(Photo
by
Yuri
Gripas-Pool/Getty
Images)
The
list
of
lawyers
who
got
involved
with
Donald
Trump
and
broke
bad
is
long
and
distinguished
…
well,
formerly
distinguished
anyway.
And
while
no
one
will
top
Rudy
Giuliani
for
spectacular
career
implosion,
don’t
sleep
on
onetime
Justice
Department
Attorney
Jeffrey
B.
Clark.
Clark’s
attempt
to
persuade
Attorney
General
Jeffrey
Rosen
to
announce
non-existent
investigations
of
non-existent
swing
state
electoral
fraud
put
him
at
the
center
of
the
January
6
Select
Committee’s
hearing
on
Trump’s
efforts
to
remain
in
power.
And
now
Clark
is
apparently
in
the
DOJ’s
sights
as
well.
In
June,
the
Justice
Department
seized
Clark’s
phone
pursuant
to
a
warrant,
and
the
privilege
dispute
over
his
emails
spilled
out
onto
the
public
docket
late
last
week
when
Chief
Judge
Beryl
Howell
of
the
federal
court
in
DC
unsealed
several
orders
she’d
issued
this
fall.
Some
of
the
disputed
materials
were
from
the
communications
of
Pennsylvania
Rep.
Scott
Perry,
a
congressional
leader
of
the
effort
to
block
certification
of
Biden’s
win,
and
from
Trump’s
Coups
4
Dummies
lawyer
John
Eastman.
Perry
and
Eastman
have
also
had
their
devices
seized
by
the
FBI,
and
neither
was
successful
at
persuading
the
court
to
see
the
merits
of
their
privilege
objections.
But
despite
their
dogged
efforts
to
document
every
twist
and
turn
of
this
Keystone
Coup,
neither
of
the
exhibited
such
hilariously
bad
judgment
as
Clark.
See,
Clark
spent
much
of
2021
writing
his
autobiography.
In
Google
Note.
Autosaving
it
to
his
email.
With
the
explicit
notation
that
“[n]one
of
this
outline
reveals
privileged
information.”
And
the
day
after
he
got
subpoenaed
he
added
the
notation
“However
this
is
attorney
work
product.”
GULC
’95,
REPRESENT!
Let’s
leave
aside
the
question
of
who
on
earth
would
read
a
biography
of
Jeff
freakin’
Clark
—
best
not
to
contemplate
what
goes
on
in
that
dude’s
mind.
Our
story
picks
up
when
the
filter
team
completed
its
review
and
decreed
that
Clark’s
life
story,
beginning
with
his
childhood
“growing
up
deplorable
in
Philadelphia”
and
culminating
with
his
vow
to
“resist
communism”
and
work
on
“Covid
litigation
and
against
wokeism,”
was
not
subject
to
privilege.
Clark’s
attorney
Charles
Burnham,
who
also
represents
Eastman
(so
he’s
used
to
getting
his
ass
handed
to
him
in
privilege
disputes!),
argues
that,
contrary
to
the
329
drafts
of
this
document
where
Clark
said
otherwise,
the
document
is
work
product.
Or,
in
the
alternative,
it
is
covered
by
attorney-client
privilege
…
because
it’s
fun
to
say
crazy
shit
in
federal
court.
As
laid
out
by
Judge
Howell,
the
work
product
claim
rests
on
Clark’s
claim
to
have
been
taking
notes
on
his
childhood
and
his
role
in
the
dispute
over
the
2000
election
results
in
anticipation
of
“litigation”
with
the
January
6
Select
Committee.
In
support
of
this
“attorney
work
product’
assertion,
Clark
contends
that
he
was
able
to
“prepare
work-product-protected
notes
for
his
own
defense,
and
“at
all
times,
Mr.
Clark
has
acted
as
his
own
counsel
in
the
various
matters
on
the
Hill
and
elsewhere.”
Specifically,
Clark
argues
that
he
could
have
prepared
the
documents
“about
the
upcoming
legal
challenges
being
anticipated”
after
the
House
Select
Committee
to
Investigate
the
January
6,
2021
Attack
on
the
Capitol
requested
that
Clark
provide
testimony
about
the
Justice
Department’s
investigations
of
alleged
voter
fraud
related
to
the
2020
election
results.
As
the
court
notes,
writing
a
mash
note
to
yourself
wherein
you
promise
to
be
a
warrior
against
“wokeism”
can’t
be
transformed
into
a
legal
project
simply
by
adding
some
“work-product
buzzwords.”
And
anyway,
testifying
to
Congress
is
not
anticipated
litigation
—
although
getting
indicted
for
violating
18
USC
1512(c)(2)
is!
Clark
made
two
similarly
gonzo
arguments
in
support
of
his
attorney-client
privilege
claims:
Either
he
was
representing
himself,
and
thus
having
privileged
conversations
with
his
lawyer.
Or,
in
the
alternative,
he
was
at
the
time
represented
by
Robert
Driscoll,
and
“many
attorneys
have
a
practice
of
even
requesting
that
clients
provide
autobiographical
information
for
use
in
the
representation.”
Judge
Howell
pays
very
little
attention
to
the
first
of
these
claims,
since
it
is
essentially
the
same
as
the
work-product
claim
and
is
anyway
so
ridiculous
as
to
be
beneath
the
court’s
notice.
As
to
the
second,
the
judge
spends
some
time
on
it,
if
only
to
shred
Clark’s
lawyer
for
arguing
that
his
client
could
have
been
writing
his
autobiography
for
Driscoll
in
the
absence
of
any
evidence
or
testimony
that
he
did
anything
of
the
kind.
Clark’s
counsel
asserted
in
a
letter
to
the
filter
team
that
the
“substance
of
the
documents
was
later
communicated
to
counsel,”
Aug.
25,
2022
Clark’s
Counsel
Letter,
but
avoids
repeating
that
assertion
in
his
opposition
to
the
government’s
motion.
Clark’s
brief
notably
avoids
making
many
factual
assertions
at
all,
instead
arguing
legal
hypotheticals
that
may
or
may
not
apply
to
the
facts
at
hand.
See,
e.g.,
Clark’s
Opp’n
at
5
(describing
Clark
as
“entirely
capable
of
preparing
a
document
capturing
his
own
mental
impressions,
legal
strategy,
and
related
notes
about
the
upcoming
legal
challenges,”
without
stating
that
Clark
did
in
fact
prepare
the
drafts
for
this
purpose);
id.
at
6
(noting
that
“many
attorneys
have
a
practice
of
even
requesting
that
clients
provide
autobiographical
information”
without
arguing
that
Clark’s
counsel
actually
did
so);
id.
[…]
That
the
opposition
brief
elided
any
firm
factual
assertion
about
Clark’s
intended
purpose
in
writing
the
drafts
—
even
while
making
legal
arguments
that
depended
on
such
facts
being
true
—
raises
concern
about
any
good
faith
basis
Clark
has
for
claiming
protection
under
the
attorney-client
privilege
or
the
work-product
doctrine.
OUCH.
But Rachel
Semmel,
spokeswoman
at
the
Center
for
Renewing
America,
an
astroturf
group
dedicated
to
fighting
the
supposed
scourge
of
critical
race
theory
which
employs
Clark
as
the
director
of
litigation,
has
answer
for
that.
“Just
to
show
how
desperate
they
are,
the
Friday
before
Christmas
when
nobody
is
paying
attention,
they
‘uncover’
an
essay
on
how
the
communists
are
taking
over
—
a
foreshadowing
of
what
the
Justice
Department
and
the
J6
committee
are
doing
now,
and
articles
on
how
Biden’s
global
warming
plan
is
going
to
destroy
the
economy
—
it’s
hard
to
take
these
guys
seriously,”
she
fulminated
to
Politico.
On
the
other
hand,
Semmel
works
for
an
organization
whose
litigation
director
is
not
only
under
federal
investigation
but
is
also
suing
the
DC
bar
in
an
effort
to
hang
onto
his
license
to
practice
law.
So,
you
know, big
grain
of
salt.
Judge
unseals
new
details
of
contacts
among
Rep.
Perry,
Trump-connected
attorneys
[Politico]
Elizabeth
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.
Staci
Kathryn
Annette
