Ed Martin's earlier praise for a Nazi sympathizer and Jan. 6 rioter draws fresh scrutiny
Though it hardly seemed possible for Ed Martin's record to become even more controversial, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., suffered yet another setback two weeks ago: The Washington Post reported that the hyperpartisan Trump loyalist and former 'Stop the Steal' organizer appeared more than 150 times on media outlets run by the Russian government — a detail he initially failed to disclose to the Senate panel considering his nomination — where he offered commentary aligned with Kremlin talking points.
Two days prior, a group of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and conservative attorneys, pointing to Martin's ridiculous antics, asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals to investigate Martin, arguing that Trump's right-wing nominee — who has no prosecutorial experience — has a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a federal prosecutor.'
Common sense might suggest that the Republican lawyer would scale back his partisan and political behavior, if for no other reason than to improve his confirmation odds, but Martin has instead put his foot on the gas, adding Wikipedia and prominent medical journals to his increasingly bizarre list of targets.
But perhaps the most important development of all are recent allegations about Martin's support for a man NBC News has described as a 'Nazi sympathizer' and 'Jan. 6 rioter.'
Late last week, ProPublica published a stunning report on Martin's record of ghostwriting online attacks against a judge overseeing a case he was involved in. The ethics of such conduct were obviously suspect, but the same article also noted Martin's work on behalf of Jan. 6 criminal defendants:
Last summer, Martin gave an award to a convicted Jan. 6 rioter named Timothy Hale-Cusanelli. According to court records, Hale-Cusanelli held 'long-standing white supremacist and Nazi beliefs,' wore a 'Hitler mustache' and allegedly told his co-workers that 'Hitler should have finished the job.' ... After hugging and thanking Hale-Cusanelli at the ceremony, Martin told the audience that one of his goals was 'to make sure that the world — and especially America — hears more from Tim Hale, because he's extraordinary.'
The fact that Martin publicly praised a Nazi sympathizer seems like the sort of thing that might be a problem for his nomination to take over one of the nation's largest prosecutorial offices.
Last week, the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney apologized for having celebrated Hale, claiming that he wasn't aware of Hale's radical and hate-filled beliefs. The trouble is, Martin's defense is difficult to believe: The Washington Post reported, '[I]n videos and podcasts, Martin has defended the man since at least 2023, calling him a friend who was 'slurred and smeared' by antisemitism allegations.'
Six weeks before the awards ceremony ... Martin interviewed Hale-Cusanelli about the allegations and defended him in a more than hour-long episode of his 'Pro America Report' podcast, which he hosted from 2020 until early this year. A video of the episode was posted July 2 on a video-sharing platform called Rumble.
All of which leads to a rather obvious concern, emphasized by Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who've scrutinized the lawyer's record: The only thing worse than celebrating a Nazi sympathizer is lying about having celebrated a Nazi sympathizer.
Nevertheless, Martin told The Forward that he 'completely' denounces the 'terrible things' Hale said. Hale's lawyer, meanwhile, has said prosecutors have painted a 'misleading' picture of his client's record.
The Senate has not yet scheduled a confirmation hearing for Martin, and the calendar is of increasing relevance: If he isn't confirmed by May 20, his interim appointment will expire, and he'll have to be replaced at the U.S attorney's office. Watch this space.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counteroffer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. The Chiefs, in a statement to The Associated Press, described the legislative vote as a 'significant step forward' that enables the team to continue exploring options to remain in Missouri. The Royals described the legislation as 'a very important piece of our decision-making process" but made no site-specific commitment. 'Our focus remains the same: to prioritize the best interests of our team, fans, partners and regional community as we pursue the next generational home for the Kansas City Royals,' the team said in a statement to the AP. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely. 'This bill is unconstitutional, it's fiscally reckless, it's morally wrong," said Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin. ___ Associated Press writer Dave Skretta contributed from Kansas City, Missouri.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'
