"Thank you and I hope we've passed the audition"

Coincidentally, I had meant to mention Ed Martin in a post yesterday, before seeing the news of his official nomination as U.S. Attorney for Washington, where he has been serving as interim U.S. Attorney. The publicity surrounding Main Justice and the Eric Adams transaction threatened to crowd out the attention Martin deserved for the letter to Elon Musk that he publicized on Twitter last week. That letter assured Musk that Martin's office will "pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people." It came on the heels of a (legal, legitimate) news story identifying the young men serving as Musk's aides, and another story (also legal, also legitimate) discussing the racist oeuvre of another DOGE aide.  

The principle of charitable or "steelman" interpretation always applies first, keeping in mind that there is a difference, when dealing with untrustworthy, corrupt, unethical, and dishonest people and administrations, between considering plausible readings and arguments, as one should, and becoming a sucker or a willing apologist for immorality and barely-reasoned abuse of power. The charitable but, I dare say, dubious reading of Martin's letter is that it referred only to leaks and other government employee sabotage, and to genuine individual threats launched at the DOGE aides following the (legal, legitimate) news stories revealing their identities. I would have no great quarrel, as such, with that, although I would be more impressed by actual charges than by issuing threats with charges to be named later. The less charitable, more plausible supposition was that it was a general, vaguely stated, and speech-chilling because vaguely stated, attempt to use state power to intimidate critics of DOGE, Musk, and/or the administration. This was the most widely shared interpretation. It was buttressed by the openly partisan and unbecoming nature of the letter's concluding lines. 

Perhaps. But I think the fullest, fairest reading is available only after surveying Martin's Twitter page. (Alas. I suppose we get the culture we deserve.) Over the three weeks leading up to Martin's nomination, it positively overflowed with obsequious flattery--not only of Trump, but of the Attorney General, Musk, the Vice President, and OMB director Russell Vought. Surely the letter, along with the flattery, can be understood as a threat and an effort to chill and intimidate reporters and critics. But Martin's letter should also, and perhaps primarily, be understood as an audition: as part of an effort to lock up the nomination by reaching, if not the president, then those who currently enjoy his favor and have access to him, adding to the flattery a sign of his personal loyalty both to Trump and to the adjunct president. The dockside bullying was almost incidental, like leaving a calling card. 

The letter is bad enough. The nomination is bad enough. Both, in combination with Martin's apparent desire to celebrate February as Unctuousness Month, are awful. One encounters flatterers from time to time, in the academy as elsewhere. But it is rare that one comes across as thorough-going a lickspittle as this. Evidently Martin's efforts were rewarded. One imagines the flattery could only be more effective as a job application than his actual resume.