) (Avalon Project, Yale Law School)

[53]U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-2.050 (Authority of the United States Attorney; dismissals)

[54]U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual §§ 9-27.000 and 9-27.260 (Principles of Federal Prosecution)

[55]U.S. Senate, 'The Impeachment Trial of Samuel Chase, 1804–05' (Senate historical office)

[56]U.S. Senate, 'The Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson' (Senate historical office)

[57]Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, Articles I and II, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee (July 27 and 29, 1974), reproduced in Deschler's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, ch. 14

4.2 · Public Power Must Answer to the Public

The Charge Against Trump

The charge is preferential justice, supported by the granted relief, the requested dismissals, the officials' accounts, and Trump's reported intervention. His responsibility rests on the officials he retained and promoted and, in the Live Nation account, a direction he gave himself. Congress should examine whether that use of public power warrants impeachment.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Elizabeth G. Oyer, written testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General (July 16, 2026)

[2]Complaint and exhibits, Oyer v. Blanche and DOJ, No. 1:26-cv-03092 (D.D.C. Sept. 3, 2026), ECF 1

[3]Elizabeth G. Oyer, Statement for the bicameral spotlight hearing on restoring accountability and attacks on the rule of law (Apr. 7, 2025)

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, 'Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms Privileges,' Docket No. OAG192, 90 Fed. Reg. 17835 (Apr. 29, 2025)

[5]Roger P. Alford, 'The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Lobbyists,' Tech Policy Institute Aspen Forum (Aug. 18, 2025)

[6]Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi), two posts on X (July 12, 2025) (archived)

[7]U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, hearing page, 'The Nomination of the Honorable Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States, Day 2'

[8]Memorandum and Order, United States v. Adani et al., No. 24-cr-0433-NGG, ECF 49 (Aug. 10, 2026), Nicholas G. Garaufis, J.

[23]Order, United States v. Bannon, No. 1:21-cr-00670-CJN, ECF 211 (Aug. 26, 2026), Carl J. Nichols, J.

[24]Memorandum and Order, United States v. Adani et al., No. 24-cr-0433-NGG, ECF 57 (Sept. 3, 2026), Nicholas G. Garaufis, J.