In a superseding indictment filed last week against former President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith removed references to former United States Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark. Clark’s lawyers argue it’s another reason Clark shouldn’t lose his law license.
On Aug. 1, a disciplinary panel of the District of Columbia Bar had recommended a suspension of at least two years for Clark.
The disciplinary proceedings arose in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. Clark recommended sending an advisory to Georgia in light of Trump’s claims of election fraud and irregularities, such as unconstitutional Covid-related changes to election law not adopted by state legislators. Clark proposed that the Justice Department send a letter, the draft of which was never even sent, to Georgia’s top three senior statewide elected officials suggesting the state legislature convene in a special session to investigate for itself potential irregularities in the 2020 election.
The implications of the panel recommendation are profoundly troubling. A president — the head of the executive branch — relies on advice from many people within his administration’s orbit. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States last month that discussions between the president and his Justice Department are off limits to Special Counsel Smith in terms of his indictment of Trump.
Yet the D.C. Bar wants to use these same internal discussions between Trump, Clark, and other executive branch officials to punish Clark. It is an extraordinary intrusion for a local disciplinary body to stick its nose into the
