Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

The Endless Bummer

Jeffrey Clark has responded to the motion to compel filed by District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel with his usual ad hominem attacks on his prosecutors

ODC’s request to “compel” Respondent to comply with this Court’s January 19 order is frivolous. ODC does not cite any legal authorities or, most importantly, specify in what respect Mr. Clark violated the January 19 order. The order itself is phrased in permissive terms and does not require the parties to eliminate some specific number of witnesses or exhibits. Mr. Clark did not violate the order.

In reality, ODC appears flummoxed by Respondent’s assertion that he will make all arguments not foreclosed by January 11 order in support of evidence that will support his defense. However, there is nothing inappropriate about this position and, in fact, a vigorous defense of Mr. Clark requires no less. If Mr. Clark is unable to lay a foundation for post January 3 evidence that is compliant with the January 11 order, then much of the evidence may indeed be excluded. However, there is nothing ex ante compelling Mr. Clark to waive his right to attempt to lay such foundation and he does not so waive. ODC has no valid objections to this position other than to complain that it is not the most conducive for ODC’s preferred trial preparation.

The balance of ODC’s motion consists largely of by-now-familiar ad hominem personal attacks about the defense’s “effort[s] to delay and obstruct these proceedings” by making legal arguments. Respondent will not respond at length to these attacks other than to state that he will defend against ODC’s attempt to steal his livelihood and besmirch his name with all evidence and arguments available to him. The motion to compel should be denied.

The allegations are that Respondent attempted to steal the 2020 election and besmirch democracy.

If Disciplinary Counsel cannot establish those contentions by clear and convincing evidence, the case will be dismissed. If the violations are established, Respondent will face appropriate discipline.

In either event, no theft occurs.

Such is the price one pays for the privilege of bar admission.

Cry me a river. (Mike Frisch)