Ed Martin personally reviewed pardon application for Jan. 6 ringleader Stewart Rhodes
In his first full week as the Justice Department's pardon attorney, Ed Martin personally reviewed a pardon application for Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes.
Peter Ticktin, a lawyer and former classmate of President Donald Trump's at New York Military Academy, hand delivered a collection of 11 pardon applications to Martin at the Justice Department on Thursday, including one for Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 18 years in prison in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
'I know Ed Martin and I felt it was important to bring these particular applications to his attention,' Ticktin told POLITICO.
The effort to submit new pardon applications to Martin was arranged by Ticktin and pardoned Jan. 6 rioter Treniss Evans, both now in leadership positions with a conservative nonprofit, American Rights Alliance. Martin shared a photo of the May 22 meeting on X over the weekend, but the names of the 11 pardon applicants have not been previously reported.
Proud Boys members Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola are also among those who submitted new applications since Martin's appointment, according to Ticktin and Evans.
While Trump pardoned or dismissed cases for nearly 1,600 Jan. 6 rioters on his first day back in office, certain prominent participants convicted of seditious conspiracy had their sentences commuted to time served — a lesser form of clemency than outright pardons. Some have continued to lobby publicly for their commutations to be converted into pardons.
While Martin made no assurances that Trump would grant pardons to the 11 applicants, Ticktin said, he did pledge to advance the applications to White House pardon czar Alice Johnson for review. Johnson, who Trump pardoned during his first term, serves in a newly created position at the White House advising the president on candidates for pardons. Martin was most recently serving as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, but his nomination to be confirmed to the position failed because of his ties to Jan. 6 rioters.
'I really appreciated the way he looked at everything carefully and wanted to make sure that he was doing his job,' Ticktin said.
The Justice Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. An attorney for Rhodes did not respond to requests for comment.
Dozens of Proud Boys, a far-right fraternal organization known for engaging in political violence, were convicted on obstruction or assault charges for their actions during the Jan. 6 riot. At least 20 members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group were convicted on similar charges.
An attorney for Biggs urged Trump to grant his client's latest pardon application, citing Biggs' Army service.
'He earned a Purple Heart placing his life at risk and becoming seriously injured on behalf of the United States,' attorney Norm Pattis said. 'A commutation is wonderful, but a pardon gets him his pension back.'
Martin has a long history of advocating for people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection. The Missouri lawyer has spent the last four years raising money for Jan. 6 legal defense funds and personally representing defendants in court. Martin was on Capitol Hill during the riot and posted on social media that afternoon comparing the event to 'Mardi Gras.' During his interim stint as the chief federal prosecutor in Washington, Martin fired dozens of prosecutors who oversaw Jan. 6 cases.
Now, fresh off his failed nomination to serve in that job full time, Martin takes control of the pardon office as the first political appointee in modern history to do so and will also serve as the director of the Justice Department's weaponization working group and associate deputy attorney general under Trump's former personal lawyer Todd Blanche.
'It's unprecedented to have a political appointee in the position of pardon attorney, and it suggests that this administration intends to wield the clemency power differently than presidents prior have,' said Liz Oyer, the previous pardon attorney who was fired by Blanche in March.
Led by career Justice Department officials, the office of the pardon attorney reviews applications for clemency and makes recommendations to the president for candidates who have met various criteria.
Presidents of both parties have gone around the pardon attorney for politically sensitive pardons — Trump granted clemency to his political advisers Paul Manafort and Roger Stone in the final days of his first term and President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter and other family members before leaving office.
But Martin has already demonstrated a willingness to evaluate controversial pardon applications through the office, based on the early applications on his desk.
At the top of the pile submitted to Martin last week was a pardon application for Jonathan Woods, a former Arkansas state senator indicted in early 2017 on federal bribery charges who was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison. The case against Woods was prosecuted in part by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section (PIN) which was led by former special counsel Jack Smith from 2010 to 2015. Smith's deputy at the special counsel's office and his successor as the chief of PIN, Ray Hulser, signed the indictment against Woods.
'It's my firm belief that any case that Jack Smith prosecuted should be looked at,' Evans said. 'We don't break the law to quote unquote uphold the law, and that's what happened in many of these cases, which is why pardons are justified.'
Reviewing cases related to Smith's former unit could fall within Martin's other remit as the weaponization working group director. A February memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi calls for the working group to examine 'weaponization by special counsel Jack Smith and his staff.'
'He is running an entire weaponization investigation out of the deputy attorney general's office and no one is there to tell him no,' said a former Justice Department official granted anonymity to speak candidly about private conversations with colleagues still in the department.
Martin has already pledged to investigate pardons Biden granted to his family members and members of the Jan. 6 select committee, calling the preemptive pardons 'something we've never seen in history.'
Martin's many roles have raised concerns among former department officials, who worry he may seek out politically expedient pardon candidates to please the president while simultaneously using investigations to target Trump's political opponents, even if there are no prosecutable crimes. Martin himself said at a press conference earlier this month if some people "can't be charged, we will name them" and certain people should be "shamed."
'The fact that Martin also has this other portfolio … certainly suggests that his role is going to be one that is highly political and that he will be coming to the pardon attorney role with a political agenda,' Oyer said. 'And that is very concerning.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Court Fight Over Trump Ending a Tariff Exemption Goes Forward
A court fight over President Donald Trump's decision to end a US policy that exempted small-value packages from China from tariffs is moving ahead over the administration's opposition. A federal judge on Thursday denied the US Justice Department's request to pause litigation over what's known as the 'de minimis' tariff exception while a broader fight over Trump's move to raise global tariffs on imported goods is pending. Amid that fight, the president's tariffs remain in effect.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he has no evidence to justify his unprecedented Biden investigation
Late Wednesday, Donald Trump broke new ground, directing the Justice Department to launch a wide-ranging investigation into Joe Biden and officials in the Democrat's administration, based on Republican conspiracy theories about the former president's mental health. It was an unprecedented move: An incumbent American president had never before publicly ordered a federal probe of his predecessor. There was a degree of irony to the circumstances. After his defeat in the 2020 election, Trump spent years insisting that Biden had ordered an investigation into him — an odd conspiracy theory for which there is literally no evidence. As of this week, it's Trump who's doing exactly what he falsely accused his predecessor of doing. The day after the incumbent president delivered his directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi, as NBC News reported, a reporter asked Trump a good question. Trump said he does not have evidence to support his claims of illegal autopen use during the Biden administration. Asked by NBC News whether he has uncovered any evidence that anything specific was signed without Biden's knowledge or that someone in the former president's administration acting illegally, Trump said, 'No.' The Republican specifically said, 'No, but I've uncovered, you know, the human mind. I was in a debate with the human mind.' He went on to say, 'So, you know, it's just one of those things.' In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, he debated Biden last year; the Democrat struggled; so the Justice Department should investigate the former president and his team to see if White House aides secretly signed laws, orders, directives and pardons without Biden's knowledge. In this country, federal law enforcement is supposed to launch investigations when presented with evidence of wrongdoing. As of now, however, the Trump administration is less concerned with the existence of evidence and more concerned with a president who believes he's 'uncovered, you know, the human mind.' I can appreciate why this might seem like the latest in a series of head-shaking 'Trump being Trump' stories, but it has a broader significance. A sitting American president, effectively by his own admission, just ordered the attorney general to launch an unprecedented fishing expedition against a former American president because on the basis of a flubbed debate performance. What's more, this week's White House offensive marked the third time in three months that Trump has ordered baseless investigations into Americans he perceives as political foes. The story was soon eclipsed by dozens of other administration controversies, but in April, Trump signed two first-of-their-kind executive orders targeting a pair of officials from his first term who defied him. There was barely a pretense in the orders that the targeted former officials — Christopher Krebs, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, a former high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official — had done anything wrong. Indeed, the closer one looked at the stated rationales in support of the directives, the more ridiculous they appeared. Nevertheless, the president directed Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security to launch a 'review' into Krebs, while simultaneously ordering DHS to investigate Taylor. A week later, The New York Times' Jonathan Swan reminded White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, 'The president has long said that it would be an abuse of power for a president to direct prosecutors to investigate him. Last week, President Trump explicitly directed the Justice Department to scrutinize Chris Krebs to see if it can find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. How is that not an abuse of power, to direct the Justice Department to look into an individual, a named individual?' Leavitt struggled badly to defend Trump's move, and for good reason: The directives were indefensible. That did not, however, stop the Republican president from pushing the problem to a new level by going after his immediate predecessor. I can appreciate why the media landscape is crowded, but I continue to believe this should be more than a one-day story. Trump — who ran on an authoritarian platform, who's trying to concentrate power while expressing indifference to the rule of law — has now ordered three investigations into Americans he doesn't like. He has an enemies list, and he's using the power of the presidency to target people on that list, despite the inconvenient fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of actual wrongdoing. If the pushback is muted, Trump will do what he's always done: assume that he can get away with such an abuse, while preparing to go even further down the same radical and dangerous path. Not to put too fine a point on this, but if the president can sic the Justice Department on his critics and perceived enemies and this isn't seen as a dramatic scandal, who'll be next? How far down his enemies list will he go? I'm reminded anew of J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar put on the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush who published a Bluesky thread on the orders against Krebs and Taylor, calling them 'shameful' and 'constitutionally corrupt' and accused Trump of 'palpably unconstitutional conduct.' The more routine this becomes, the greater the severity of the offense. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him dismantle Education Department
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to permit it to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, a move that would leave school policy in the United States almost entirely in the hands of states and local boards. The Justice Department asked the court to halt Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's May 22 ruling that ordered the administration reinstate employees terminated in a mass layoff and end further actions to shutter the department. The Justice Department said the lower court lacked jurisdiction to "second-guess the Executive's internal management decisions," referring to the federal government's executive branch. "The government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education. And the government has acknowledged the need to retain sufficient staff to continue fulfilling statutorily mandated functions and has kept the personnel that, in its judgment, are necessary for those tasks. The challenged (reduction in force) is fully consistent with that approach," the filing said. The department, created by a U.S. law passed by Congress in 1979, oversees about 100,000 public and 34,000 private schools in the United States, though more than 85% of public school funding comes from state and local governments. It provides federal grants for needy schools and programs, including money to pay teachers of children with special needs, fund arts programs and replace outdated infrastructure. It also oversees the $1.6 trillion in student loans held by tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to pay for college outright. Trump's move to dismantle the department is part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. Closing the department long has been a goal of many U.S. conservatives. Attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as school districts and unions representing teachers, sued to block the Trump administration's efforts to gut the department. The states argued that the massive job cuts will render the agency unable to perform core functions authorized by statute, including in the civil rights arena, effectively usurping Congress's authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Trump on March 20 signed an executive order intended to effectively shut down the department, making good on a longstanding campaign promise to conservatives to move education policy almost completely to states and local boards. At a White House ceremony surrounded by children and educators, Trump called the order a first step "to eliminate" the department. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced plans on March 11 to carry out a mass termination of employees. Those layoffs would leave the department with 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when Trump took office in January. The department said in a press release those terminations were part of its "final mission." Trump on March 21 announced plans to transfer the department's student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education, nutrition and related services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which also is facing deep job cuts. Joun in his ruling ordered the administration to reinstate the laid off workers and halt implementation of Trump's directive to transfer student loans and special needs programs to other federal agencies. The judge rejected the argument put forth by Justice Department lawyers that the mass terminations were aimed at making the department more efficient while fulfilling its mission. In fact, Joun ruled, the job cuts were an effort to shut down the department without the necessary approval of Congress. "This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself," the judge wrote. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the judge's ruling "misguided." The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4 rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by Joun.
