Jan. 6 charge akin to Japanese internment
Share and Follow

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.

Share and Follow
You May Also Like

Controversial Case: Mother Faces Backlash for Involving 5-Year-Old in Waxing Business

Inset: Jasmine Moss (Shelby County Sheriff”s Office). Background: The house where Moss…

IRS Agent’s Dark Descent: Love Triangle and Fetish Website Lead to Chilling Murder

Brendan Banfield is currently facing trial on charges of murdering his wife,…

Teen Who Confessed to Stabbing Mother 46 Times Faces Sentencing After Unexpected Plea Shift

Left: Derek Rosa, second from left, appears in court for sentencing in…

Unveiling Ted Bundy’s Dark Correspondence: The Chilling Letters from Death Row Exposed

To Edna Martin, Ted Bundy wasn’t just a notorious killer; he was…

Judge Poised to Dismiss DOJ Lawsuit as Trump Administration Denied Access to Sensitive Voter Data

President Donald Trump speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House,…

Mother Issues Bomb Threat to High School Following Daughter’s Exclusion from School Play

Inset: Crystal Royster (Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office). Background: Lake Shore High School…

Jamaica Tragedy: Man Faces Verdict After Girlfriend’s Shocking Murder

Background: News footage of the scene outside the Auburndale, Fla. home of…

Gainesville Resident Detained Following Alleged Death Threats

Staff Report GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Early this morning, 32-year-old Jarvis James Wright…