Trump DC attorney pick Ed Martin's nomination in peril after rare Republican opposition
Show Caption
Hide Caption
A timeline how the Capitol attack unfolded on January 6, 2021
Here's what took place on January 6, 2021, as insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol.
President Donald Trump's nomination of a lawyer who has valorized Jan. 6 Capitol attackers to be the top federal prosecutor in the nation's capital has hit a roadblock due to rare opposition from a Republican senator.
Trump appointed Ed Martin as interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. on Jan. 20, and Martin has been reshaping the powerful D.C. prosecutorial office since then: The staunch Trump ally has fired many prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6-related cases and launched probes into prominent Democrats.
On Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) failed to list Martin's nomination on the committee's agenda for its upcoming meeting May 8. The omission came as Republican support for Martin appeared to wobble. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), a committee member, said Tuesday that he decided not to support the nomination due to Martin's positions on Jan. 6-related defendants.
"If Mr. Martin were being put forth as a US attorney for any district except the district where January 6th happened, the protest happened, I'd probably support him, but not in this district," Tillis told reporters Tuesday.
Given committee rules that allow any member to delay procedures one week, Martin's absence from the committee's agenda means the nomination is unlikely to be able to move out of committee for a full Senate vote by May 20, when Martin's interim role expires.
A spokesperson for Grassley didn't immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment, including on whether Martin was missing from the agenda because he lacks sufficient Republican support.
Martin has also drawn criticism for his frequent appearances on Russian TV, which he initially omitted from disclosures to the judiciary committee, and for quickly launching probes into prominent Democrats since becoming beginning his interim role.
Tillis said Tuesday the White House could still pursue avenues for confirming Martin, but that he told White House officials he won't support the nomination.
Following Tillis' comments Tuesday, the White House indicated it was sticking by Martin.
"Ed Martin is a fantastic U.S. Attorney for D.C. and will continue to implement the President's law-and-order agenda in Washington. He is the right man for the job and we look forward to his confirmation," White House Principal Deputy Communications Director Alex Pfeiffer told USA TODAY in a statement.
Here's a look at why Martin's nomination has stewed growing controversy:
Championing Jan. 6 defendants
On Jan. 6, 2021, Martin indicated on social media that he was outside the Capitol supporting the efforts to block Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence from counting the presidential electoral votes to certify Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
"Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews,' Martin said in a 2:57 p.m post on then-Twitter, that included a photo from the Capitol grounds. That was about an hour after rioters had begun to breach the Capitol.
In the years since, Martin has continued to champion Jan. 6 rioters, and represented several defendants in Jan. 6-related cases.
"Oath Keepers are all of us," Martin posted months later on June 8, 2021, referring to a far-right militia group whose leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other Jan. 6-related crimes.
After Trump granted clemency to the more than 1,500 Jan. 6-related criminal defendants and appointed Martin as interim D.C. U.S. attorney, Martin fired dozens of prosecutors in the office who handled those cases.
"He seems to be more of a Trump attack dog fulfilling a retribution agenda than a serious candidate for US attorney — a role where good judgment, a commitment to fairness, and public confidence are essential attributes," wrote former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade in an email.
Politicizing prosecutorial office?
The U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. has authority to investigate and prosecute crimes within that area, including within the federal government, creating a special risk of political mischief.
Since assuming office, Martin has sent letters to several prominent Democrats demanding information as part of a probe. Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) have all received such letters, according to the Washington Post.
The letter to Schumer, for instance, suggested Schumer had threatened public officials when he said in 2020 that Supreme Court justices would "pay the price" for releasing "the whirlwind" as they considered an abortion case. The next day, Schumer expressed regret for his words on the Senate floor, and a Schumer aide told Martin the comments weren't a physical threat.
Martin also raised eyebrows after his office said he and other U.S. attorneys are lawyers for Trump himself.
"As President Trumps' (sic) lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership," his office posted on X Feb. 25.
The comment spurred concerns from rule-of-law-focused organizations.
"The U.S. attorneys represent the United States of America and not the president, and he should know that a statement like that, it's just a crystal clear declaration – a confession, really – that he's not fit for this role," said Gregg Nunziata, a former Chief Nominations Counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans.
Nunziata now heads the Society for the Rule of Law, a group of predominantly conservative lawyers focused on rule-of-law issues.
Russian TV appearances
Martin, who is now heading an office that takes on national security cases in the nation's capital, also appeared more than 150 times on TV networks that are funded and directed by the Russian government from 2016 and 2024, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Martin didn't initially disclose those appearances on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that asks nominees to list their media interviews, although an aide in his office later said he had disclosed "all of the identified links" in a supplemental letter.
In one appearance just nine days before Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, Martin said on Russian state television network RT that there was no evidence of a Russian military buildup at Ukraine's borders.
In an appearance on Sputnik the following month, Martin urged a stronger U.S. alliance with Russia.
'What Trump knew was you want to be allies with the toughest dudes on the street. And he was ready to be allies with North Korea and with Putin and everybody," Martin said, according to the Washington Post.
The Justice Department, which includes Martin's U.S. attorney office, referred USA TODAY to the White House when asked for comment, including on whether Martin was paid for the appearances.Contributing: Bart Jansen and Riley Beggin – USA TODAY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump isn't trying to ‘erase history' at Smithsonian — he's reversing a destructive woke takeover
Liberals were up in arms this week after President Trump said he wanted a review of the Smithsonian Institute — saying their displays were too negative, and too focused on slavery. But Trump isn't trying to 'erase history,' he's looking to reverse a woke movement that has indeed rewritten the American story to highlight suffering rather than providing a balanced picture of our past. Trump's criticism that the Smithsonian is overly focused on slavery is not unreasonable: In nearly every exhibit, critical race theory in general, or slavery specifically, makes an appearance. For instance, its new Benjamin Franklin exhibit on his innovations includes a whole section on slavery — with assumptions, but no proof, that slaves assisted Franklin in his electrical innovations. Even if they hadn't, the curators argue that without their work around the house, Franklin couldn't have spent the time on his experiments! 'Franklin held people enslaved during the time he pursued his electrical experiments. Their labor in his household helped make time that he could use to study electricity. Family, friends, and visitors directly participated in electrical experiments. The records are few and unclear, but enslaved people may also have directly assisted his research.' Another example of the obsession with slavery comes from the National Portrait Gallery; nearly every early Founding Father's description includes a statement on slavery. For example, the description for Thomas Jefferson includes the statement: 'Although Jefferson once called slavery 'an abominable crime,' he consistently enslaved African Americans, including his late wife Martha's half-sister, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children.' The overemphasis on the history of slavery is a fairly recent development, an offshoot of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2019, Lonnie G. Bunch III took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Prior to that, Bunch was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as In Slavery's Wake, Slavery and Freedom, and Make Good the Promise, which deal with the history of slavery. Also in 2019, the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its 1619 Project, which falsely claims that the United States started, not with the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War, but when the first slave ship arrived. As curator Mary Elliot remarked at the time: 'This is a shared history, everyone inherited the legacies of slavery.' But America's history is more than just about slavery, and not everyone inherited this legacy — after all, America is also a nation of immigrants who came after the Civil War. In the Smithsonian 2020 annual report, more obsession with slavery comes into view. The Smithsonian is on a mission to have a completely searchable digital museum called 'The Searchable Museum Initiative.' One may think it would begin with digitization of some our greatest moments in history, such as the landing on the moon, the passing of the US Constitution, or even its great Natural History collections. You would be wrong; the digitization began 'with the museum's Slavery and Freedom exhibition.' The annual report claims that 'The Searchable Museum will provide rich, interactive, digital experiences that match the immersive experience of a visit to the physical museum' — unfortunately, likely as biased as a visit to the museum themselves. The problem with modern museums is not just about the obsession with slavery; it's also about dishonestly painting all of American history as evil and full of horrors — with little or no redeeming qualities. For instance, in the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum in NYC, George Washington hardly gets a mention, but his silhouette is used in a description of him as a 'town destroyer' — supposedly a nickname that Native Americans still use to describe our first President. And yet there's no mention in either of the American Indian Museums — in NYC or DC — about slavery practiced by Native Americans, both before Europeans' arrival and afterward. For example, the Cherokee owned slaves. In 1835, 15,000 Cherokee owned 1,592 African slaves; by the Civil War onset, 17,000 Cherokee owned 4,000 African slaves. While museums should provide an honest account of history, they should not be afraid to showcase and celebrate American achievement, which includes ending slavery. At present, however, museums seem more interested in pushing a woke, revisionist history of the United States. With two new Smithsonian museums in development, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, we can expect more of the same — unless we take action against woke propaganda now. Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of 'On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors.'
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere charged with computer tampering
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere faces three counts of computer tampering, according to a complaint filed this week in Will County Circuit Court. Traynere, a Bolingbrook Democrat, allegedly accessed the email account of board member Judy Ogalla, a Monee Republican, in March 2024 without Ogalla's authorization, according to the charges. The misdemeanor charges filed by special prosecutor William Elward state Traynere forwarded emails from Ogalla's account to herself and others. Ogalla, who was the Will County Board chairman at the time, said that Traynere knowingly accessed her email and knew it was unethical. Ogalla questioned whether Traynere had opened her email more than once. She said she doesn't know what all Traynere saw. 'Was she in my email other times and I just didn't know?' Ogalla said. 'She shouldn't have done it.' An email exchanged between board member Steve Balich, a Homer Glen Republican, and Ogalla regarding the controversial 143rd Street road widening project had been forwarded to the county executive, who replied to the email, Balich said during a July 2024 news conference with other County Board Republicans. Reached Wednesday, Traynere said she was unaware of the charges. Traynere said she had been testing out a rumor that all County Board members were given the same password when they were issued new devices. At the time the incident occurred, Traynere said she contacted Ogalla to explain what happened and believed it amounted to nothing. She said it was a simple mistake to see if it were true that all board members had the same password and she was exposing a problem with the system. A summons was issued for Traynere to appear in court Sept. 9. Traynere said Wednesday she believes the charges are political. Traynere has been on the Will County Board since 2008 and is the past Democratic Leader. She chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Her term expires in 2026. Already, Sheldon Watts and Tyler Giacalone have announced they are running for the two seats that are up for election next year to represent District 11. Earlier this year, Traynere was issued a traffic citation stemming from an accident with a minor on a bicycle. That case was dismissed May 15, according to her lawyer and Will County Court documents.
