Trump Official Accused of DOJ ‘Coup’ Plot in Bar Hearing (1)

Ex-Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Clark violated ethics rules in a bid to help Donald Trump challenge the 2020 election results, a DC Bar official said in a hearing Tuesday.

Clark used his DOJ leadership role to push baseless voter fraud claims and angle to keep Trump in office after President Joe Biden won the election, according to Hamilton Fox. Clark was thwarted by the top lawyers at the department at the time, said Fox, who is leading the attorney discipline case against Clark.

“What Mr. Clark was attempting to do was essentially a coup at the Justice Department,” said Fox.

A panel in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday began hearing the case against Clark, who faces potential disbarment among a range of punishment. His possible role in a second Trump administration also is at risk: Clark is unlikely to be tapped to return to the Justice Department if he loses his law license.

Several lawyers and other officials who featured in events leading up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot are among those who expected to testify.

Clark, who also faces criminal charges in Georgia, has called the proceedings politically motivated retaliation for his support for Trump. His lawyer, Harry MacDougald, argued in opening remarks Tuesday that Clark “at all times attempted to do the right thing.”

According to Fox, Clark violated professional conduct rules for lawyers by attempting to engage in conduct that involved dishonesty and that would “seriously interfere” with the administration of justice.

Fox said Clark, who ran the DOJ civil division at the end of the Trump administration, waded out of his depth and into election conspiracy theories. He’s among several Trump allies, including some attorneys, facing punishment for efforts to stoke chaos in the aftermath of the election.

“I’m sorry to say that in some of these efforts, he was aided by lawyers,” Fox said, referring to Trump. “And one of those lawyers was Jeffrey Clark.”

Clark allegedly pushed to take over as acting attorney general after Bill Barr stepped down from the role. He also circulated a draft Dec. 28, 2020 letter claiming the DOJ had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election” in Georgia and other states.

Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue, the top two DOJ officials at the time, rejected those claims and refused to sign off on the letter.

Donoghue was the first witness called at the Tuesday hearing.

He said that Trump—in meetings and the White House and at least one phone call—appeared to be looking to install Clark as acting attorney general, beginning in late December 2020. Trump also appeared to seek assurances that the move would not cause upheaval inside the department.

“People tell me Jeff Clark is great,” Donoghue recalled Trump saying in one conversation.

“That’s fine, Mr. President. You can install who you want to,” Donoghue said he replied to Trump. “He must act on facts and evidence.”

Patrick Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel, testified that Clark said he wanted to take over the top role at the department.

“Jeff’s view was that there was a crisis in the country and there was something he could do about it,” said Philbin.

Philbin said he tried to persuade Clark against seeking the job. He said he warned Clark that the efforts to overturn the election would likely spark riots across the country.

Clark’s response, according to Philbin: “That’s what the Insurrection Act is for.”

‘Internal Disagreement’

Clark has listed a number of witnesses that he may call to take the stand when he puts on his defense later this week.

They include Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House chief of staff, as well as Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry. Reagan administration attorney general Edwin Meese is also among the prospective witnesses.

MacDougald, Clark’s lawyer, called his discussion with Donoghue and others at DOJ little more than “an internal debate and an internal disagreement,” over “a draft, confidential document that never left the office.” It shouldn’t be a basis for possible sanctions against Clark, MacDougald told the three-member panel hearing the case.

“Clark shouldn’t be here for giving a candid opinion in a privileged, confidential conversation,” MacDougald said.

If the discipline hearing committee decides Clark should be sanctioned, the matter would go before the Board on Professional Responsibility, and then to the DC Court of Appeals, before being decided.