Ex-Jan 6 Prosecutors Demand Ed Martin Investigation: His ‘Client Is Not President Trump,’ It’s The US

A group of former January 6 prosecutors filed a letter this week with the Washington D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, calling on the office to open an investigation into President Trump’s nominee for D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin.

In the letter, the former Jan. 6 prosecutors argue Martin is in violation of the Department of Justice’s rules, as he uses the office to carry out Trump’s retribution agenda. 

“Mr. Martin’s position is one of enormous responsibility, and one whose work ranges from prosecuting local crime in the District to leading important national security investigations and prosecutions,” the letter said. “He has used his brief time in office to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a federal prosecutor, announcing investigations against his political opponents, aiding defendants he previously represented, and communicating improperly with those he did not.”

The letter goes on to detail Martin’s investigations into Trump’s perceived political enemies, specifically mentioning Martin’s letters threatening Democratic elected officials with investigations, such as the one he sent Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) requesting clarification on Schumer’s statements criticizing the Supreme Court years ago.

“Mr. Martin’s investigations into perceived opponents of this administration do not appear to be coincidental,” the letter said. “Mr. Martin’s client is not President Trump; it is the United States. His assertion otherwise adds further evidence that his announced investigations are politically motivated.”

One of the lead signatories on the letter, former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, confirmed in an interview with TPM that the group has not yet received a response from the disciplinary office. 

“I think it’s important to understand that Ed Martin is not an experienced prosecutor, nor is he a particularly talented lawyer,” Ballou said. “And so he sends out a lot of letters and tweets, but thus far it has not been followed up with, it seems, much actual legal work.”

Even though it will ultimately be a challenge to delay Martin’s confirmation, Ballou believes that efforts to stop it are still valuable. 

“It plays an educational role, it educates the judges that he’s going to have to appear in front of, and it educates the juries, the grand juries, and the trial juries that are going to be evaluating his arguments,” he explained. “And so I think it’s helpful for people to understand Mr. Martin’s apparent professional violations.”

This latest letter calling for an investigation into Martin is just one of many efforts to combat or delay Martin’s Senate confirmation.

Earlier this month, a group of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee demanded a confirmation hearing on Martin arguing that he has “abused his position in multiple ways since being named Interim U.S. Attorney.” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced his intention to place a hold on Martin’s nomination, saying that Martin has “demolished the firewalls between the White House and his own office within the Department of Justice.” Senators have the power to place a hold on a presidential nominee, which may delay the confirmation, but won’t necessarily block it from moving forward. 

And also this month, more than 100 former assistant U.S. attorneys wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee explaining why Martin is an “egregiously unqualified political hack who has never served either as a prosecutor or judge.”