Senate Democrats file complaint against DC US attorney Ed Martin
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have filed a formal complaint against D.C. U.S. attorney Ed Martin with the District of Columbia's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, accusing him of dismissing criminal charges against his own clients and threatening prosecution against government employees to intimidate them.
'We write to express our grave concern about actions taken by Edward Robert Martin, Jr. that may constitute professional misconduct under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct,' wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The letter, signed by all ten Democrats on the Judiciary panel, asks for the disciplinary counsel, which is overseen by the D.C. Court of Appeals to investigate whether Martin, a member of the D.C. Bar, violated rules of professional conduct.
'When a government lawyer, particularly one entrusted with a leadership role in the nation's foremost law enforcement agency, commits serious violations of professional conduct, it undermines the integrity of our justice system and erodes public confidence in it,' they wrote.
Specifically, the lawmakers say that Martin while in private practice served as defense counsel in several cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, before personally submitting a motion to dismiss felony and misdemeanor counts against Joseph Padilla and failing to recuse himself from the case as acting U.S. attorney creating 'an impermissible conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety by using his new government office to favor his client.'
They say Martin also appeared as defense counsel for another Jan. 6 defendant, William Chrestman, a member of the Proud Boys' Kansas City chapter, who was sentenced to four and a half years in prison after pleading guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and threatening a federal officer.
Democrats say Martin only moved to withdraw his representation of Chrestman after initiating an internal review of the charges against his client, creating 'an appearance of impropriety.'
Senate Democrats say there is also evidence that Martin communicated directly with Jan. 6 defendants who were not his clients after his appointment as interim U.S. attorney, including William Pope, who was charged with a felony and four misdemeanors related to the attack on the Capitol.
They say that if Martin communicated directly with Pope, he 'created the appearance of impropriety because he may be called as a witness for the defendant in a matter involving the office he currently leads.'
They argue that Martin has violated the D.C. Bar's prohibition on representing a client if the client may be adversely affected by the lawyer's responsibilities to or interests in a third party.
'Under this rule, Mr. Martin cannot effectively represent the United States in taking any investigative or prosecutorial steps against Mr. Padilla, including steps favorable to Mr. Padilla, in the same matter in which he defended and still represented Mr. Padilla,' they wrote.
They say that Martin potentially violated the prohibition of any conduct that interferes with the administration of justice and that his representation of Padilla and Chrestman 'creates an appearance of impropriety in any review or prosecutorial steps related to his office's handling of obstruction charges against Jan. 6 defendants.
And his alleged communications with Pope likely prohibits an attorney's involvement in a case in which they are likely to be a necessary witness, they argued.
In addition, Democratic senators are raising alarm over what they say are the 'numerous extrajudicial statements' Martin has made threatening prosecution 'with the apparent intent of intimidating government employees and chilling the speech of private citizens.'
They cite a Feb. 3 tweet and letter to Elon Musk, the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, threatening to 'pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people.'
They also point to a Feb. 14 tweet threatening former special counsel Jack Smith, who handled two criminal cases against President Trump before he won the 2024 election.
And they note a Feb. 19 announcement that the U.S. attorney's office would investigate and prosecute alleged threats to government officials, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) because of his March 2020 statement at a rally in front of the Supreme Court that conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would 'pay the price' for voting against abortion rights.
Martin has since dropped plans to investigate Schumer after concluding that his statements did not present a 'true threat' that could be prosecuted.
'Mr. Martin's conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice Investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law,' the Democrats wrote.
They asked Office of Disciplinary Counsel to initiate an investigation and take 'appropriate disciplinary proceedings,' and would appreciate 'prompt attention to this sensitive matter.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Democratic leaders share vision for party's future in Valparaiso town hall
State and Porter County leaders discussed the future of the state and national Democratic Party during a town hall Saturday at the Laborers' Local 81 in Valparaiso. The town hall was led by Indiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Tallian, State Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, State Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, and Center Township Trustee Jesse Harper. About 45 people attended the meeting, and a handful of them submitted questions on note cards about the future of the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm elections, voter turnout, party messaging and engaging younger people to run for office. While a lot of people are mad about the current national political landscape, Harper said an equal amount of people are mad at the Democratic Party. 'They are angry and mad at the Democratic Party. We have to take responsibility for our losses. We have to figure out what happened,' Harper said. 'Everything you're concerned about, I'm going to tell you right now it doesn't mean a damn thing. The reason it doesn't mean a damn thing is because we can't do anything about it because we don't have the votes. The only way we get those votes is by getting Democrats elected.' For the midterm elections, Tallian said the state party has been reaching out to all the county chairs, holding town hall meetings and creating a program to focus on candidate recruitment. 'This year, we're in an off year, we need to build and to recruit candidates,' Tallian said. 'We've got 92 counties, and every one of them has down ballot elections. We have township advisory boards, we have county councils, and now we have school boards. All of these down ballot positions need to get filled.' Every precinct committee person also needs to help with voter registration and canvassing, Tallian said. In 2024, 330,000 Hoosiers registered as Democrats but did not vote, she said. 'One of the things we're trying to do this year is to canvas neighborhoods for those people and find out why,' Tallian said. 'We need to get that done this year so that people can be ready for the elections in 2026.' For Democrats to win in Center Township, Porter County and in Indiana, Harper said Democratic candidates need to secure Republican votes. 'It's not this elusive Independent vote … you've got to get Republican votes,' Harper said. 'The way to do that is you are the adult in the room and you talk about issues that people are scared about.' For example, Harper said health care cuts impact the elderly, children and people with disabilities, which is 'a bipartisan issue' that also allows Democrats to be 'the adults in the room.' One of the questions raised concerns about 'watering down' Democratic values to get Republican votes versus 'doubling down' on Democratic issues to encourage more Democrats to vote. If the party were to double down on Democratic issues, 'there aren't enough Democrats' in Indiana to vote on those issues, Harper said. 'It's a question of mathematics,' Harper said. 'We have to decide what our Democratic messaging is, when we use it and how we use it. I think we can have a strong Democratic message.' When it comes to messaging, Moseley said property taxes, future economic stability and health care are major issues that the Democratic Party can focus on. 'People want to vote for something, not just always against something,' Moseley said. Another important issue in Northwest Indiana is the environment, as it's located near Lake Michigan and environmental protections are rolled back, Pol said. Pol said public education is also an important issue the party could focus on because public education in Indiana has been experiencing a 'death by 1,000 cuts' with each passing legislative session. The state's voucher program allows wealthy families to receive a discount for sending their children to private schools, while public education has been eroding through various pieces of legislation, he said. 'It's the funding of defunding public education, is what it is. We'll give you money to send your kids to a private school, so you don't send your money to a public school,' Pol said. As she talks to people at town halls throughout the state, Tallian said the themes she's heard people should focus on are the economy, 'Big Brother' and stability. Under 'Big Brother,' Tallian said Republican Party leaders 'at the state and federal level are telling us what to think, they're telling us what our universities can do and they're cutting who can go to which schools.' 'The 'Big Brother' aspect of what's going on in this country is, to me, one of the scariest things going on right now,' Tallian said. When it comes to stability, Tallian described the constant switch between tariffs being on and off and chaos caused by the deportation methods under President Donald Trump's administration. 'Things keep moving every day in Washington and you can't keep track of anything,' Tallian said. 'We want to have stability.' When it comes to engaging younger people, Tallian, a former state senator, said Pol took over her seat and he's younger than her youngest child. The party needs to 'build a bench,' Tallian said. 'The bench can't just be people who want to burn everything down and start over. We've seen the burn down, start over (with) DOGE,' Tallian said, referencing Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Indiana's Democratic Party leaders at the county level range in age from 22 to 82, Tallian said, and she wouldn't 'throw out anyone' because they are either too young or too old. 'But building the bench is something that we absolutely need to do, and I'm encouraging that every single place I can,' Tallian said. Pol said when he first joined the Senate he was 37 years old and he was the youngest senator at the time. Pol said he's now 41 years old and he's still the youngest Senator. 'I think that's criminal because there are younger people who are much smarter than I. There are younger people who have a voice that needs to be heard,' Pol said. Pol encouraged young people to get involved in political groups and organizations to have their voices heard and engage in the process. Moseley said anyone coming to town halls or other political events should bring a younger person they know to the event to educate them on the process. 'It's up to us to let them know, 'Hey, you are welcome,'' Moseley said. Tallian has come under fire after an IndyStar opinion piece written by Elise Shrock, sharing her story of being dragged out by sheriff's deputies from an Indianapolis City-County Council meeting earlier this month for seeking accountability for survivors of sexual assault. Shrock shared her disappointment with the state Democratic Party's silence on the issue. In response to a question about the situation Saturday, Tallian said it's 'partially an Indianapolis problem.' Referencing her written statement issued after the op-ed was published, Tallian said just days apart, she saw U.S. Senator Alex Padilla from California shoved to the ground and handcuffed at a news conference in Los Angeles, and in Indianapolis, multiple women were shoved out of a public meeting. 'Forcibly removing people from a public meeting is not the way that we fix our problems in this country,' Tallian said.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans' megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate's rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian's decision as a major victory. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement responding to the development. 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' he said. The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings. Courts have already ruled more than 190 times against the Trump administration since January. The controversial language received little notice when it came to the floor, and Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) later caused an uproar at a town hall meeting when he admitted he didn't know the provision was in the legislation when he voted for it. 'If enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we've seen in American history — an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law,' Schumer said Sunday afternoon. 'Donald Trump is not above the law. And thanks to Senate Democrats – including the tireless work of Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats – the courts can still hold him and any president accountable,' Schumer said.
