Durbin launches investigation into Ed Martin
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has launched an investigation into Ed Martin, who serves as both the pardon attorney and head of the new Weaponization Working Group.
Durbin cited Martin's 'disgraceful tenure' in a prior role as well as his 'stated threats to abuse his positions at DOJ' as the rationale behind igniting the probe.
The letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asks for all Martin's communications relating both to pardons and any work undertaken for the new working group.
'Following his disgraceful tenure as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin apparently plans to continue his misconduct in his new roles at DOJ,' he wrote.
Durbin pointed to a May 13 press conference Martin held before heading to his new role, saying he plans to 'shame those [who the] DOJ does not have the evidence to charge.'
'If they can't be charged, we will name them … and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed,'' Martin said.
Durbin said the statement was an 'admission' he plans to abuse his power.
'These statements are a brazen admission that Mr. Martin plans to systematically violate the Justice Manual's prohibition on extrajudicial statements by shaming uncharged parties for nakedly partisan reasons,' Durbin wrote.
'This plan clearly violates Mr. Martin's obligations under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit prosecutors from '[making] extrajudicial comments which serve to heighten condemnation of the accused.' Weaponizing DOJ in this manner will further undermine the public's trust in the department in irreparable ways.'
Durbin also questioned Martin's oversight of a series of pardons given by Trump that benefited his political allies.
The senator noted the recent pardon for nursing home executive Paul Walczak for tax fraud just three weeks after Walczak's mother paid $1 million to attend a Trump fundraiser.
Trump also pardoned Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corporation, after Milton donated nearly $2 million to the Trump campaign last year, among others.
'Mr. Martin's bald-faced 'pay to play' strategy is abusing the Office of the Pardon Attorney in multiple ways to benefit President Trump and his political allies,' Durbin wrote.
Martin is also planning a review of former President Biden's pardon's, included those given to his family members.
DOJ did not respond to request for comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
AOC, other angry Democrats, call for Trump impeachment over attack on Iran
Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other Democrats quickly floated the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump for launching a military strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," the four-term congresswoman from New York wrote on social media Saturday night, soon after the president announced the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ocasio-Cortez charged that Trump "has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Democrat Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois also argued that the president's order to bomb Iran's nuclear sites without seeking Congressional approval could be considered an "unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten, a four-term representative whose district covers southwestern Chicago and surrounding suburbs, wrote Saturday night on social media that "this is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program….to be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat." But he highlighted that "no president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach," Casten added. "I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval." The calls for impeachment are the most visible, and furthest reaching, representation of the party's anger with Trump for taking unilateral action against Iran. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the chamber, wrote that the president had "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." "Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action," Jeffries added in a statement. While the executive branch technically doesn't have the legal authority to order a foreign military attack without the approval of Congress, previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump during his first term, launched comparable military actions in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Congress has not actually declared war since 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, and legal scholars have long been divided on whether the president has the authority to unilaterally launch a military strike.
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate GOP slashes megabill's tax costs with new accounting method
Tax legislation recently unveiled by Senate Republicans only costs $441 billion when tallied using a novel accounting method requested by the GOP. The new estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was released late Saturday night, shows how Senate Republicans were able to slash the costs of sweeping tax legislation set to be included in the GOP's sweeping megabill by using a 'current policy baseline' — a never-before-used technique that wipes out the cost of extending existing tax cuts that are set to expire at year's end. The contrast with the traditional method of fiscal scoring, accounting for tax policy as currently enacted into law, is profound: Similar tax legislation that passed the House in May was estimated by JCT to cost $3.8 trillion under the old method. In defending the revised baseline, Republicans have argued that extending current tax law shouldn't be counted as adding to the deficit because the GOP is merely preventing huge tax increases on individuals and businesses around the country. But critics have derided the measure, asserting that it threatens to blow up long-standing budget rules and disguises the cost of the GOP's marquee legislation. 'Extending the Trump tax cuts prevents a $4 trillion tax increase — this is not a change in current tax policy or tax revenue,' said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) in a statement on Sunday morning. 'This score more accurately reflects reality by measuring the effects of tax policy changes relative to the status quo.' Democrats have requested JCT release a score under the current-law approach. That will 'show the actual cost of the bill,' said Ryan Carey, a spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Finance Democrat. 'Republicans rigged this score with deceptive math designed to hide the true, multi-trillion dollar cost of their proposals, and they wouldn't need to do this at all if their bill actually paid for itself,' Carey said. The new estimate shows the softened math of large tax cuts from those affecting individuals and families to businesses and companies. Extending basic individual tax rates lowered by Trump's 2017 tax bill, for instance, was estimated by JCT to cost around $2.2 trillion in the House-passed bill. In the Senate bill, under the new baseline, a permanent extension and modification of those rates costs only $83 billion. Likewise, an expansion of the Child Tax Credit in the House-passed bill would cost around $800 billion. In the Senate bill, JCT estimates that Senate Republicans' version of expansions to the family credit would cost only $124 billion. In the House bill, a permanent extension of a key deduction for business would cost around $820 billion. Senate Republicans proposal to make the deduction permanent would cost just $6 billion. Senate Republicans also made deviations to the House Republican plan on a number of the proposed tax cuts. The Senate GOP, for instance, dialed back the cost of President Donald Trump's campaign promises to provide tax relief for tips and overtime work by tens of billions of dollars. The GOP accounting gambit is expected to face a challenge from Senate Democrats, who will argue that the novel baseline does not comply with budget rules governing the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is expected to weigh in on legality of the provisions in the GOP tax bill this week. But with Republicans intent on passing their megabill on party lines, they have been laying the groundwork to argue they don't need to heed advice from the parliamentarian on the current policy baseline issue and are preparing to potentially override Democrats' objection on the floor with a simple-majority vote. Fiscal hawks in the House will also likely be watching closely. Under a rule in the House budget set by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the amount of tax cuts in the GOP's megabill needs to be offset by a corresponding amount of spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. But if the total cost of Senate Republicans' tax bill exceeds $4 trillion under current-law accounting, House Republicans will insist that any further tax cuts will need to be matched dollar-for-dollar by further spending cuts.
an hour ago
Top House Intel Democrat says it's ‘too early to tell' impact of Iran strikes
Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said it was still too soon to know the status of the Iranian nuclear program in the aftermath of a series of U.S. attacks against Iran. Calling the strikes by American bombers a 'massive gamble' on the part of President Donald Trump, Himes noted that the impact of the attack was still being assessed. 'It's way too early to tell what the actual effect on the nuclear program is. And, of course, it's way too early to tell how this plays out, right? I mean, we've seen this movie before,' Himes told ABC News' 'This Week' co-anchor Jonathan Karl. 'If you look at the history of our military involvements in the region, they almost never end with the best-case scenario. In fact, they usually end in something approximating the worst-case scenario,' he added. Himes also said that he was 'disturbed' by the fact that the strikes were undertaken without the approval of Congress, which holds the sole authority to declare war. 'There's not much ambiguity in the Constitution about who gets to approve these things,' Himes said.
