On the evening of January 6, 2021, during the aftermath of the Capitol riot and as senators prepared to resume the electoral vote count, former President Donald Trump reached out to the White House switchboard to speak with Mark Martin. Martin, a retired North Carolina Supreme Court justice, had been a key adviser to Trump in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Despite his involvement, Martin has largely escaped public scrutiny for his role in the “Big Lie” campaign.
Through an extensive review of records, The Intercept uncovered previously unreported details about Martin’s activities leading up to the insurrection. This includes his influence on a key MAGA state legislator, his involvement in a Supreme Court challenge orchestrated with the Trump campaign, and how Trump and his aides used Martin’s reputation to pressure Justice Department officials.
Despite his actions, Martin remains a law school dean and active member of prestigious legal institutions. He has not responded to questions regarding his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results. While Martin never officially represented Trump in court, his former colleague on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Robert Orr, believes that he should be more forthcoming about his role.
Martin’s transition from a moderate Republican figure to a key player in Trump’s legal team came after he abruptly stepped down from the North Carolina Supreme Court to become the dean of Regent University Law School. His involvement in Trump’s post-election legal efforts, including advising state legislators on constitutional theories, sheds light on his contributions to the campaign to keep Trump in power.
Despite Martin’s involvement, his role has largely been overshadowed by other figures like John Eastman. However, his influence on key legal strategies and connections with influential figures like Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, highlight his significance in Trump’s efforts to challenge the election results. State legislator Finchem tweeted about his duty to act three days after emailing Martin. He argued that the Arizona Legislature could call itself into a special session to investigate fraud, even without the required governor or supermajority vote. By November 21, Finchem had written a memo on the plenary theory and its implications, crediting Martin. Finchem’s efforts were centered around this theory, including organizing an unofficial hearing and a faux joint resolution. Despite facing scrutiny and ethics complaints after the insurrection, Finchem continued to invoke the plenary theory in 2022. Martin’s role in shaping and endorsing the theory was not publicly accounted for. In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected a similar theory. Martin was also involved in efforts to bring the post-election battle before the Supreme Court, with some referring to it as his “brainchild.” Trump and his allies exploited Martin’s reputation as a retired judge and law school dean in their efforts to push a Supreme Court case. The case, Texas v. Pennsylvania, aimed to use the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction” to expedite the process without going through lower federal courts. The arguments were based on the plenary theory, asserting that state legislatures had the power to select electors regardless of state laws.
Martin had been involved in the initiative since before the 2020 election, working with Republican attorneys general in multiple states. He collaborated with figures like Mike Farris and Phillip Jauregui to push the contrived lawsuit forward, even involving the Trump campaign and White House staff in the process. Despite his involvement in the effort, Martin never signed any of the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was swiftly rejected by the Supreme Court, with one law professor describing it as “dangerous garbage.” Paxton and his associates, including Kurt Olsen and Larry Joseph, are facing misconduct charges over the case, with allegations of dishonesty and false statements. Despite his role in overseeing the broader effort, Martin has largely escaped public scrutiny. He defended the legal process of contesting election results in court in a 2023 interview, emphasizing his support for the rule of law. It aligns with my values, my life’s work, and the oath I have taken to uphold the Constitution.”
Trump “Relies on Their Opinion”
Despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Texas lawsuit, Martin continued to advocate for the plenary theory. He advised Trump to have the Justice Department file a similar lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court.
On Christmas Day, attorney Bill Olson spoke with Trump about this strategy. Olson’s memo stated that Trump would then speak with Mark Martin, the former Chief Justice of North Carolina, to further discuss the concept. Olson confirmed that Trump spoke with Martin, who supported pursuing the case.
Trump then brought this idea to the Justice Department. When DOJ officials hesitated due to the weak legal basis, Trump and his team referenced Martin’s endorsement.
During a call on December 27, Trump mentioned Martin to former Acting Deputy Attorney General Rich Donoghue, who noted Trump’s trust in Martin’s expertise.
On December 29, Donoghue and Jeff Rosen met with Mark Meadows at the White House to discuss the proposal. Martin’s support for using the DOJ to file the lawsuit was highlighted, along with John Eastman’s approval.
Despite the lack of evidence and legal basis, Trump’s team drafted a lawsuit targeting six states, mirroring the failed Texas case. The Justice Department recognized the lack of grounds for such a lawsuit and advised against it.
After explaining the legal obstacles to Trump, Rosen and Donoghue emphasized to him why the Justice Department could not file a lawsuit that would benefit his campaign.
As courts proved to be an ineffective route, Martin, along with Eastman and others, explored using Vice President Pence to overturn the election. Martin advised Trump on Pence’s constitutional authority on January 6.
In the lead-up to the insurrection, Martin was involved in discussions on leveraging Pence’s role. Despite concerns from others, a lawsuit was filed questioning Pence’s authority over electoral votes.
In a memo outlining scenarios for January 6, Eastman stressed the importance of Pence disrupting the vote count independently of court or congressional approval.
Numerous Trump-aligned attorneys, including Martin, pressured Pence directly and indirectly through state legislators like Finchem. During the same time frame, Martin’s name appears in the records of the January 6 committee.
On January 2, Eastman and other lawyers aligned with Trump held a briefing for over 300 state legislators via Zoom, with Trump also joining. Eastman encouraged the legislators to demand that Pence delay the electoral vote count, as reported in an email from the call’s organizer.
According to transcripts from interviews with the January 6 committee, Martin may have been present at the briefing. Multiple witnesses were told by investigators that Martin participated in the call, although this was not confirmed by any witness.
The organizer of the call, former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, stated that he could not recall if Martin was on the call with Eastman.
On January 4 and 5, Trump and Eastman attempted to persuade Pence that he had the authority to influence the outcome of the presidential election beyond what is outlined in the Constitution and federal law. Pence’s attorney, Greg Jacob, refuted these theories based on legal facts and stated that Martin was not involved in these discussions.
Trump reportedly referenced Martin’s viewpoint during a conversation with Pence leading up to January 6, suggesting that Pence could reject contested electoral votes. The source of this information was not disclosed by The New York Times.
Following Trump’s public criticism of Pence on January 6, the vice president rejected the pressure campaign by issuing a statement declaring his role as “largely ceremonial.” Subsequently, Pence and his family were evacuated to a secure location as Trump supporters breached the Capitol.
Later that evening, Trump instructed the White House switchboard to connect him with Martin and Kurt Olsen before retiring to the presidential residence. The content of Trump’s conversation with Martin at 7:30 p.m. remains unknown.
Unlike other attorneys involved in the efforts to keep Trump in power, Martin has not been subpoenaed or interviewed by the January 6 committee. High Point University, where Martin leads the new law school, has dismissed concerns about his involvement in the events of January 6.
High Point University emphasized that Martin was not interviewed by the committee and downplayed his role in the investigation. However, the committee questioned numerous witnesses about Martin and referenced him in subpoenas to key witnesses.
Rep. Bennie Thompson criticized Martin for claiming he is “absolved of anything” due to not receiving a subpoena, stating that all involved in the events of January 6 will eventually be held accountable.
Source link
