This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to Washington Post, he hasn't lived in Missouri since 2018. He's lived in DC since 2018. I suggest changing it from Missouri poliitican?

Cheers. Cononsense (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention that Timothy Hale-Cusanelli (who Ed Martin has described as an "extraordinary man, extraordinary leader" during an award ceremony held at President Donald Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey) has been described by the U.S. Department of Justice as a Nazi sympathizer, used to show up to work at a naval weapons station with a Hitler mustache, and told his coworkers that "Hitler should have finished the job"? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The matter does seem to have some coverage, as does Timothy Hale-Cusanelli himself (The Independent for example). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It is there Before his appointment, Martin had been an active supporter of January 6 defendants as legal counsel. His foundation hosted a 2024 banquet at Trump's Bedminster golf club honoring Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a convicted Capitol riot participant. Perhaps we should add the words "among others"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I see it's made its way into the article. The current sentence seems reasonably WP:PROPORTIONate IMO, but consider that policy, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NAVELGAZING (that essay is an essay) etc. For the interested, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#WMF_receives_letter_from_Trump-appointed_acting_DC_attorney. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that this is attracting a bunch of edits that are really skirting the line with WP:BLP. I think the article could benefit from a neutrality copyedit to remove any "pointed" language and then have some close eyes on it going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Thebiguglyalien's comment. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be putting it mildly to say that I am concerned about this edit: [1]. In part, the edit edit-warred back in the following: While the legal news site Above the Law has detailed his work promoting Stop the Steal conspiracy theory. Isn't it obvious that this is not a sentence, as I originally pointed out in my edit summary? Isn't it careless to simply restore this ungrammatical writing?

As for the issue of citing the opinion of The Kansas City Star, I'm open to a serious discussion about whether the words "conspiracy theorist" should be used in a BLP. But it's worth noting several facts. First, the edit I provide a diff of also uses the term, by referring to another source "detail[ing] his work promoting" the same "conspiracy theory". More importantly, I count two reasons given for why the KC Star is an inadequate source, neither of which seems to me to hold up under scrutiny. The first is that it was "an opinion article of a little news paper": see edit summary here: [2]. Well, here is part of our lead paragraph about the paper: Published since 1880, the paper is the recipient of eight Pulitzer Prizes... The paper is the major newspaper of the Kansas City metropolitan area and has widespread circulation in western Missouri and eastern Kansas. Does that make it "a little news paper"? Here's a link to the source: [3]. It's not just an opinion piece, but an editorial by the editorial board. And it's hardly a "throw away line" (per the edit summary cited first), but a significant point of the editorial, which returns to the Jan. 6 rioting in a later paragraph, contrary to "it does not expand upon."

Having made a single revert, I'm not going to edit-war it back again. But I want to hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is sourcing to an opinion article to say he is "unapologetic Jan. 6 conspiracy theorist" which the article itself only addresses once in the first sentence and never again. Yes it talks about the Jan 6 attack on the capital but not tying him to a conspiracy theory about the Jan 6 events. So yeah opinion article that doesn't really actually go over in any depth the thing we are sourcing to it is textbook undue. Got other sources that back up the "unapologetic Jan. 6 conspiracy theorist"? PackMecEng (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the source from "Above the Law" goes into detail about him being a Jan. 6 conspiracy theorist. Do you have sources saying that he apologized? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look like that source supports "unapologetic Jan. 6 conspiracy theorist". So again, got a source for that? PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the ungrammatical non-sentence: [4], and found a better way of citing the KC Star: [5], that avoids the issue of attributing "unapologetic" to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The unapologetic was not the issue. It was calling him a January 6th conspiracy theorist. PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quaerens-veritatem is engaged in an edit war to unilaterally change the well-supported description as far-right to "conservative", a blatantly misleading description and a clear attempt at whitewashing. The existing description as far-right is well supported by high-quality reliable sources. It's not a matter of adding the maximum number of references in the lead section. One high-quality source is sufficient for the lead section, and his position on the far right is well supported further down in the body of the article. Any change needs to be discussed on talk. --Tataral (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to do anything to sneak your viewpoint in. Not supported well enough in the body to first sentence call him that. WP:UNDUE, now please stop the edit warring over days trying to sneak it back in. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you admitted on your page, you're "fairly critical of Trump", and you persist in sneaking in your viewpoint. As I pointed out in your Talk page (that you subsequently deleted) and edit summaries, 'far-right' is only supported by one photo caption where 'conservative activist' is supported by the 3 reliable sources I gave: ProPublica, NPR, The Washington Post and multiple other additional reliable sources including CNN, The Guardian, NBC News, Forbes, Boston Herald, et al. The NYT reference is to a photo caption description that was not repeated in the body written by Glenn Thrush. As PackMecEng pointed out, 'far-right' is not supported well enough in the body to place in the first sentence. It's WP:UNDUE. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that we have to be careful about this per WP:BLP. It may make more sense to deal with it in the body of the article, with some nuance, than in the lead sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the far-right content in the article, and it seems a bit shoehorned. It only appears two times: that he gave interviews to far-right websites, and that "Glenn Thrush of The New York Times described Martin as a 'far-right election denier.'".

The first is badly written: the article says that he has appeared in Russian news agencies, that he did not include them in the report to Congress, and then that he also appeared in far-right media. Bad order or facts: the problem of the interviews concealed from Congress is for both, Russian and far-right media, but as it is written it appears to be just the first, and the others some other unrelated info. Is this enough to say that Martin is himself far-right? Not necessarily. He may be concealing those articles for some other reason, such as his promise to send Biden to trial or other stuff that may generate a conflict of interest. Questionable? Sure. But nowhere near any of the stuff that would define far-right as such (racism, ultranationalism, etc).

As for the other, it's based just on a passing-by comment. Too little for quite a controversial label. The NYT article calls him a "far-right election denier", and then proceeds to explain the "election denier" part (the "stop the steal" movement), but not the "far-right" one. Again, endorsing conspiracy theories is questionable, but not a defining trait of far-right. In fact I would remove the "Election denial" section entirely: it's just "someone said X and Y about Martin", and redundant to the "Stop the Steal" one, which actually explains the stop the steal stuff and his relation to it. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we add information about this incident to this Wikipedia article? It seems rather notable.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has ordered a senior U.S. Justice Department official to drop an inquiry into a retired FBI agent's involvement in a defamation lawsuit involving Alex Jones's conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2025.

Ed Martin Jr., who leads the Justice Department’s “weaponization working group,” sent a letter dated Sept. 15, 2025 to the Sandy Hook families' lawyer asking for information about former FBI agent William Aldenberg, who responded to the 2012 school shooting and was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with victims' relatives, that led to a $1.4 billion judgment against Jones for calling the massacre a hoax.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-justice-department-official-ordered-drop-inquiry-sandy-125904544

98.123.38.211 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely should be included. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must stop being one-sided AND correct its biases when it comes to FACTS, especially regarding claims of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and the results of the 2020 United States presidential election "hoaxes". The FACT is the Russian interference claims by Democrats was absolutely FALSE. Official sources and investigations have confirmed two main points regarding the Steele dossier:

• Funding Source: Research that resulted in the dossier was part of a political opposition research effort that was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), via their law firm, Perkins Coie. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the Clinton campaign and the DNC for mislabeling the payments in their financial disclosures, recording them as legal fees.
• Accuracy/Verification: Government investigations, including those by the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) and the Special Counsel John Durham, found that the specific, most salacious allegations in the dossier were largely unverified, based on hearsay and third-hand information, and in some cases proven to be false. The IG report in 2019 found that the FBI did not corroborate the dossier's key claims before using them to obtain surveillance warrants targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The Special Counsel Robert Mueller's separate investigation did not rely on the dossier for its findings or any criminal charges, and many of the issues it uncovered were not mentioned in the dossier. While the dossier's core claims about a "well-developed conspiracy of coordination" were not substantiated. Dan Staudacher (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]