Former Justice Department lawyer Jeff Clark has been redirected to face RICO charges in Fulton County next year, countering his propositions for the federal court. He’s in the lineup with co-defendants Donald Trump and 16 others. US District Judge Steve Jones held that the case was beyond his jurisdiction, turning down Clark’s claim that his official duties covered authoring a letter to state legislators implying that the DOJ had detected evidence of fraud, thus, undermining the results of the presidential polls against Biden.
Despite Clark’s insistence that he pursued these actions under his official responsibilities, his superiors, acting AG Jeff Rosen and Deputy Richard Donoghue, criticised him for superseding his authority. His position as head of the Civil Division does not involve the investigation or prosecution of election fraud. When Clark lobbied for the acting AG appointment during the infamous Oval Office showdown on January 3, 2021, Donoghue snidely suggested Clark return to his environmental lawyer roots.
Clark defended his stand by claiming he had acted as per Trump’s request, who was leading the executive branch. To back his arguments, his lawyers provided a declaration by AG Ed Meese during Ronald Reagan’s presidency and Clark’s own testimony, the latter of which was dismissed as it wasn’t subject to cross-examination. Clark refrained from testifying during the September 18 evidentiary hearing, and there was no chance of Trump defending him in court.
Jody Hunt, Clark’s predecessor in the Civil Division, refuted Clark’s assertions in the witness stand. He clarified that election cases had nothing to do with his role. He also countered Clark’s argument that defending the vice president in an election lawsuit proved his alleged responsibilities towards election fraud. As per Hunt, Clark’s duties involved defending executive branch officials in all civil cases.
Judge Jones noted a conspicuous lack of evidence that the President had instructed Clark to address election-related matters or author a letter to Georgia State Officials about their election procedures. The court concluded that while the pretext for federal officer removal was indeed low, the onus was on the party demanding removal to prove the jurisdictional basis. The defendant had failed to provide substantial evidence to connect the indictment allegations with his official role.
Clark’s lawyers also questioned the legitimacy of the special purpose grand jury that originally conducted the election interference probe in 2020. Ignoring multiple court verdicts that declared the SPGJ a criminal body, Clark stuck to his assertion that it was a civil entity. Thus, he implied his petition was a civil/criminal hybrid, and thus he could invoke the automatic stay provision of civil removal statute. Judge Jones practically dismissed this claim, mentioning that the SPGJ had ceased operations nine months prior.
With his options exhausted, Clark finds himself back to square one in the state court. And it seems the trajectory of his case might descend further as his co-defendant Scott Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman, has pleaded guilty at a recent hearing.
More detailed information about this case can be found in the State of Georgia v. Clark docket.