Updated Tue, March 26, 2024
By Andrew Goudsward
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Jeffrey Clark, a former senior official in the U.S. Justice Department, made false claims as he attempted to enlist the agency in former President Donald Trump's efforts to undo his 2020 election loss, a Washington ethics lawyer said on Tuesday.
Clark is facing a disciplinary hearing which could see him lose his license to practice law. Trump tried to put Clark in charge of the Justice Department in his administration's final days as Clark sought to pursue the former president's false claims of widespread voter fraud.
"What Mr. Clark was attempting to do was essentially a coup at the Department of Justice," Hamilton "Phil" Fox, the District of Columbia Bar disciplinary counsel said in his opening argument.
Harry MacDougald, a lawyer representing Clark, denied that Clark had violated attorney ethics rules. He said Clark was engaged in "internal debate and disagreement" within the department about the impact of voter fraud on the election.
"Mr. Clark should not be here for giving his candid opinion and independent judgment," MacDougald said.
Clark, who served as acting head of the Justice Department's civil division under Trump, faces a multi-day hearing on ethics charges that accuse him of attempting to take actions "involving dishonesty" and that "would seriously interfere with the administration of justice."
Clark sought to send a letter to Georgia officials in December 2020 falsely claiming that the Justice Department had "identified significant concerns" that may have led to Trump's loss in that state, according to ethics charges filed in 2022.
The hearing is being held by a three-member committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility, an arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. If it finds that Clark violated ethics rules, it could recommend that his license be suspended or revoked. The full board would take up such a recommendation, with final action in the hands of the appeals court.
The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates lawyers accused of violating legal ethics rules, brought the case against Clark.
Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election. Trump faces criminal charges in state court in Georgia and federal court in Washington over his attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden.
Clark is one of Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia case and has pleaded not guilty. Clark is listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the federal case. The ethics panel is expected to delve into incidents relevant to those cases.
Justice Department leaders found no evidence of widespread voter fraud and refused to send Clark's proposed letter. Trump backed off his plan to name Clark as acting attorney general after department leaders and top White House lawyers threatened to resign in protest.
Two of Clark's Justice Department superiors - former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, have cooperated with the ethics probe and are expected to testify during the hearing.
Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, an outspoken Trump ally, and former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows may testify on Clark's behalf, his lawyers said.
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; editing by Will Dunham, Andy Sullivan and Marguerita Choy)
Former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark fights to save law license as disciplinary trial begins
Kyle Cheney
Tue, March 26, 2024
Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with former President Donald Trump in a bid to subvert the 2020 election, should face professional consequences — including the potential loss of his license to practice law — for his effort to throw the nation into chaos, D.C. bar disciplinary authorities argued Tuesday.
But a lawyer for Clark said it would be unreasonable to punish him for his work during the tumultuous days ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, when he spearheaded a proposal to encourage state legislatures to consider overturning the results. That plan was never adopted and Trump ultimately turned it down. Punishing Clark for being on the losing side of a policy dispute would set a dangerous precedent, Clark’s team argued.
The alternate realities were on display Tuesday as bar investigators began laying out their case to penalize Clark for his role in Trump’s scheme to remain in power. Investigators charged Clark with violating professional rules of conduct in late 2020 by attempting to coerce his bosses to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers encouraging them to reconsider the outcome of the election there based on “significant concerns” about the integrity of the vote.
For Clark, the opening arguments in the case — heard by a three-member panel of the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility — were never supposed to happen. Clark has spent two years fighting legal battles intended to scrap the case altogether, contending that the D.C. Bar has no jurisdiction over the conduct of federal government lawyers. But a federal court rejected Clark’s position, and an appeals court declined to step in to block the case from moving ahead.
Hamilton Fox, the lead investigator for the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, said Clark’s efforts amounted to a “coup” attempt within the Department of Justice, aimed at taking out the sitting leadership in order to effectuate a plan that would have thrown the 2020 election into even further disarray. Clark held unauthorized talks with Trump, violating DOJ policies against White House contacts, and then sought to outflank then-Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue, by telling them he planned to accept an offer from Trump to take over the department unless they agreed to send his proposed letter to Georgia.
The showdown, which has been well documented by the Jan. 6 select committee and prosecutors in Georgia, led to an Oval Office confrontation on Jan. 3, 2021, in which Trump ultimately backed down from his plans to elevate Clark amid a mass resignation threat by top DOJ and White House officials. Clark has been criminally charged by Georgia prosecutors for his role in Trump’s effort to reverse the outcome of the election, and he was identified as a co-conspirator in special counsel Jack Smith’s Washington, D.C. case against Trump.
Donoghue was Fox’s first witness on Tuesday, describing his work to review claims of election fraud in 2020 and finding many of the fraud claims lodged by Trump and his allies to be meritless. He also described his conversations with Trump, recalling that Trump urged Rosen to simply declare the election “corrupt” and let him and his Republican allies in Congress do the rest. Donoghue recalled trying to educate Trump about DOJ’s limited role in elections and its work debunking many of the false allegations of fraud that had been circulating.
Disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers who formed the backbone of Trump’s effort have aired significant new details about the two months that threatened the peaceful transfer of power in 2020 and 2021.
John Eastman, one of the architects of Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election, is expected to face a disbarment ruling by Wednesday, when a California judge issues her proposed punishment for alleged violations of professional conduct.
Rudy Giuliani has similarly had his law license suspended in New York and Washington, D.C.
And other attorneys involved in failed legal efforts to overturn election results in 2020 have also faced disciplinary charges, some of which are still pending.
Clark’s case is unique, however, because he was employed by DOJ at the time as acting head of the department’s Civil Division and Environment and Natural Resources Division. He first reached Trump’s radar as a result of efforts by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who helped connect the little-known DOJ official to the president. Trump, who had publicly expressed frustration that the Justice Department hadn’t done enough to back up his claims of election fraud, soon began floating the notion of elevating Clark to replace Rosen.
Clarks’ lawyers, though, say punishing him for taking cues from the president — the chief law enforcement officer of the United States — and advocating for a position that he genuinely believed would send a chilling effect across government. Clark’s efforts were intended to remain confidential — and the letter he drafted, which was never sent to Georgia, was supposed to remain secret, protected by various forms of executive and law enforcement privilege, until a leak to the press exposed the fraught discussions.
Clark’s attorneys said he intends to argue, using witnesses from Georgia and statistical experts that Trump has relied on in the past, that his concerns about the election were well-founded, that DOJ officials rebuffed them and the entire dispute amounts to an internal disagreement about what DOJ’s official position should have been.
“There is nothing dishonest and nothing in violation of the rules of professional conduct about proposing a change in position,” Clark’s lawyer, Harry MacDougald, argued. “Mr. Clark did nothing wrong.”
Clark is unlikely to testify in the proceeding. His lawyers have indicated he is likely to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if called to the stand.
Fox intends to rely on testimony from White House and DOJ officials — including Donoghue, Rosen and former deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin. Clark’s lawyer said he intends to call former Attorney General Edwin Meese, as well as a member of the Atlanta-area election board who opposed certifying the results.
No comments:
Post a Comment