(Photo
by
ANGELA
WEISS
/
AFP)
(Photo
by
ANGELA
WEISS/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
Earlier
this
year,
a
disciplinary
committee
concluded
that
former
Trump
DOJ
flunky
Jeff
Clark
violated
ethics
rules,
bolstering
the
DC
Disciplinary
Counsel’s
effort
to
disbar
Clark
for
good.
Clark,
a
DOJ
environmental
lawyer,
tried
to
convince
Trump
to
appoint
him
Acting
Attorney
General
so
he
could
shoot
out
a
bunch
of
phony
voter
fraud
claims
under
official
letterhead
and
give
state
legislatures
cover
to
toss
their
election
results
and
bless
Trump
elector
slates.
This
effort
ran
aground
when
ACTUAL
GROWN
UP
LAWYER
Deputy
Attorney
General
Richard
Donoghue
infamously
told
Clark,
“You’re
an
environmental
lawyer.
How
about
you
go
back
to
your
office,
and
we’ll
call
you
when
there’s
an
oil
spill.”
Unsurprisingly,
his
actions
sparked
an
ethics
inquiry
that
he
tried
to
circumvent
by
claiming
that
DC
ethics
rules
just
don’t
apply
to
him.
The
court
was
not
sympathetic.
In
any
event,
Clark
is
using
this
liminal
zone
as
he
awaits
the
other
shoe
falling
in
his
disciplinary
case
to
offer
his
“expert”
opinion
about
Kamala
Harris’s
legal
career.
So
the
California
Attorney
General
and
the
California
Solicitor
General
are
two
different
jobs?
Checkmate
libs!
There
is
a
hint
of
personal
beef
driving
this
incredibly
stupid
mission:
I
note
that
I
find
it
an
insult
that
she
sat
in
judgment
on
the
second
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
vote
on
my
nomination
to
join
the
leadership
of
the
Justice
Department
in
early
2018
(she
voted
against
me,
but
I
still
got
out
of
Committee).
Chuck
Grassley
chaired
that
committee
and
didn’t
even
go
to
law
school
which
both
seems
like
much
more
of
a
professional
insult
and
helps
explain
why
he
voted
for
Clark’s
nomination.
By
the
way,
if
you’re
looking
for
a
free
lesson
in
bad
legal
research,
Clark
shows
his
work!
Eh?
A
transcript
might
have
been
entered
into
PACER.
Crackerjack
work.
There
aren’t
habeas
cases
that
go
into
blasting
the
trial
prosecutor
by
name?
That’s…
not
actually
weird.
If
anything,
it
speaks
well
of
how
she
handled
the
trial
phase
of
cases.
Someone
with
basic
legal
competence
pointed
out
how
completely
stupid
this
inquiry
was
and
Clark,
true
to
form,
doubled
down:
What
an
absolute
frigging
ding
dong.
Bailey
and
Kobach
argue
nonsensical
and
embarrassing
positions
that
even
this
Supreme
Court
routinely
kick
to
the
curb.
Maybe
not
the
best
models
for
this
effort.
And
DA
offices
certainly
argue
appeals,
but
they
have
whole
departments
dedicated
to
appeals.
Perhaps
this
is
why
Harris,
the
head
of
the
office,
wouldn’t
be
the
one
going
to
the
courthouse
for
oral
argument.
Now,
one
of
our
two
major
parties
has
nominated
Kamala
to
be
President.
She
wasn’t
qualified
to
sit
on
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
let
alone
be
Commander
in
Chief
or
Magistrate
in
Chief,
or
to
select
future
Supreme
Court
Justices
—
which
she
will
select
an
awful
lot
of
if
she
gets
elected
and
then
packs
the
Supreme
Court,
as
she
has
said
she
plans
to
do.
But,
like,
magistrate
in
chief
isn’t
a
job.
Notably
Donald
Trump
hasn’t
argued
an
appeal
either
—
though
he
has
given
an
ersatz
closing
argument
at
trial
—
so
I’m
curious
how
he
passes
Clark’s
imaginary
magistrate
in
chief
bar.
This
doesn’t
even
make
sense
as
some
sort
of
resume
GOTCHA
since
Harris
isn’t
campaigning
on
winning
appeals,
she’s
campaigning
on
running
successful
prosecutorial
offices.
Nothing
about
Clark’s
“Wikipedia
Brown
Junior
Detective”
nonsense
undermines
that.
So
she
didn’t
micromanage
one
of
the
biggest
legal
offices
in
the
country?
Cool
story.
Oh…
one
more
thing!
In
retrospect,
maybe
we
shouldn’t
call
this
guy
when
there’s
an
oil
spill
either.
How
about
you
go
back
to
your
office,
and
we’ll
call
you
when
there’s
a
final
sanction
decision
on
your
disciplinary
case.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.