Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats filed a complaint last month with the District of Columbia Bar against U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin. The complaint is yet another example of left-wing efforts to sic bar associations on lawyers supportive of President Donald Trump.
A massive effort known as The 65 Project came about precisely to achieve this goal. Other targets include John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, who face criminal charges in Georgia because of their legal representation of Trump. The president’s resounding reelection has done nothing to dissuade the Left from using the same playbook.
Democrats’ first complaint against Martin concerns his motion as the acting U.S. attorney to dismiss cases against hundreds of defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. On Jan. 20, Trump signed a proclamation ordering that those convicted in the attack receive pardons (except for a handful who received commutations). The proclamation also ordered the Trump Justice Department to dismiss pending Jan. 6 cases. Pursuant to Trump’s order, Martin filed hundreds of dismissal motions. It so happens that two of the defendants were clients of Martin’s prior to his appointment by Trump.
In an abundance of caution, Martin moved to withdraw as their counsel shortly after filing the dismissal motions. There would be no further litigation involving those defendants with respect to the cases. This is true even if judges dismissed the cases without prejudice, meaning that they theoretically could be refiled. There is no chance that the Trump Justice Department will refile Jan. 6 cases dismissed without prejudice.
Democrats also accuse Martin of having communicated with a defendant after his case was dismissed. The defendant, William Pope, filed a motion seeking case files and alleged that Martin had communicated with him on the issue. Pope represented himself, so the purported communication was wholly appropriate during the pending criminal case. Pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975), defendants have a constitutional right to represent themselves. Prosecutors thus can communicate with self-represented defendants.
Nothing in the Democrats’ complaint illustrates any unethical communications between Martin and Pope. Democrats also claim that Martin might be a witness, but Pope’s criminal case is over. The complaint does not indicate that Martin represented the United States in any subsequent motion hearing involving Pope after the case’s dismissal, and Pope has not filed a separate case against the government.
Democrats’ next attack involves social media posts Martin has made threatening prosecutions. One concerns Biden special counsel Jack Smith, a political Scud missile sent by the Biden Justice Department to take out then-candidate Trump. Martin told Smith to keep his receipts for a possible investigation of misconduct. There is nothing unethical about this statement. It is eminently reasonable to investigate whether Smith’s prosecutions in Washington, D.C. and Florida were politically motivated. The unprecedented way in which Smith attempted to rush to trial in the district, trying to bypass the D.C. Circuit and go right to the Supreme Court during an interlocutory appeal, is itself compelling evidence of his malfeasance.
Democrats also cite various posts where Martin threatened to prosecute individuals who were threatening or obstructing Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk has received numerous death threats. The Left is torching Teslas and charging stations, and they are vandalizing Tesla dealerships, including shooting in showrooms.
This conduct is not protected speech. It is, as Trump classified it last month, domestic terrorism. One U.S. House representative, Robert Garcia (D-CA), who received a letter from the Justice Department requesting clarification of his comments, had said, referring to Musk, “What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight.” Martin’s threats to prosecute illegal activity are ethical and the acts of a prosecutor who is doing his job properly.
Democrats finally accuse Martin of unethical conduct with respect to Operation Whirlwind, an investigation into why the Biden Justice Department charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction of an official proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), a post-Enron obstruction statute. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Fischer v. United States that this statute, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, is inapplicable to Jan. 6 defendants.
It is eminently reasonable for Martin, pursuant to Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order to de-weaponize the federal government, to investigate why his office wrongly charged hundreds of defendants with a crime that carries such a severe sentence. Democrats complain that two of Martin’s clients had been charged with this offense, but this alone would not require Martin’s recusal. The investigation concerns hundreds of defendants. There is nothing special about the two Martin represented. The issue involves a pattern of misconduct under the Biden Justice Department.
Democrats accuse Martin of being part of Trump’s effort to undermine the traditional independence of the Justice Department. The Vesting Clause of the Constitution vests executive authority in the president. The Justice Department is no more independent than the State Department. We do not have a fourth branch of government run by unelected bureaucrats. Arguing otherwise proves the Deep State is not a right-wing conspiracy theory. It is also risible to read Democrats’ newfound concern for Justice Department independence while they not only tolerated but cheered years of lawfare perpetrated against Trump by the Biden White House and Justice Department.
The district is a cesspool. Crime is rampant, and not even members of Congress are safe. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), for instance, was a recent carjacking victim. The Biden Justice Department and Biden D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves wasted precious resources going after Jan. 6 defendants and unjustly prosecuting D.C. officer Terence Sutton and lieutenant Andrew Zabavsky for murder for doing their jobs. Fortunately, Trump immediately pardoned both of those good officers who have returned to the force.
DEMOCRATIC FRESHMEN SENATORS HOLD UP SOME TRUMP NOMINEES
Martin is utilizing his resources far more efficiently, pursuing the violent criminals who are terrorizing the district’s residents — particularly poor black residents trapped in crime-ridden neighborhoods. He will remain resolute in this endeavor and not cower in the face of the left-wing ethics intimidation campaign.
As of now, Martin is the interim U.S. attorney. This designation will expire, relying on activist judges to reappoint him to the interim position. The Senate must confirm Ed Martin’s nomination as Trump’s D.C. U.S. attorney as quickly as possible so he can help Trump make Washington safe again.
Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.