**Eagle" Ed Martin, once a formidable figure within the Trump administration, has found his wings significantly clipped following a series of controversies. Ed Martin, known for his staunch loyalty to Trump, was previously deemed too incompetent by the Senate to head the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. However, he later spearheaded the DOJ's anti-weaponization unit, ironically used to target Trump’s political adversaries.

A recent DOJ review has brought to light that Martin mishandled sensitive grand jury materials during politically charged investigations into Adam Schiff and Letitia James. According to sources cited by CNN, Martin initially denied the allegations but was contradicted by email evidence proving he shared confidential information with unauthorized persons. This act not only breaches legal protocols but potentially verges on obstruction of justice.

Deputy AG Todd Blanche oversaw the investigation that led to Martin’s removal from the weaponization project. Although Blanche stated that there are no current misconduct investigations against Martin, who now oversees presidential pardons, the implications of past inquiries loom large.

The investigation into Martin's conduct was inadvertently revealed when Christine Bish, a subpoenaed witness, was questioned about her alleged connections to Martin and FHFA Director Bill Pulte. The inquiry focused on impersonation of federal agents, hinting at the depth of the dysfunction within Martin’s operations.

Amidst these controversies, Martin’s past actions as interim D.C. U.S. Attorney and threats against entities like Wikipedia for exercising free speech have resurfaced, painting a comprehensive picture of his aggressive tactics against perceived opponents. His approach to the weaponization group was clear: to shame and charge political adversaries without substantial legal basis.

As the DOJ turns away from charging Martin, the public and legal community may have to rely on ethical probes and the court of public opinion for accountability. This development underscores ongoing concerns about the abuse of power within high-level political appointees and the vital need for integrity and restraint in handling sensitive legal materials.