New top prosecutor for DC advocated for Jan. 6 rioters and echoed Trump's false 2020 election claims
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The appointment of Martin, the former head of the Missouri Republican Party, underscores Trump's commitment to installing loyalists in key positions at the Justice Department, which the Republican president contends was 'weaponized' against him and his supporters by President Joe Biden's administration. Mike Davis, a Trump ally, called Martin in a social media post a 'bold and fearless' leader who will 'clean house' at the office, which Davis described as 'an epicenter of the lawfare and political persecution.'
Advertisement
Martin told employees in an email that he was alongside Trump in the Oval Office when the president granted clemency last week to two Washington police officers prosecuted by the U.S. attorney's office for their roles in the deadly chase of a man on a moped and the subsequent cover-up. And in a social media post last week, Martin appeared to describe federal prosecutors as 'the President's lawyers.'
'Based on the public reporting, it appears that he is in this role purely to execute on the president's political priorities more so than the work of protecting public safety in Washington,' said Alexis Loeb, who was deputy chief of the section that prosecuted the Jan. 6 cases before leaving the government last year.
Advertisement
It's unclear whether Trump intends to nominate Martin to the permanent post, which would require Senate confirmation. A White House spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a text message about Martin on Monday.
Prosecutors were directed last week to refer to Martin in court papers simply as 'U.S. Attorney Ed Martin' after some filed documents describing him as the 'acting' top prosecutor, according to a former federal prosecutor who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of persistent threats of violence.
Shortly after Trump's sweeping clemency order, Martin's name showed up last on a flurry of court filings seeking to dismiss the pending Jan. 6 prosecutions, including cases against people charged with assaulting police officers.
One week later, Martin announced a 'special project' to review the use of an obstruction felony charge brought against hundreds of Capitol riot defendants. Prosecutors had to drop the obstruction of an official proceeding charge in many cases after a Supreme Court ruling last year limiting the offense, finding it must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents.
Calling the use of the charge 'a great failure of our office,' Martin ordered attorneys to hand over to two supervisors all relevant 'files, documents, notes, emails and other information,' according to a copy of the email reviewed by the AP. He ordered the supervisors to provide a preliminary report on the matter to him by Friday.
'We need to get to the bottom of it,' Martin wrote. He's calling it the '1512 Project,' because the offense falls under that section of the law.
Trump's clemency action led to the release of more than 200 people in federal custody, including people seen on camera engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police and violently attacking law enforcement with makeshift weapons.
Advertisement
Vice President JD Vance, who previously said violent rioters should 'obviously' not be pardoned, defended Trump's action in a CBS interview that aired Sunday. Vance alleged, without providing evidence, that the Jan. 6 defendants were 'denied constitutional protections.'
Ashley Akers, who prosecuted dozens of Jan. 6 cases before leaving the Justice Department on Friday, said Vance is 'misleading the American public in an attempt to excuse the unjustifiable blanket pardon of rioters who overtook the United States Capitol.'
'It's telling that he has not identified a single example of how these defendants' constitutional rights have been violated,' Akers said. 'The evidence in the public record speaks for itself.'
After Trump's clemency order, Martin urged a judge to drop restrictions barring Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and several other Jan. 6 defendants from entering Washington and the Capitol building. Martin said that if a judge barred visits to Washington from people pardoned by Joe Biden — like the former president's brother, Jim, or Gen. Mark Milley — 'I believe most Americans would object.'
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta changed course Monday, ruling that Rhodes and other Oath Keepers with commuted prison sentences are not bound by the travel restrictions he ordered last week.
Martin spoke at a 'Stop the Steal' rally on the eve of the riot and served on the board of a group called the Patriot Freedom Project, which has raised money to support Jan. 6 defendants and their families. Court filings listed him as an attorney for at least three Capitol riot defendants, including a Proud Boys member who pleaded guilty to felony charges.
Advertisement
A day before the Capitol riot, Martin led an audience in a 'Stop the Steal' chant during a rally in Washington, D.C.
'What they're stealing is not just an election. It's our future and it's our republic,' he told the crowd.
The next day, Martin attended Trump's Jan. 6 rally near the White House and posted messages on social media about the crowd.
'I'm at the Capitol right now,' Martin tweeted after the riot erupted. 'Rowdy crowd but nothing out of hand. Ignore the #FakeNews.'
On a blog, he has parroted some of Trump's rhetoric about the deep state, a politically weaponized Justice Department and the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Martin said he has watched thousands of hours of video from that day.
'And, if you watch it for a while you realize that 99.9% of it is normal people doing normal things: sauntering around and through the Capitol grounds and building,' he wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Micron Stock Got Clobbered Today
Key Points The U.S. government wants to take a 10% stake in Intel. It also wants to trade the free grant money that it already promised Intel in exchange for the shares. And now the rumor that is the government will do the same thing to Micron. 10 stocks we like better than Micron Technology › Computer memory specialist Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU) stock tumbled 6.2% through 10:30 a.m. ET Wednesday, and for one simple reason: As you've probably heard, Bloomberg reports that President Trump is planning to take an equity stake in Intel (NASDAQ: INTC). Wait. What? Intel? Not Micron? Yes, you read that right. Pursuant to the CHIPS Act passed under the Biden administration to support the U.S. semiconductor industry, Intel was awarded $10.9 billion in grants, but new negotiations between Intel and the White House suggest the Trump administration now wants to convert those grants into a 10% equity stake in Intel, effectively part-nationalizing the company. But Intel isn't the only company to receive CHIPS Act grants. Micron was awarded $6.1 billion as well -- the second-biggest semiconductor subsidy after Intel's. And now we're learning that U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick may want to convert that grant into an equity stake as well. What does this mean for Micron? That's exactly the question, isn't it: What does this mean for Micron? On the one hand, if Commerce decides to convert its grant into a stock investment, this would effectively deprive Micron of $6.1 billion in "free money" that it thought it had -- clearly bad news for the stock. On the other, Micron would still get the money -- just with strings attached -- and perhaps be set up to receive additional investments from the government if it needs them. But the rumor that the government wants to pressure Micron for an equity stake could turn out to be false. That would still leave Micron competing with a state-backed rival in Intel, which could ask for further handouts that Micron might not get. This is bad news for Micron. Should you invest $1,000 in Micron Technology right now? Before you buy stock in Micron Technology, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Micron Technology wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $654,781!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,076,588!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,055% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 18, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Intel. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: short August 2025 $24 calls on Intel. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Micron Stock Got Clobbered Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
San Francisco Chronicle
4 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
National Guard vehicle collides with civilian car near US Capitol, trapping one person
WASHINGTON (AP) — A National Guard vehicle collided with a civilian car less than a mile from the U.S. Capitol on Thursday morning as troops continued to take up positions around the city during President Donald Trump's crackdown. One person was trapped inside the car after the accident and had to be extricated by emergency responders, according to D.C. fire department spokesman Vito Maggiolo. The person was transported to a hospital with minor injuries. It was not immediately clear what caused the crash. A video posted online showed a tan-colored armored vehicle and a silver SUV with a crushed side. The military vehicle was twice the height of the civilian car. 'You come to our city and this is what you do? Seriously?' a woman yelled at the troops in the video. The driver was conscious and breathing, and the injuries were not considered life threatening, police said. An estimated 1,900 troops are being deployed in D.C. More than half are coming from Republican-led states that are responding to requests from Trump administration officials. Attorney General Pam Bondi said more than 550 people have been arrested so far, and the U.S. Marshals are offering $500 rewards for information leading to additional arrests.
