Donald Trump’s former DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark, is fighting a recommendation from the D.C. Bar’s disciplinary panel to discipline him over his concerns about illegalities in the 2020 election. Last month, he filed a Post-Hearing Brief challenging a nonbinding preliminary finding of culpability for drafting a letter that was never sent to Georgia officials advising them of their options in dealing with the irregularities.
The hearing panel found that Clark engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice, Rules 8.4(c) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Those ethics rules have been accused of being broad, vague, and unconstitutional. State bars frequently use them to target conservative attorneys.
In his 346-page brief, Clark primarily responded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s (ODC) Finding of Facts which he disagreed with. Authored by Clark’s attorney Harry MacDougald, the brief laid out how the “case arises from a factual and policy dispute among the highest-ranking lawyers in the Justice Department … The only person with authority to resolve the policy dispute was President Trump, and he did so in a meeting in the Oval Office. The President never complained about Mr. Clark’s advice or conduct.”
During the disciplinary hearing, Professor Don Elliott of Yale Law School said that Clark had a “sufficient factual basis” to propose the draft letter. Clark also pointed out, “There is no evidence of or citation to any prior case in the District of Columbia or anywhere in the United States in which a lawyer was disciplined over a discussion draft document that was not sent and never left the office.” Clark has referred to the discipline as being punished for a “thought crime.”
Read the rest of the article at The Tennessee Star