“Mr Clark did not explain his actions to the Hearing Committee, instead invoking the Fifth Amendment. Certainly, he can defend himself here however he chooses. But that does not relieve him ‘from recognizing the seriousness of the misconduct that led to’ this proceeding.”
“Indeed, lawyers can both mount a vigorous defense while acknowledging mistakes and pledging to do things differently if given the opportunity. From the outset of these proceedings, Mr Clark has refused to engage with the facts and the actual allegations against him but has instead treated the process as though it were a totalitarian show trial. His Answer addressed none of the salient facts alleged in the Specification of Charges. Instead, it raised 54 affirmative defenses, including ‘ODC’s Prosecution Here is Political in Nature,’ ‘ODC’s Collusion with Congress Violates the Separation of Power,’ ‘ODC May Not Violate the Confidentiality of the Investigative Stage of the Disciplinary Process or Try Its Case in the Press,’ ‘ODC’s Filing of Charges Occurred at Least in Part to Penalize Respondent for Exercising His Constitutional Rights, a Course of Conduct that Violates Due Process and the First Amendment,’ and ‘Res Judicata/Preclusion’ [based on President Trump’s acquittal at his second impeachment trial]. Needless to say, no evidence was ever adduced to support any of these claims,” writes the DC Bar Association’s Disciplinary Counsel team in their conclusion on Trump toady former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark’s misconduct proceedings, adding they request that “the Hearing Committee adopt these proposed findings of fact, conclude that Mr Clark violated the Rules as charged, and recommend that he be disbarred.” Womp womp.