Former Prosecutors Urge Investigation Into Controversial DC Attorney Nominee

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Five former prosecutors who contributed to cases related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol have called for an investigation into the nomination of Ed Martin as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The request marks a significant moment in Martin’s contentious nomination process, which Senate Democrats have vowed to stall.

Martin, who has been serving as the acting U.S. attorney since returning to office under President Trump, is widely viewed as a polarizing figure. Since assuming his interim role, Martin has faced criticism for dismissing several January 6 cases, pursuing investigations against political opponents, and seeking to expose perceived misconduct within the prosecutor’s office.

In a letter submitted Sunday to the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the former prosecutors highlighted several controversial actions by Martin, alleging violations of professional conduct rules. They wrote, “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 further argues that Martin’s actions undermine the principles of equal protection under the law, stating, “These actions are not worthy of the Department of Justice and violate Mr. Martin’s professional obligations.” Martin’s office did not respond to a request for comment from CNN regarding the allegations.

Joining the five former prosecutors in their appeal are notable conservative legal figures, including retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, former Rep. Barbara Comstock, and attorney George Conway. They emphasized concerns over a statement made by Martin earlier this year, where he labeled himself and his colleagues as “Trump’s lawyers,” suggesting a misuse of Justice Department authority.

The letter asserts that this identification raises significant doubts about Martin’s motivations, stating, “His assertion otherwise adds further evidence that his announced investigations are politically motivated.”

In an effort to bolster his position, Martin recently announced the creation of a “special unit” to oversee election law compliance, asserting that it is crucial for restoring public confidence in the electoral process. “Nearly 20 years later, Americans do not have confidence in our election systems,” he wrote in an email about the initiative. “One of the best ways to restore that confidence is to protect our systems and demand accountability.”

Moreover, Martin has initiated investigations into prosecutors who brought obstruction charges against certain Capitol riot participants, which were later dismissed. The letter from former prosecutors details Martin’s continued representation of clients charged under the Biden administration’s justice for the Capitol attack, a situation they claim poses a conflict of interest.

“By acting simultaneously as a prosecutor and defense attorney in the same case, Mr. Martin violated Rule 1.7(a), which directs that ‘A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter,’” they argue in their letter.

The letter concludes with a plea to the disciplinary board: “Collectively, Mr. Martin’s actions threaten to undermine the integrity of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the legal profession in the District of Columbia. The reputation of our community depends on a prompt and thorough investigation into Mr. Martin’s violations of his professional obligations.”

As the scrutiny over Martin intensifies, Senate Democrats have increased their efforts to block his nomination. Senator Adam Schiff of California has publicly denounced Martin, announcing a hold on his nomination. Schiff commented, “This man is unqualified; he’s abused the powers of that office. He’s made the strongest case you can make to be rejected for this position,” adding that Martin’s actions raise serious conflict of interest concerns and signal a broader acceptance of questionable nominees among Republicans.

This situation continues to evolve, with both sides of the aisle now watching closely as the Senate prepares to confront Martin’s contentious nomination.