Jeffrey Clark, who assisted President Donald Trump with legal work dealing with the 2020 election, continues his lengthy battle against the D.C. Bar. Although he is back serving in the second Trump administration as Regulatory Czar, D.C. Bar counsel Hamilton Fox is attempting to disbar him for "dishonesty." The Article III Project (A3P) submitted an amicus curiae brief in the disciplinary proceedings on Friday supporting Clark's appeal of an adverse Report & Recommendation by the Board on Professional Responsibility.
The D.C. Bar went after Clark for merely drafting a proposed letter from the DOJ that was never even sent to various Georgia officials, advising them of their options for dealing with the laws that were broken during the election. Clark based it on the Ligon Report, a transcript from a Georgia Senate hearing held on December 3, 2020, named after Judiciary Committee Chairman William Ligon, which cited chain of custody of ballot issues, absentee ballot problems, and more. The report concluded that the election should never have been certified.
Clark, who was serving as acting head of the DOJ's Civil Division at the time, is being punished for a thought crime, since the letter was never even sent. It was merely a proposal, titled "Pre-Decisional & Deliberative/Attorney-Client or Legal Work Product Georgia Proof of Concept." There was a dispute over it within the top brass at the DOJ, and ultimately, Trump was persuaded not to send it.
A3P said Clark wasn't dishonest. "He sincerely believed both that election irregularities required further investigation and that his immediate superiors were mistaken in their belief that there was no sufficient evidentiary basis for further investigation despite the President's significant concerns."
Clark's views weren't contrary to the DOJ. "The Department did have significant concerns about election irregularities, namely from the ultimate head of the Department of Justice — the President himself," A3P said. "Indeed, the undisputed facts establish that the President went so far as to consider installing Mr. Clark as Acting Attorney General to allow Mr. Clark to investigate further and pursue the letter's contents."
Trump aligned far more with Clark than with acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his former deputy Richard Donoghue. He installed Clark as attorney general for one day because he was so upset with the stonewalling regarding looking into the irregularities. Trump expressed his concern about the DOJ's inaction, since the "country is up in arms over the corruption."
A3P noted, "The President expressly agreed with Mr. Clark that more evidence likely existed and could be uncovered quickly either by the Federal Government or by others. … Attorneys can allege facts on information and belief, to be proven later with sufficient facts and evidence."
Surprisingly, the board acknowledged that "[t]here is no dispute that many people (including the President) did not trust the results of the 2020 election," yet it still concluded that Clark's position was dishonest. Monmouth University, not a conservative pollster, found in numerous surveys that about one-third of voters believe the 2020 presidential election was affected by election wrongdoing. Rasmussen Reports, one of the most accurate pollsters, discovered that over one-fifth of mail-in voters admitted they broke the law in the 2020 election.
Considering that voters are divided over whether there was election wrongdoing, the D.C. Bar and its disciplinary panels cannot conclusively decide on this issue and declare that Clark was dishonest for agreeing with much of the population.
A3P said it raises "significant constitutional concerns," because "were this Court to assert power to police the internal operations of a branch of the Federal Government, it would effectively preclude the President's closest confidants from providing candid advice for fear of later disbarment."
The D.C. Bar applied several vague, broad ethics rules typically used to target conservative attorneys. One was Rule 8.4(c), which makes it professional misconduct to "[e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
A3P summarized, "Disciplinary boards must not be free to wield their authority to settle political scores or punish attorneys for advancing disfavored legal positions." The group said disciplinary proceedings "are a classic example of lawfare and threaten the practice of law itself." America First Legal has also submitted an amicus curiae brief.
Clark is a defendant in the RICO prosecution initiated by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. That prosecution is likely going nowhere. On Friday, Judge Scott McAfee set a deadline of October 17 for the appointment of a prosecutor to replace Willis. Willis was disqualified due to her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to lead the case. McAfee said failure to appoint a new prosecutor will result in dismissal for "want of prosecution."
Bar associations have targeted numerous conservative attorneys involved with recent election disputes. Trump's former attorney, John Eastman, is still fighting his disbarment in California. Rudy Giuliani lost his law license in both New York and D.C. Sidney Powell has been successful so far fighting off an attempt to suspend her law license in Texas, but she was ordered to pay over $175,000 in legal fees to Detroit and Michigan for an election lawsuit. Kari Lake's attorney, Bryan Blehm, was suspended for 60 days. There are plenty more.
The practice of law attracts leftists, who become heavily involved in running bar associations. Unlike conservative attorneys, who are more likely to devote their free time to family and church, leftist attorneys enjoy dominating low levels of power. Combined with leftist-dominated courts, it is very difficult for conservative attorneys to obtain fair trials and appeals.
The Trump administration has begun investigating the 2020 election, so this issue isn't yet settled. Trump recently called for the appointment of a special prosecutor, and authorities just launched probes in Arizona, Michigan and Nevada. For the D.C. Bar to discipline Clark over an ongoing dispute of nationwide importance reeks of barfare, and it's long overdue to start investigating these corrupt bars and their unfair monopolies over the practice of law.
Rachel Alexander and her brother Andrew are co-Editors of Intellectual Conservative. She has been published in the American Spectator, Townhall.com, Fox News, NewsMax, Accuracy in Media, The Americano, ParcBench, Enter Stage Right, and other publications.
