WASHINGTON, D.C. — In pointed on-camera remarks at the White House, President Trump’s U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin—who was serving as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at the time of the incident—is forcefully disputing media coverage surrounding Rep. Cory Mills.
He is directly challenging how an alleged domestic case has been characterized and how it was handled by his office.
See his statement here at the White House with LindellTV and GP’s Cara Castronuova:
Martin, who had previously been involved in legal advocacy related to January 6th political prisoners, told LindellTV that the “Fake News” narrative surrounding the case is inaccurate and that the focus should instead be on how the situation was handled by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.
Who Is Cory Mills — And Why This Matters
Cory Mills (R-Fla.) is a Republican member of Congress representing Florida’s 7th District and a military veteran with a background in defense contracting.
He is currently facing heightened scrutiny in Washington, including:
- A House Ethics Committee review
- Allegations related to financial disclosures and business dealings
- Renewed attention surrounding a prior alleged Washington, D.C. domestic abuse incident
- Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced a resolution on Monday to expel Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) from Congress.
That D.C. incident—now back in the spotlight —is what Martin is addressing. The case has since resurfaced as congressional scrutiny intensifies.
Background on the D.C. Incident
The controversy stems from a 2025 incident in Washington, D.C. involving Mills.
Based on publicly reported information:
- Police responded to a domestic call at the scene involving Mills and a female at a residence
- No arrest was made at the time
- A warrant request was later submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C.
- The warrant was not signed, and no criminal charges have been publicly filed
Martin did not comment on whether or not he believed Mills was innocent or guilty of the allegations.
His statement was focused squarely on the information his office received at the time. He pointed to what he described as the D.C. Metropolitan Police policy in domestic situations, saying officers are expected to respond and typically remove someone from the scene. He noted that in this case, a supervisor instructed officers to leave the individuals in place. Martin said that the decision reflected how police assessed the situation at the time, adding that if probable cause had been established, officers would have acted that night.
Martin emphasized that officers did not remove anyone at the scene, which he described as a key and underreported detail.
He stated that, under typical procedures in domestic-related calls, officers take action when they determine probable cause exists.
Martin said officers did not remove anyone at the scene, adding that they “made the judgment that there wasn’t an issue to the level that they should react.”
The Warrant Request: “Mop-Up Job”
According to Martin, the situation shifted the following day.
He said that after media attention began, authorities sought to move forward with a warrant—something he characterized as a “mop-up job.”
“They wanted us to clean it up,” Martin said.
He added that his office declined to proceed under those circumstances, saying, “We weren’t going to play that game.”
Strong Language: “Corruption”
Martin also used the word “corruption” in describing how he viewed the handling of the situation.
He did not identify specific individuals or allege criminal wrongdoing by name but indicated he believed the process itself was not properly followed.
“They were playing games with the rules,” he said.
Martin rejected the suggestion that his office failed to act, saying instead that the decision was based on applying consistent legal standards.
“You do the crime, you should be arrested, should be prosecuted. We are not afraid of that,” he said. “But I just don’t like seeing the fake news media trying to blame the Trump Administration and pretend that we were either complicit or encouraging people, whether they are in power or out of power. Elected official or not elected official. You got to do the right things, right?”
Why This Is Exploding Now
As Mills faces active scrutiny in Congress, including an ongoing House Ethics Committee review and calls for potential disciplinary action, the previously unresolved D.C. incident has re-emerged as a key point of focus.
Martin’s comments introduce a competing explanation—one that shifts attention from DOJ decision-making to the actions taken at the scene and the timing of the warrant request.
Bottom Line
Martin disputes the idea that his office mishandled the case, instead pointing to how the situation unfolded in real time and how it was revisited afterward.
His remarks add a new dimension to the story—one that could shape how the incident is interpreted as congressional scrutiny continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment