On April 9, 2025, Roots Justice law firm secured a landmark victory when Chief Judge James E. Boasberg lifted a protective order in United States v. Ryan Zink, unlocking a vast collection of January 6 evidence—FBI 302 interview transcripts and defendant interviews in the Relativity database, which contains private data requiring redaction before release, alongside body camera footage and Capitol surveillance videos on Evidence.com, which Roots argues needs minimal editing and should not be withheld simply for being damaging to the government.
Led by attorney Roger Roots, the ruling outpaced the unfulfilled transparency promises of House Speaker Mike Johnson and the GOP-led Congress. But within hours, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, under Edward R. Martin Jr., filed a motion to halt the order, citing staffing issues. By day’s end, Boasberg stayed the release, setting a government response deadline of April 16, 2025. The sudden reversal has delayed public access and intensified scrutiny of the government’s—and Martin’s—intentions, with Roots voicing sharp skepticism in an interview that evening.
A Breakthrough Derailed
Roots’ motion, filed March 22, went unopposed for weeks, leading to Boasberg’s April 9 order. In the interview, Roots emphasized the public’s stake: “The public’s right to know the truth about January 6 should supersede all other interests. The public not only wants it—they have a right to it.” He tied the demand to political pledges.
“Trump and the Republicans, even Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, promised they would release everything to the public, and that’s how they won. The American people want all this stuff out there. The truth is never going to be known until all of the footage is released.”
Roger Roots, attorney, Roots Justice
The government’s Motion for Leave to File Response, submitted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell under Martin’s authority, claimed “substantive changes in the staffing” delayed their response and signaled intent to oppose the release. Boasberg’s minute order granted the stay, pausing disclosure. The move has left the evidence—Relativity’s interviews and 302s needing redaction for private data, Evidence.com’s videos requiring minimal edits with no excuse for suppression based on government embarrassment, and related documents—once on the brink of public view—in limbo, prompting Roots to question the government’s motives.
Roots Challenges the Excuse
Roots dismissed the staffing claim as unconvincing. “It’s a ridiculous excuse,” he said. “The Zink case is one of the only remaining January 6 cases still alive. They’re telling us that out of the Department of Justice, with hundreds of lawyers and prosecutors, they can’t monitor this one—or maybe four—remaining cases?” He noted prior communication with Blackwell, adding, “It’s not like she wasn’t aware of this case.” To Roots, the explanation suggests a deeper intent to suppress the materials, particularly the Evidence.com videos, which he insists should not be hidden just because they might damage the government’s image—a justification he rejects outright.
He also questioned the judicial process. “This was filed on March 22. [Boasberg] gave the government weeks to respond, and they didn’t,” he said, puzzled by the initial lack of opposition. He criticized the stay’s speed: “A judge has ordered it—it should stand for something more than the government just getting it lifted within two hours.” Roots planned to prepare a response that night, saying, “It could be late. I’d like to find some caselaw about this issue.”
Scrutiny on Martin’s Intentions
Edward R. Martin Jr.’s office, responsible for prosecuting hundreds of January 6 cases, has faced criticism for restricting evidence access through protective orders. The failure to oppose Roots’ motion earlier, followed by this abrupt pivot, raises doubts. Did Martin’s team misjudge the motion’s traction, only to scramble when transparency loomed? Or is this a deliberate effort to shield sensitive information—perhaps to redact private data from Relativity, which Roots agrees is necessary, or to withhold Evidence.com videos under the pretext of sensitivity when the real concern might be government exposure?
The motion’s vagueness fuels suspicion. If staffing truly disrupted their response, why not provide specifics? If legal or security concerns justify the delay—like redacting private data from Relativity—why wait until after the ruling? And if the Evidence.com footage is being held back because it’s damaging to the government, Roots argues that’s no valid excuse—a stance that challenges Martin’s potential motives head-on. The timing and lack of clarity suggest to Roots and others that Martin may be prioritizing control over transparency, especially over videos that could shift public perception of January 6.
The Stakes and the Fight Ahead
Roots’ vision of public access—Relativity’s FBI 302s and interviews redacted for privacy, and Evidence.com’s body camera and surveillance videos released with minimal edits, unhindered by government embarrassment—now hinges on overcoming Martin’s resistance. The April 16 deadline looms as a critical test: will the government substantiate its delay with legitimate reasons, or deepen distrust by clinging to weak excuses? Roots remains defiant, planning to counter the government’s arguments with caselaw and resolve. “I’ll just stay on top of it,” he said, preparing for a late-night effort.
For now, the January 6 evidence—interviews and 302s in Relativity awaiting redaction, videos on Evidence.com held back without justification if merely inconvenient to the government, and supporting documents—remains locked away, and questions about Martin’s motives grow louder. The clash underscores a persistent tension—transparency versus secrecy—in the aftermath of January 6, with Roots adamant that the public’s right must prevail, undeterred by government efforts to hide behind flimsy pretexts.
