The word “weaponization” became a staple of American political life during the Biden administration. Republicans used it over and over to try to erode support for any attempt to hold then-former President Donald Trump accountable.
Last December, the House Select Committee on The Weaponization of the Federal Government did its part by releasing its final report “detailing…[its] findings about the Biden-Harris Administration’s weaponized federal government.” Among other things, the report highlighted what it called “the weaponization of federal law enforcement against the American people, leading to important policy changes from the Department of Justice and IRS.”
However, nothing it said held up to even the mildest scrutiny.
But that has not stopped President Trump from continuing to tell the same tired story and calling for “an end to the weaponization of federal law enforcement.”
Edward Martin, the president’s nominee for the position of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, seems not to have gotten the message. Martin, now serving in that position on an interim basis, has shown what it means to turn a prosecutor’s office into an extension of a president’s political agenda.
That is why the Senate should refuse to confirm him.
What came to light on April 1 is another reason. The New York Times reported that Martin is “questioning former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s family and former White House officials about clemency.”
It is highly unusual for a U.S. attorney to investigate the decision of a former president to issue pardons or reprieves. That power is vast and beyond the reach of ordinary legal processes.
More than forty years ago the Supreme Court reaffirmed a long line of precedent when it said that pardons “have not traditionally been the business of courts; as such, they are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review.”
Martin knows this. He knows that his chances of overturning Biden’s clemency decisions are zero. And going after Biden’s family members only adds to the bizarre quality of Martin’s actions.
Those decisions become more explicable, if no less troubling, when we see them as Martin’s way of showing his devotion to the president.
Recall that on March 22, as the Times reports, President Trump “claimed without providing evidence that Mr. Biden had not authorized the pardons, posting on Truth Social that they were ‘void, vacant, and of no further effect.’”
He told reporters, “The person that operated the autopen, I think we ought to find out who that was because I guess that was the real president.”
But, as a federal prosecutor, Martin owes his loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law, not the person who appointed him. In everything he does, he has a duty to ensure justice, uphold the law, and respect the rights of all individuals, including suspects and defendants.
The Justice Department’s own Principles of Federal Prosecution recognize that duty and underline the seriousness of the prosecutors’ work. They must, it says, “base their actions on “the fundamental interests of society…recognizing both that serious violations of federal law must be prosecuted, and that prosecution entails profound consequences for the accused, crime victims, and their families….”
But, as the Times story makes clear, that is not how Martin runs or would run the United States Attorney’s Office. During his time in the interim role, he has shown his “willingness to use one of the most important U.S. attorneys’ offices in the country to seek retribution against Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies.”
The Times quotes Professor Frank Bowman, an expert on clemency, who thinks that Martin is trying “to cause fear and inconvenience for the people covered by the Biden pardons.” That is conduct unbecoming of any prosecutor or public official.
The Justice Department prohibits line prosecutors “from using your public office for your own private gain or that of friends, relatives, or persons with whom you are affiliated.” But seeking gain for the president is exactly what Martin is doing.
And this is not Martin’s first offense.
He has used the power of his office to target Democratic officials and others who have opposed President Trump. If this pattern is not weaponization of the Justice Department, I don’t know what one would be.
As The Hill reports, “Martin is facing three ethics complaints brought by lawmakers — two asking for investigations by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General and one sent to the D.C. bar.” Beyond those complaints, taxpayers have a right to ask, “Doesn’t Martin have better things to do than waste time and money on truly frivolous investigations of the administration’s opponents?”
His willingness to do so is one reason why Senators should do all in their power to oppose him.
Some are answering the call.
While confirmation hearings are not the norm for United States Attorney nominees, Senate Democrats have demanded one in Martin’s case. Senator Richard Durbin, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, says Martin has shown “a willingness to ignore basic legal standards in order to pursue politically motivated investigations and threaten the Administration’s perceived political opponents.”
In Durbin’s view, Martin’s “objectionable record merits heightened scrutiny by this Committee.” Senator Charles Grassley, chair of the Judiciary Committee, has already said no.
That may be why Senator Adam Schiff has placed a hold on the nomination. A hold is “An informal practice by which a senator informs Senate leadership that he or she does not wish a particular measure or nomination to reach the floor for consideration.”
As the Library of Congress explains, “The influence that holds exert in chamber deliberations is based primarily upon the significant parliamentary prerogatives individual Senators are afforded in the rules, procedures, and precedents of the chamber.”
Schiff laid out his case against Martin this way:
Ed Martin has demolished the firewalls between the White House and his own office within the Department of Justice. Confirming him to serve permanently in the role he has already abused in his interim capacity would cross the prosecutorial Rubicon that every single Senator would come to regret and that would threaten the rights of Americans from all walks of life.
Schiff calls Martin “unfit to serve as a lawyer, let alone one with the resources — and cover from the Senate — to further twist the power of the law and law enforcement to go after Americans who stand up for the rule of law and for our democracy.”
The evidence to support Schiff’s accusation is ample, including Martin’s continuing effort to go after former President Biden and his family. And Schiff is right to conclude: “No one embodies Donald Trump’s personal weaponization of the Justice Department more than Ed Martin.”
The nation deserves better.
