{"id":2338579,"date":"2024-09-09T08:28:58","date_gmt":"2024-09-09T12:28:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/if-anyone-should-be-disbarred-its-jack-smith-not-jeffrey-clark\/"},"modified":"2024-09-09T08:37:14","modified_gmt":"2024-09-09T12:37:14","slug":"if-anyone-should-be-disbarred-its-jack-smith-not-jeffrey-clark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/if-anyone-should-be-disbarred-its-jack-smith-not-jeffrey-clark\/","title":{"rendered":"If Anyone Should Be Disbarred It&#8217;s Jack Smith, Not Jeffrey Clark"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fif-anyone-should-be-disbarred-its-jack-smith-not-jeffrey-clark%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2338579&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>In a recent superseding indictment against\u2062 former President \u200cDonald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith has removed references to Jeffrey Clark, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney General. Clark&#8217;s legal representation argues that this removal serves as evidence that he should\u200c retain \u2063his law license, especially following a recommendation from the District of Columbia Bar for a two-year\u2062 suspension related to advice he provided concerning\u2064 alleged election fraud during the 2020 presidential elections. The controversy centers around internal discussions within the Justice Department, where Clark suggested that the department should send a letter to Georgia officials \u2064regarding potential election irregularities, although\u200c the \u2063letter was never sent.<\/p>\n<p>The D.C. Bar&#8217;s actions have raised concerns about executive privilege and the implications of using internal deliberations to discipline officials who provide advice to \u200dthe president. Critics argue that this could deter open and honest counsel within the executive\u2064 branch, ultimately \u2062harming the presidency. There are also questions regarding whether Smith himself should face discipline for his actions, especially if his indictment of Trump is determined to be constitutionally flawed. The situation has drawn \u2064attention to the authority under\u2064 which Smith operates, with a \u200d<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/antitrust-reform-a-trojan-horse-packed-with-progressives-and-crony-capitalists\/\" title=\"Antitrust Reform: A Trojan Horse Packed With Progressives And Crony Capitalists\">federal judge ruling<\/a> that \u2063his appointment lacked constitutional validity, leading to ongoing appeals.<\/p>\n<p>The likelihood of disciplinary action against Smith and his team seems low, according\u200d to observers, noting the\u2062 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/good-for-public-to-be-little-scared-of-chatgpt-openai-ceo-says\/\" title=\"OpenAI CEO Acknowledges Importance of Caution with ChatGPT\">potential political biases<\/a> within the D.C. Bar. The unfolding situation poses significant implications for future \u200cpresidential advisory roles and the legal boundaries of executive actions.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>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&rsquo;s lawyers argue it&rsquo;s another reason Clark shouldn&rsquo;t lose his law license.<\/p>\n<p>On Aug. 1, a disciplinary panel of the District of Columbia Bar had recommended a suspension of at least two years for Clark.<\/p>\n<p>The disciplinary proceedings arose in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. Clark recommended sending an advisory to Georgia in light of Trump&rsquo;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&rsquo;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.<\/p>\n<p>The implications of the panel recommendation are profoundly troubling. A president &mdash; the head of the executive branch &mdash; relies on advice from many people within his administration&rsquo;s orbit. The Supreme Court ruled in <em>Trump v. United States<\/em> 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. <\/p>\n<p>Yet the D.C. Bar wants to use these same internal discussions between Trump, Clark, and other <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/gop-senator-asks-two-biden-cabinet-members-whether-high-ranking-officials-are-using-encrypted-apps-to-cloak-communications\/\" title=\"GOP Senator Asks Two Biden Cabinet Members Whether \u2018High Ranking\u2019 Officials Are Using Encrypted Apps To \u2018Cloak\u2019 Communications\">executive branch officials<\/a> to punish Clark. It is an extraordinary intrusion for a local disciplinary body to stick its nose into the advice that an executive branch lawyer provided to a president. Executive privilege and the <em>Trump v. United States <\/em>exclusionary rule exist to preserve the ability of a president to receive frank counsel from advisers; yet, the D.C. Bar&rsquo;s actions chill such counsel, thus seriously harming the presidency and our country.<\/p>\n<h2>Should Smith be Disciplined?<\/h2>\n<p>Trump is not the only president whose officials could face discipline using the panel&rsquo;s newfound approach in this, the first case of its kind. As the panel noted, Clark never sent his proposed letter. The case involved internal Justice Department deliberations. Smith, by contrast, pursued and obtained an indictment against Trump.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court effectively struck some portions of the indictment (such as Trump&rsquo;s consultations with the Justice Department, including Clark) because it concerned acts for which a president is absolutely immune. Smith violated the Constitution by indicting Trump for some acts for which some form of presidential immunity precludes indictment. Should Smith and his cohorts face discipline by the bars in which they are members? Did they act recklessly? Their actions, after all, resulted in a constitutionally defective indictment and the violation of Trump&rsquo;s constitutional rights. And they did so in a way that could well affect the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. <\/p>\n<p>Smith&rsquo;s recent decision to remove Clark from his new superseding indictment filed against Trump does not change the analysis because Smith&rsquo;s prior actions had already caused harm to Clark and to President Trump.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, Smith did not even hold the authority to indict Trump. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who presided over Trump&rsquo;s indictment for the alleged mishandling of classified information in the Southern District of Florida, ruled that Smith&rsquo;s appointment was unconstitutional. Judge Cannon determined that Smith&rsquo;s position is equivalent to that of a U.S. attorney. As such, he required Senate confirmation, and Garland&rsquo;s decision to pluck Smith from the Hague to prosecute Trump lacked statutory authority.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Smith is appealing. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and perhaps the Supreme Court, will ultimately decide the question of the validity of Smith&rsquo;s appointment. Suppose that Jack Smith loses. That is, suppose the Supreme Court rightfully concludes that he acted without any legal authority. Should he and his team face bar discipline? If courts rule his appointment invalid, that would mean that Smith and his team submitted numerous court filings without legal authority. They in turn caused the judiciary to expend years of finite resources dealing with lawyers who, if the courts so rule, never had any business appearing in those courts in the first place. Would these actions amount to recklessness by Smith and his team?<\/p>\n<p>It is highly unlikely that the D.C. Bar, a left-leaning institution, would punish Smith and his team. Laughably, the disciplinary counsel who sought Clark&rsquo;s disbarment claimed that Clark&rsquo;s actions had constituted the second greatest threat to democracy in our history, only behind the Civil War. While the panel rejected this deranged statement, it still suggested the application of an absurd penalty. <\/p>\n<p>Clark engaged in internal deliberations with the president and other Justice Department officials. He made a proposal to send a letter merely calling for more state investigations by Georgia. No harm came from an unsent letter. Much harm, by contrast, has indisputably come from the actions of Smith and other Justice Department officials serving under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.<\/p>\n<h2>Interference and Partisanship<\/h2>\n<p>Disciplinary bodies should not interfere with the advice that executive branch officials provide to presidents, just as these groups should not interfere with the advice that congressional aides provide to U.S. representatives or senators. <\/p>\n<p>Ultimately, our republic entrusts the president to lead the executive branch; he can accept or reject the advice of aides. Neither Trump nor his Justice Department ever complained to the D.C. Bar about Clark&rsquo;s legal advice, and Trump left Clark in place as the only <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/breaking-antrim-co-forensic-report-bombshell-reveals-dominion-machines-were-set-at-68-05-error-ratemeaning-68-05-of-ballots-could-be-sent-out-for-mass-adjudication-giving-individuals-or-ma\/\" title=\"BREAKING: Antrim Co. Forensic Report BOMBSHELL Reveals Dominion Machines Were Set At 68.05% Error Rate\u2026Meaning 68.05% Of Ballots Could Be Sent Out For Mass Adjudication, Giving Individuals Or Machines Ability To Change 68.05% Of Votes\">assistant attorney general<\/a> running two of the Justice Department&rsquo;s seven litigating divisions simultaneously. The case against Clark instead began with a complaint by partisan Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who had no personal knowledge of anything that had occurred inside the executive branch.<\/p>\n<p>The solution is not to chill unpopular advice through future bar discipline, especially where no one with first-hand knowledge had even complained. That scheme weakens the presidency and, if applied to legislative aides, Congress, or if applied to law clerks or judges, the judiciary. That chilling effect is far more detrimental to the nation than any advice that one lawyer might provide, and we must categorically reject it.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a new indictment against former President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith has eliminated mentions of former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark. Clark&#8217;s legal team contends that this is yet another justification for him to retain his law license. On August 1, a disciplinary panel from the District of Columbia Bar suggested that Clark should face at least a two-year suspension due to actions taken following the 2020 presidential election. Clark had proposed sending an advisory to Georgia in response to Trump&#8217;s allegations of election fraud and irregularities, including changes to election laws related to COVID-19 that were not approved by state legislators. He suggested drafting a letter\u2014though it was never sent\u2014to Georgia\u2019s top elected officials urging them to convene a special session of the state legislature to investigate potential irregularities in the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<p>The implications of this panel&#8217;s recommendation are concerning. A president relies on advice from various individuals within their administration, and last month, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that discussions between Trump and his Justice Department cannot be scrutinized by Special Counsel Smith as part of his indictment against Trump. However, the D.C. Bar seeks to use these internal discussions involving Trump and Clark as grounds for disciplinary action against Clark\u2014a significant overreach for a local disciplinary body into executive branch legal counsel.<\/p>\n<p>This situation raises questions about whether Smith should face discipline himself; after all, he pursued an indictment based on actions deemed constitutionally protected under presidential immunity while disregarding similar protections afforded during internal deliberations at the Justice Department regarding Clark\u2019s proposals.<\/p>\n<p>Smith&#8217;s recent decision not to include references to Clark in his updated indictment does not mitigate any harm already caused by previous actions against both Clark and Trump. Furthermore, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith\u2019s appointment was unconstitutional since it required Senate confirmation akin to that of a U.S attorney\u2014a point currently under appeal with potential review by higher courts.<\/p>\n<p>If courts determine Smith acted without proper authority, it would imply he submitted numerous filings without legal standing\u2014raising concerns about recklessness on his part and whether he should face bar discipline as well.<\/p>\n<p>It seems unlikely that the D.C. Bar will take action against Smith given its left-leaning nature; however, claims made during proceedings have been extreme\u2014one official even suggesting Clark posed one of democracy&#8217;s greatest threats since the Civil War\u2014though this assertion was dismissed by the panel while still recommending severe penalties.<\/p>\n<p>Clark engaged only in internal discussions with other officials regarding advice provided during those deliberations; no actual harm resulted from an unsent letter proposing further investigations in Georgia compared with significant repercussions stemming from actions taken under Biden\u2019s administration.<\/p>\n<p>Disciplinary bodies ought not interfere with executive branch advice just as they shouldn&#8217;t meddle with congressional aides&#8217; guidance provided within legislative contexts; ultimately allowing presidents discretion over accepting or rejecting such counsel is crucial for maintaining effective governance without chilling unpopular opinions through fear of future repercussions\u2014a detrimental outcome far worse than any single lawyer&#8217;s advice could ever be<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1587,"featured_media":2338580,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Clark2-e1725544342716.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[40439,32463,40440,40441,36913],"class_list":["post-2338579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-disbarment","tag-jack-smith","tag-jeffrey-clark","tag-legal-commentary","tag-legal-ethics"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Clark2-e1725544342716.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2338579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1587"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2338579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2338579\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2338580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2338579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2338579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2338579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}