Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark could face disbarment for aiding Trump

Original source (on modern site) | Article images: [1]

Jeffrey Clark, a former senior Justice Department official who sought to use the agency's influence to help reverse President Donald Trump's 2020 election defeat, violated legal ethics and should be sanctioned professionally, even prohibited from practicing law in the nation's capital, an attorney for the D.C. Bar told a disciplinary panel Tuesday.

"To use the authority of the Department of Justice to overturn the election, based on a lie, with no concerns that the department had no evidence of fraud that affected the election — and Mr. Clark didn't have any evidence either — what Mr. Clark was attempting to do was essentially a coup at the Department of Justice," said Hamilton P. "Phil" Fox III, lead prosecuting attorney for the D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Fox was addressing an investigatory panel of lawyers that eventually will decide whether Clark, who was appointed as an assistant attorney general by Trump in 2017, should face professional discipline, including possibly being stripped of his law license in the District. The proceeding is expected to last into next week.

Fox told the three-member panel that Clark, who headed the Justice Department's environment and natural resources division, repeatedly violated department ethics when he tried to help Trump overturn Georgia's presidential election results and undo Joe Biden's victory at the polls.

Clark was indicted last year in Fulton County, Ga., along with Trump and 17 others in connection with those alleged efforts. He has pleaded not guilty to two charges, including violating Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has alleged that Clark engaged in dishonest conduct when he drafted a letter that he wanted the Justice Department to send to Georgia officials, demanding that the state legislature call a special session to examine votes in the presidential election.

In the draft letter, Clark said the department had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia." That assertion was false, according to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which noted that Justice officials were unaware of any allegations of election fraud in Georgia that would have affected the results of the presidential race.

Clark's attorney at Tuesday's hearing repeatedly pointed out that the letter was never sent and that Clark should be protected from discipline because of attorney-client confidentiality.

"The evidence in this case is going to show that Mr. Clark at all times tried to do the right thing," lawyer Harry MacDougald said. "He did not violate any rule of professional conduct and certainly not the ones charged in this case." MacDougald also argued that the D.C. Bar's disciplinary office has never charged a lawyer with "attempted dishonesty" for a draft letter that was never sent.

"This was an internal debate and an internal disagreement. The letter was never released by Mr. Clark or by the president," he said. "Mr. Clark did nothing wrong in having a different opinion from his Justice superiors, especially when it was sincerely held, as the evidence will show."

Clark has been licensed to practice in the District since 1997. Citing his criminal case, he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to testify in the bar proceeding.

In a separate, federal indictment in D.C. accusing Trump of election interference, prosecutors vividly depicted Clark's alleged role in a conspiracy that they say Trump orchestrated. That indictment identifies Clark only as "Co-Conspirator 4," but it includes details that match reporting about Clark's post-election role. It portrays him as a linchpin of plans to bypass the acting attorney general and use the imprimatur of the Justice Department to spread "knowingly false claims of election fraud" and deceitfully substitute legitimate electors with sham alternates supporting Trump.

A month after the 2020 election, Trump considered naming Clark acting attorney general, to replace then-acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen. This led to a dramatic confrontation in the White House, when senior Justice officials told Trump he would risk mass resignations if he appointed Clark and fired Rosen, who was refusing to help legitimize the Georgia election fraud claims, according to witnesses who appeared before a bipartisan House panel investigating the tumultuous post-election events.

Tuesday's hearing was before a panel known as the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee for the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility.

Fox's first witness, Richard Donoghue, who served as Rosen's deputy, testified that Clark and other Justice officials were repeatedly reminded that they were not to meet personally with Trump or White House officials about allegations of voter fraud, and that it was the job of law enforcement agencies to investigate such claims. Donoghue said Justice officers were stunned to learn that Clark continued to meet with Trump and that the president was considering a "change of leadership" by having Clark replace Rosen.

When Clark drafted the letter, Donoghue said, neither he nor Rosen thought it was "appropriate." Donoghue testified he told Clark that DOJ officials had completed their investigation and there was "no basis" for Clark's fraud claims.

"We told him it was left field," Donoghue testified. "I said: 'Where are you getting this from? You are not involved in any of these investigations.' He said it was all over the news and all over the internet and he had read affidavits that were filed."

Clark admitted to meeting with Trump and violating DOJ meeting policies, Donoghue said, but Clark asserted, "There is more at stake here than policy."

Donoghue warned him not to meet with Trump again. Clark told him he would not.

Isaac Stanley-Becker contributed to this report.