1 Trending: 22 Times Democrats Invited Noncitizens To Vote In U.S. Elections

2 Trending: More People Watched The TPUSA Halftime Show Than Tuned In To The Oscars

3 Trending: Report: How Hundreds Of Businesses Bankroll The Mutilation Of Kids

4 Trending: Transgender Skepticism Is The Ultimate Bipartisan Issue

Ed Martin Challenged The D.C. Bar’s Political Vendetta. Then They Charged Him

The charges against Ed Martin didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They came from the very disciplinary authority he had publicly accused of bias.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

Just days after the Trump Justice Department proposed a rule to combat the left’s use of “barfare” to destroy conservative lawyers, the legal disciplinary authority in the Department’s own backyard may have vindicated its effort by launching an attack on U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin.

On March 6, the Washington, D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed charges and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the MAGA stalwart in a case that could drag on for months or longer, waste precious taxpayer resources, and result in sanctions up to and including disbarment.

The Disciplinary Counsel claims that Martin, then-serving as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, violated his oath of office. How? He alleges that when Martin sent letters to Georgetown Law School’s leaders asking whether the school was continuing to teach and promote DEI, suggesting the school should stop, and indicating that its responses could bear on its nonprofit status and federal funding, he violated the First and Fifth Amendments.

After a retired judge and Georgetown Law alumnus brought a complaint over the alleged impropriety of the inquiry, the Counsel solicited a response from Martin. Martin initially declined, appealing to the judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals — which presides over the disciplinary authority — to resolve the matter, alleging the Disciplinary Counsel had engaged in “uneven behavior” and “prejudicial conduct.”

The Chief Judge directed Martin on multiple occasions to follow standard protocol and cooperate with the Counsel, and he ultimately complied. The Counsel found that Martin’s pleadings violated still more codes of conduct, including unauthorized ex parte communications with a judge and interference “with the administration of justice.”

Operating on the incomplete record of a de facto indictment, there are myriad potential issues with the Counsel’s charges. The Counsel is effectively seeking to punish Martin for executing the Trump administration’s policies to counter discrimination masquerading as anti-discrimination under DEI — based on the disciplinary authority’s own opinion of constitutionality. If Martin had acted so egregiously, Georgetown could have sought........

© The Federalist