Sen. Tom Tillis (R-NC) said he opposes Ed Martin, President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney for D.C.
Martin worked as an attorney for some of those charged in the 2021 Capitol Hill riot, which is where Tillis has most of his concerns. Tillis told the media:
TILLIS: I met with Mr. Martin. He seems like a good man. Most of my concerns related to January 6 and he built a compelling case on some of the 1,512 prosecutions that were probably key to the moment, bad decisions. But where we probably have a difference is I think anybody that reached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time, whether it’s 30 days or three years is debatable. But I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January the 6th, and that’s probably where most of the friction was.REPORTER: So he disagreed with you on that?TILLIS: Well, now. I have to say that Mr. Martin did a good job of explaining how there were people that probably got caught up in it, but they made the stupid decision to come through a building that had been breached and that the police officers and others were saying, stay away. So the difference wasn’t that they should be charged. In my estimation, it’s by how much? That’s an argument I’m willing to have, but we have to be very clear that what happened on January the 6th was wrong. It was not prompted or created by other people to put those people in trouble. They made a stupid decision, and they disgraced the United States by absolutely destroying the Capitol, and I can’t have any patience.REPORTER: It sounds like your concerns were not very…TILLIS: But let me be very clear, though. Mr. Martin did a good job of explaining the one area that I think he’s probably right, that there were some people that were over prosecuted, but there were some two or 300 of them that should have never gotten a pardon and he agreed with that.But the disagreement there had more to do…if Mr. Martin were being put forth as a U.S. Attorney for any district except the district where January 6 happened, the protest happened, I’d probably support them, but not in this district.REPORTER: When you said he’s not being advanced to the markup, was he operating under that understanding that he’s not being advanced through to him?TILLIS: Well, I think, Mr. Martin, I’m sure they’re looking through it, I mean, be clear, some of the deadline has to do with the length of time he can operate as acting, and the administration can work through that if they want to have more time and potentially work them through but at this point I’ve indicated to the White House I wouldn’t support his nomination.
Okay, let’s dissect this. First of all, those who participated in the riot did not destroy the Capitol. The hyperbole over it drives me insane.
Second, the Senate has to confirm U.S. Attorneys.
However, U.S. Attorney nominees don’t usually have confirmation hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee usually approves the nominee in a quick voice vote.
The Committee, though, could have hearings if he or she faces many challenges.
Tillis serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A person can act as a U.S. Attorney for up to 120 days.
The Vacancies Act allows the acting officials to stay on for 210 days from the day of the vacancy. If the vacancy started before the president’s inauguration, then it extends to 300 days:
Nominations also extend these limits: an acting official can continue serving through two pending nominations to the vacant job. If the nomination is rejected or returned to the President under Senate rules, a new 210-day period of permitted tenure begins from the date of rejection or return. In other words, an acting official could conceivably serve for 210 (or 300) days before there is a nomination, during the pendency of a first nomination, for 210 days after that nomination is returned, during the pendency of a second nomination, and for a final 210 days if the second nomination is returned as well. These extensions require careful tracking of nominations and Senate actions.
Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin has not called for a hearing, but Democrats have floated the idea.
Chairman Chuck Grassley admitted the “Republicans need more time to vet Martin.” From CNN:
A CNN KFile analysis found that Martin failed to report nearly 200 media appearances in the past few years when he first filed his mandated disclosure forms to Congress. Those appearances included many on far-right outlets and Russian-state media.Grassley said he has not yet finished going through Martin’s recent written responses to the Senate Judiciary panel under oath, where Martin said he did not recall some of his most controversial past statements.“We’ve had people on our staff that had more questions,” Grassley said.
Fellow Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) once called Martin “’soft’ for supporting a bipartisan gun safety bill, said the nominee was ‘controversial.’”
Cornyn did not expand on his concerns, though.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY