Senator Accuses Trump’s Judicial Nominees Of ‘Protecting The Lie’

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 06/11/2026) President Donald Trump’s four judicial nominees for federal judgeships told a Senate panel Wednesday that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election “as a matter of law.”

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Michael C. Martin affirmed during his Senate confirmation hearing on June 10, 2026, that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election. (Screenshot)

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Michael C. Martin affirmed during his Senate confirmation hearing on June 10, 2026, that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election. (Screenshot)

One of the four, veteran federal prosecutor Michael C. Martin, nominated for the Eastern District of Michigan, agreed when asked during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing if the U.S. Capitol was attacked on Jan. 6, 2021.

“As part of my work as an assistant United States attorney . . . I had the opportunity to look at pictures and videos from that day, and what I saw in those was that officers -- law enforcement officers -- were attacked, and the building was damaged and vandalized," he said.

When fellow nominees Angela Veronica Colmenero, Kasdin Miller Mitchell and Antonio Pozos echoed Martin’s response, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) accused the nominees of adopting the White House’s “new script, a new pre-negotiated effort to thread the needle (and) avoid the question” about the attack.

“You are protecting the lie by failing to acknowledge the truth, and it all goes to your independence,” the senator told the nominees. “If you’re unwilling to show us that you’re independent of the president at this early stage of your service, you disqualify yourself as judicial nominees.”

Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) and Gary Peters (D-Oakland County) apparently don’t believe Martin should be disqualified. They returned a “blue slip” saying their decision to support Martin was partly due to the nominee’s assurances to them that Biden won in 2020, that there was an attack on the Capitol, and that Trump cannot run for a third term.

“These answers were important factors for me, and fundamentally different from President Trump’s judicial nominees to date,” Slotkin said.

The panel traditionally does not hold hearings for judicial nominees unless the nominee’s home state senators submit blue slips, which is a U.S. Senate tradition that allows home-state senators to signal their approval or disapproval of a presidential nominee.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley thanked Slotkin and Peters for returning the blue slips, noting it was the first time Democrats had done so.

In a statement read by a colleague, Grassley blasted the group Demand Justice for saying it would spend six figures on ads criticizing any Democrats who “dared” to return the slips for Trump’s nominees.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked the nominees if they are going to be dependent on any president or if they would call any sitting president to ask advice before making a decision on a case before them.

Two nominees replied, “No” before Kennedy moved on to ask Martin about his thoughts on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects social media sites, forums and websites from liability for material their consumers post.

Martin declined to comment, noting that he hasn’t had the topic come across his desk as prosecutor.

Blumenthal also asked Martin why Biden’s win was a matter of law.

“Isn’t it a matter of popular vote that an official is elected?” the Senator asked.

Martin calmly replied: “No, sir. Under the Constitution, the popular vote is not the operative fact.”

Blumenthal asked the same question of Pozos, the Philadelphia attorney nominated for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who explained the electoral college elects the president.

When Blumenthal asked Pozos if the Capitol was “attacked,” the attorney hesitated, prompting Blumenthal to say, “You hesitate to tell the truth here.” The Senator then shifted to another nominee.

Questioning about the 2020 election and 2021 attack arguably has become many Democrats’ main test for Trump’s judicial nominees. The concern is that Trump’s history of spreading misinformation will repeat in the November midterms and that his judicial appointments will help in the goal.

Colmenero is nominated for the Southern District in Texas and Mitchell is nominated for the Northern District in Texas.

Who Is Martin?

In his opening statement, the Cincinnati-born Martin said he’s “deeply honored and humbled” by the nomination, and he thanked Peters and Slotkin for their support as well as his family.

“I could not have pursued my career in public service without her sacrifices and support,” the 51-year-old Grosse Pointe Park man said about his wife.

Grassley said Martin, who has served as federal prosecutor for 20 years, is “not a political activist,” but a “faithful career public servant,” who has served under the Trump, Obama and Biden administrations and who has prosecuted serious matters including espionage, terrorism and export control.

Martin earned a master’s degree from Georgetown University and is a graduate of Boston College Law School. He clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Hugh H. Bownes of the First Circuit, and U.S. District Judge Edward F. Harrington in Massachusetts, according to his biography on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s website.

Prior to law school, Martin was an analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Martin helped prosecutor Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is known as the “underwear bomber,” and who was sentenced to life in federal prison for the failed Christmas Day 2009 terror attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.

He also prosecuted Islamic State soldier Ibraheem Izzy Musaibli, who is serving a 14-year sentence.

If confirmed, Martin would succeed U.S. District Court Judge Sean Cox, who retired in 2025.

Trump nominated Martin on May 11 – the first nominee to that court during Trump’s second term.