The outrageous persecution of Jeff Clark

Flopping Aces ^ | 08-05-25 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

Jeffrey Clark is an American lawyer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Harvard University (A.B., 1989), earned an M.A. in Urban Affairs and Public Policy from the University of Delaware (1993), and received a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center (1995). Clark served as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division (2018–2021) and acting head of the Civil Division (2020) at the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration. He is a dedicated American patriot. Clark is now facing threatened disbarment for seeking the truth.

James Burnham:

On the heels of DC attempting to disbar @JeffClarkUS, a dark money group has escalated further–filing bar complaints against little-known lawyers who defend the Administration in court. This is a frontal assault on the Executive Branch. It must be defeated at all costs.

Let’s set the stage. First, the subjects of the complaints are the political appointee who has my old job–Deputy Assistant AG for Federal Programs, in @TheJusticeDept parlance–and two career lawyers. These are not high profile people accustomed to harassment. 2/

Second, the complainant appears to be a random group funded by left-wing dark money. (The “Legal Accountability Center”; Orwell would be proud.) It is not a former client or current litigant. It’s seemingly some activists paid to read X all day, then harass government lawyers based on public reporting. 3/

Third, the basis of the complaint is ludicrous–claims that these lawyers were somehow dishonest with the district court in litigation over terminations at the CFPB. This random complainant has no basis for that claim; it is internet speculation pasted into a complaint. It is also false. 4/

So now what? It seems obvious that state bars cannot dictate how federal Justice Department lawyers represent the Executive Branch. And it seems equally obvious that government lawyers–already making significant financial and personal sacrifice to serve their country–should be maximally shielded from this type of harassment. 5/

The harassment is, of course, the point. This group doesn’t care if these lawyers actually face sanction. Its goal is to intimidate them into chilling their advocacy on behalf of the Executive Branch. It wants to pressure them, in other words, to be less zealous lawyers. 6/

These are exceptionally gifted attorneys so this intimidation game will fail, but it is still an enormous problem. @TheJusticeDept lawyers already work long hours for comparatively low pay. Now they also have to deal with this crap? 7/

The courts have developed immunity doctrines in other contexts to pretermit this sort of harassment. Prosecutors (and judges) are absolutely immune from direct civil suit. Federal officers acting in their official capacity are immune from state sanction. etc 8/

I’m sure lawyers @TheJusticeDept are crafting arguments to resist the attack on @JeffClarkUS and this new assault on line attorneys. I am too, so please share ideas. As @GeneHamiltonUSA and I have discussed, defending the rule of law requires that we stick up for public officials who spend each day trying to uphold it.

Lawfare, or rather, Disbarfare, is now the goal of anti-Trump lawyers. Let them tell you themselves:

These people describe how they are using lawfare to go after Trump and his associates. They are now saying that since the SC gave Trump some immunity that they will be using lawfare against people in his administration and also have them disbarred. They also talk about using… pic.twitter.com/pXZTEvwaDa

— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) September 8, 2024

Lawyer Harry MacDougald:

With the federal executive branch in Republican hands, Democrat lawfare is being waged in venues the left still controls, such as bar disciplinary processes in left wing jurisdictions. D.C. voted Democrat more than 90% against Trump all three times he was on the ballot - the most lopsided margin in the country to have it's own Bar, and one that covers the many thousands of lawyers working in the HQ of the national government. The doctrine of federal supremacy protects the federal government and its employees from obstruction and harassment by hostile local officials. This is taught in the first week of constitutional law classes starting with the Supremacy Clause and McCullough v. Maryland. It is the animating principle of ~180 years of federal officer removal law under 28 USC 1442 and its predecessor statutes (at least until the ridiculous decision in Meadows v. Georgia in the 11th Circuit).

The District of Columbia was itself created to insulate the federal government from hostile neglect or abuse by a state government that would not come to its aid in a time of need.

Now, however, the federal government is headquartered in one of the most hostile jurisdictions in the country. Bar discipline is being weaponized to hobble the administration by destroying key officials, intimidating others from the vigorous execution of their duties, and deterring still others from even joining the government.

McCullough v. Maryland held in 1819 that: “[N]o principle of [state power] … can be admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations of a supreme government.” There are literally "many such cases" holding that states cannot impede the operations of the federal government such as but not limited to prosecuting or fining or otherwise impeding its officers in the execution of their duties. For D.C. as the seat of government, it's just the same, only more so.

But that's exactly what's going on with Bar warfare, or perhaps we could call it "Barfare."

The authority of the D.C. Bar over federal lawyers is extremely dubious. Until the McDade Act was passed in an omnibus spending bill in 1998, DOJ's position was that state or local disciplinary authority over DOJ lawyers was barred by federal supremacy. The McDade Act granted disciplinary authority to the states but the statute conspicuously omits D.C. in contrast to many other statutes that specifically refer to both the States and DC when they so choose. Under ordinary rules of statutory construction, the statute does not grant such authority to D.C., the ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.

In 1999 Janet Reno's DOJ issued regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 77 implementing the McDade Act. In 28 C.F.R. Section 77.2(h) the reg purports to extend disciplinary authority to D.C despite the omission such authority from the statute. This was obviously a Chevron step 1 violation, and after Loper Bright, there is simply no excuse for so plainly exceeding the scope of the statute. Neither agencies nor courts can replace omissions in statutes. Moreover, even if the statute and the regulations properly give the D.C. Bar authority over federal lawyers, their terms require federal lawyers be treated equally with non-federal lawyers and disciplined only to the same extent and for the same conduct as local lawyers. That ship sailed a long time ago.

DOJ can put a stop to this by rescinding 28 C.F.R. 77.2(h), which is unconstitutional on grounds of (1) supremacy and (2) separation of powers. It is also erroneous as a matter of statutory interpretation. DOJ could also rescind the regulation on the ground that its (and the statute's) requirement of equal treatment is being egregiously violated. The federal government's acquiescence to the McDade Act should also be reconsidered on supremacy grounds. D.C. is not the only hostile jurisdiction resorting to Barfare. Federal supremacy cannot be reconciled with a local bar association claiming punitive authority over confidential internal deliberations by the President of the United States with his senior legal advisors that occur within the zone of his exclusive and preclusive authorities under Article II. If this is not stopped, every attorney in DOJ who offends liberal pieties is at risk, even for confidential drafts that never even leave the office.

Clark and several other saw their privacy privileges violated in this process:

Officials from the first Trump administration are alleging they received notices from Google shortly before they returned to office that they were being probed by the FBI under the Biden administration and the web giant was unable to tell them because of a court order.

Dan Scavino, who is now White House Deputy Chief of Staff and assistant to the president, described the matter as "Biden lawfare" kicking in after he "patriotically and proudly" served during Trump’s first term. "Google received and responded to a legal process issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation compelling the release of information related to your Google account. A court order previously prohibited Google from notifying you of the legal process…" Scavino shared on X from an email he said he received from Google five weeks before Trump returned to the White House.

Imagine patriotically and proudly serving in the first Trump White House for four years, and departing in January of 2021 . . . Then, during the four years you're out, BIDEN LAWFARE kicks in, and you receive the below email five weeks before re-entering the White House again in…
— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) August 1, 2025

[suthener]

But a democrat FBI lawyer can knowingly and purposefully alter an email to secure the most stringent search warrant in the country and get barely a slap on the wrist. He should have been hung.

[MileHi]

Lawyer Harry MacDougald:

IIRC he is the FReeper who exposed Rathergate.

[sauropod]

Bkmk