‘Bad all around’: Trump admin’s top DC prosecutor says charging of Jan. 6 rioters is DOJ’s ‘greatest failure’ since Japanese American internment camps

FILE – Ed Martin speaks at an event hosted by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., at the Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2023 (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File).

FILE – Ed Martin speaks at an event hosted by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., at the Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2023 (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File).

The Trump administration’s top prosecutor in Washington, D.C., on Friday declared that he’s “expanded in scope” his office’s investigation into federal prosecutions of Jan. 6 rioters under a felony obstruction statute — comparing them to Japanese Americans being sent to internment camps during World War II — while also probing about alleged leaks that allegedly emanated from the prosecutor’s office.

In an email to staff that was reviewed by Law&Crime, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the nation’s capital, said he would be continuing to “look at” how and why so many of the cases brought against Jan. 6 rioters were charged using the obstruction statute 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), which involves charging an individual who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” of Congress. Based on the statute, Martin dubbed the investigation “The 1512 Project.”

Martin, a conservative activist and 2020 election denier who previously served as the head of the Missouri Republican Party, was nominated to the permanent U.S. Attorney role by Trump in February. In January, Martin oversaw the pardoning of hundreds of Capitol rioters and fired a slew of prosecutors who had been converted from temporary to permanent status in the weeks leading up to Trump’s inauguration.

The New Jersey native previously represented Jan. 6 defendants, and has been accused of going after people who disagree with his politics, including lawmakers.

After hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters were charged under the obstruction statute, the U.S. Supreme Court last year issued a 6-3 decision that narrowed its scope, holding that it did not apply as charged to those who stormed the Capitol; instead, the statute only barred obstruction of an official proceeding by tampering with evidence. Although the majority of judges for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the use of the charge in Jan. 6 cases, one — a Trump appointee — did not; that decision ultimately paved the way for the case to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

You May Also Like

Miami-Dade Mayor Vetoes County Measure Banning Fluoride

Miami Mayor Daniella Levine Cava. (Facebook) More than a dozen local governments…