The D.C. Bar’s push to disbar Jeffrey Clark, a former Trump Justice Department official, reeks of political score-settling.
The Daily Caller reported that on Thursday, the Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility accused Clark of “dishonesty” in a draft letter tied to the 2020 election, claiming he peddled false election fraud claims.
This move, steeped in progressive sanctimony, smells like another jab at anyone who dared question the 2020 narrative. The D.C. Bar’s recommendation targets Clark, now a key figure leading regulatory review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Their beef? A draft letter Clark penned during his DOJ stint, which the Bar says contained “intentionally false statements” about election fraud.
Clark’s actions, the Bar argues, crossed ethical lines, warranting the ultimate professional punishment: disbarment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Bar, holds the final say on whether Clark loses his law license. That decision looms, but the Bar’s aggressive stance already casts a long shadow.
“As a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated,” the Board declared, framing Clark’s actions as a threat to legal integrity.
Their sanctimonious tone suggests they’re more interested in signaling virtue than ensuring justice. The Bar’s own words betray a crusade to “send a message,” not just enforce rules.
The Board doubled down, claiming Clark’s draft letter was a lie about “the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election.” “While dishonesty is always intolerable,” they intoned, “the facts here are significantly aggravating to warrant disbarment.” This sounds less like a legal judgment and more like a moral lecture from the woke elite.
Yet, the Board Sauerkraut’s conveniently sidestepped the fact that no comparable case exists in D.C. Bar history. They admitted, “There are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases.” So why the rush to crucify Clark? It’s hard to see this as anything but selective outrage.
Clark’s defenders, like OMB communications director Rachel Cauley, aren’t buying the Bar’s narrative. “The D.C. Bar, which still counts Kevin Clinesmith, who lied to the FISA Court as a member in good standing, is a disgrace,” Cauley fired back. Her point stings—why does Clark face the guillotine while others skate?
Cauley didn’t stop there. “This latest injustice is just another chapter in the deep state’s ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him,” she said.
The “deep state” charge might sound like a MAGA bumper sticker, but the selective targeting of Trump allies raises eyebrows.
Clark’s ordeal isn’t new; he’s been a lightning rod since his DOJ days. “Jeff Clark has been harassed, raided, doxed, and blacklisted simply for questioning a rigged election,” Cauley added. Her defense paints Clark as a martyr for truth, though the Bar sees him as a menace to the profession.
Clark’s no stranger to the spotlight, having testified at a field hearing hosted by Congressman Matt Gaetz on June 13, 2023, in Washington, D.C. That January 6th-focused hearing gave Clark a platform to air his side, doubling down on his election fraud concerns. His defiance only fuels the Bar’s resolve to take him down.
The Bar’s report leans heavily on Clark’s intent, claiming he was “prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie.” Intent is a slippery slope—how do you prove what someone meant to do? This feels like a thought-crime prosecution dressed up as ethics enforcement.
The Board’s own words reveal their agenda: “We are mindful of the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and deter the respondent and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.” Deterrence? Sounds like they’re trying to scare off anyone else who might challenge the system.
No prior case matches Clark’s, yet the Bar’s gunning for the harshest penalty. This isn’t just about one lawyer; it’s about setting a precedent to silence dissent. The message is clear: toe the line, or lose your livelihood.
Clark’s current role at OMB makes him a high-profile target. The Bar’s move could chill free speech among legal professionals, especially those skeptical of institutional narratives. It’s less about ethics and more about control.
