Lawfare Archive: White House Pressure, the Justice Department and the Election

I'm a new host, Lucas Budolsky. I want to tell you about Cragnet 10.

“Cragnet is the app with the crypto entry.”

100 coins trade, portfolio and liquidity,

and the whole million per million worldwide.

What Cragmark is, that the app is completely different. There must be no financial business. Cragnet comes, let's call it, or at the app store. No analysis. The hand-made crypto movement built by illustrating

an "Payward Europe Solutions Limited" handed as Cragnet, bribed and through the central bank of Ireland regulered. If Oaks been with us here, editor-in-chief of Laugh Air, and I just wanted to thank everybody who donated to Laugh Air,

came a material supporter, particularly those who became material supporters for the first time during our annual campaign this past month.

“We raised about $150,000, and that is a measurable percentage”

of the money that we need to keep bringing you scholarship at the pace of journalism in high value democracy-sensitive, national security fields. As you know, it is not cheap to bring you this material. And we appreciate every single person who helps us

make it possible. Those who have donated, once those who donate, every month, those whose contributions are comparatively small, those whose contributions are substantial, every little bit helps.

And we are a lot closer to where we need to be than we were at the beginning of the month. So thank you to everybody. (gentle music) - I'm Marissa Wong, intern at Laugh Air.

With an episode from Laugh Air Archive, for May 31st, 2000 to 26.

Under the second Trump administration,

“the Department of Justice has been a central part”

of an effort to investigate the president's claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. This includes the seizure of ballots from Fulton County, Georgia, an audit of the vote in Maricopa County, Arizona, and most recently, the attempt to collect voter registration

data from states to audit voter roles as part of President Trump's March 31st executive order on securing federal elections. For today's archive, I chose an episode from October 9th, 2021, in which Benjamin Wittis

sat down with Alan Rosenstein and Quintiturassic to unpack the Senate Judiciary Committee's interim report,

which detailed the first Trump administration's pressure

on the Justice Department to support his claims of election fraud in 2020. I'm Benjamin Wittis, and this is the Laugh Air podcast special edition. The majority staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee

has issued an interim report entitled subverting justice how the former president and his allies pressured DOJ to overturn the 2020 election. A lot of it covers ground we knew about before, but it contains a raft of new detail

about the president's pressure on the Justice Department to support his election fraud claims. The resignation of a U.S. attorney in Georgia and the bizarre attempt to install as acting attorney general a Justice Department official

who might actually support the president's ambitions. To go over it all, we convened in the virtual jungle studio, Alan Rosenstein and Quintiturassic, Laugh Air Senior editors and Bryce Klem, Laugh Air Associate Editor,

who has been reading all the depositions in the matter. We talked about what the committee found, what aspects of it are new, and what we might do about this dramatic turn of events. It's the Laugh Air podcast October 9th,

White House Pressure, the Justice Department, and the election. Quintitur get us started. What is the contribution of this Senate Judiciary Committee

What did it tell us that we didn't already know?

“And what role is it likely to play in the conversation?”

A lot of what's in the report, the sort of broad strokes of it have been publicly reported. And the Judiciary Committee admits that, in fact, the report explicitly says that the committee began investigating

Trump's asks to the Justice Department to overturn the election after reporting came out from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in January of 2021 about those efforts.

But what this contributes is, it provides an enormous amount more detail about what happened there. And the committee has also made available transcripts of the interviews with former Acting and Attorney General

Jeffrey Rosen,

Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue

and the Attorney General for one district in Georgia, B.J. Pock, who resigned because of Trump's anger with him. So the main findings of the report are that Trump was really, really pressuring

Justice Department leadership to underline his false claims about the election results that the election had been stolen that Mark Meadows, who is in the chief of staff,

repeatedly reached out to Acting Attorney General Rosen to initiate investigations of so-called election fraud including some pretty crazy ideas, including an idea that somehow in Italian IT contractor was using military satellites to manipulate voting machines.

This didn't happen in case that's not clear.

And then includes a lot more detail

about the role of Jeffrey Clark, who was a lower down official in the Justice Department. There had been reporting in the Times in the journal about his role in essentially going,

it seems directly to Trump an encouraging Trump to buy into this pretty out there legal theory under which the Justice Department could go to the States and say, "Hey, we think there's been some chicaneery here." You should really just,

you know, convene a special legislative session and essentially flip your electoral votes from Biden to Trump. And the report has a lot of detail about what was happening within the Justice Department,

how confused and alarmed Rosen and Donahue were by Clark's efforts and at one point Clark essentially went to Rosen and said, "The president has told me that I can have your job."

“So I think it really drives home just how close things got”

at DOJ and just how bad things are. There's details, for example, about a phone call between a number of DOJ officials where they essentially agreed that they would all resign if Clark were put in charge.

And so I think it underlines just how bad things were and that's how the committee frames that the committee explicitly says, you know, we're still carrying out this investigation but we found this information alarming enough

that we wanted to make it public immediately and share it with the public so we can kind of figure out what to do next. There's a lot more detail here than I'm leaving out because this report is pretty extensive

and so are the transcripts but those are the broad strokes. Alan, what do you think of the report as a piece of investigative work product? Congressional reports really run the gamut,

you know, from partisan hack job to some pretty excellent work product, the judiciary committee is often not known as a Center for really fine investigative work.

“What do you make of this as a piece of work product?”

- Mostly I'm quite impressed. They managed to insert a huge amount of detail and color into this discussion, right? As Clinton pointed out, the broadest strokes of this were known before

but just having Rosen and Donahue go into such detail about the sheer amount of attempted interference by the White House, the things that Trump said, the things that Clark said, that adds a vividness and a drama to this

and I think that's really important because it's going to point out what this report really I think contributes is to show just how close we got to a profound constitutional crisis. And so in that respect,

I think it's done in enormous service. I mean, it's unfortunate that it has to be a majority report rather than the report of the whole committee but as you point out, unfortunately, the judiciary committee has historically been quite partisan

and so I suspect the Republican members

and that is a shame because it is an opportunity and the mist one for Republicans to distance themselves from this really appalling behavior.

But ultimately, just to answer your question,

I'm super impressed, I mean, at the very least, it set my blood pressure through the roof which was not a pleasant experience but I do think speaks to the effectiveness of a report. - And just to be clear, this is not even a report

of the Democrats on the committee, the majority on the committee. It's a report of the majority staff, right? How do you think either of you think we should understand

“what this report and who this report actually represents?”

- I will say I was an entirely sure what to make of that because Dick Durbin, who's the majority leader, has been all over the cable news, talking about how alarming this report is and how there's a need for really urgent action.

So, you know, it's not like the centers are unenvolved.

It definitely struck me as a pretty careful piece of work product.

I mean, we can talk about this later but it includes some recommendations about what should be done in response to these events and the recommendations are pretty careful and sober, you know, they have suggestions

for how to change the DOJ White House context policy to make sure that, you know, future chiefs of staff, I'm just dialing up random people in the Justice Department and asking them to investigate conspiracy theories that they found on YouTube,

they have suggestions for specific statutory provisions that should be clarified to make clear that they apply to efforts to corruptly influence state proceedings regarding federal elections. So, my impression reading it is that this is done

by somebody who are a group of people who really know their stuff and were working carefully. I don't know how that quite interacts with your point about staff versus the majority members but it did jump out of me.

“Alan, I think I can resolve the question”

of what the status of the report is. Can you give a broad characterization of the fact of the existence of the other one and a characterization of who it represents and just that it takes a very different view

of the underlying interviews? - Sure. And it's worth noting that on the same day that the majority staff issued its report, the minority judiciary staff issued a report for itself

and ranking member Chuck Grassley in which it disputes a lot of the, if not findings, then a lot of the interpretation of the majority report. So, you know, for example, living at the table of contents,

the first headline after the introduction

is that the available evidence shows that President Trump did not use the Justice Department to overturn the election and then it goes on from there. So, it's pretty clear that not only are the Republicans

not interested in joining the majority staff report but that they're going to be actively opposing it either on factual grounds, though the reporting in the majority report is very strong. So, it's going to be hard to public a lot of holes,

“I think, in the facts, certainly on interpretive grounds.”

In terms of how to understand the motivations of in particular Trump, but also presumably some of the other players who were trying to overturn the election. - Yeah, so I think the distinction

between a committee report and a staff report is simply that the committee has invoked to adopt it. And I believe the reason for that is that this is kind of an interim document by its own account of itself.

And so I think what's going on here is, you know, the committee staff decided that there was something urgent to get out here, whether it was in fact urgent or not, as a different question, but it was important to them to get it out.

And so, rather than have a kind of, you know, draft that is then circulated and everybody gets to comment and then the committee has a business meeting and votes, which is what will happen on the final report. They simply issued a staff report

that members can claim as much or as little as they want. So, Bryce, you have been reading the underlying interviews or depositions, tell us about them and what they show both about the witnesses, and about the nature of the process we're experiencing.

- So, these interviews are really interesting in a number of ways. Rosen and Donahews interviewed two very senior leaders at the Department of Justice at the time.

that they were making as they were facing sort of an onslaught of requests both from the White House and from Jeffrey Clark who will get into a little bit later. BJPax interview is really interesting because it brings you sort of on the ground

with someone who is faced with in Georgia, in this case debunking a number of different claims. So, let's go back to Rosen and Donahews' interviews for a moment. Rosen had known Jeffrey Clark,

who was at this point the head of the civil division. He had known him for 20 years. Let me take you back a little bit. There's quite a confusing timeline on this one.

“So, Bill Barr resigns, I believe on December 24th or 23rd.”

Trump calls Rosen, who is the new acting attorney general December 24th and in that conversation, he asks him if he knows Jeffrey Clark. And that sounds really strange to Rosen because why would the president know about this

somewhat lower level official? So, eventually, Rosen talks to Clark and Clark admits to having met with the president completely subverting the Department of Justice's White House contact policy and Clark claims that a congressman

dragged him into the meeting, but so Trump becomes really fixated on this idea that Jeffrey Clark is going to help. Now, Rosen sort of puts on sort of like the kid gloves with Clark initially because he's known him for so long.

Then eventually, Clark requests two urgent action items. And he sends this in an email to Rosen.

The first action item that Clark requests

is to have a briefing by the office of the director of national intelligence to see if white hat hackers had access to the internet through smart thermostats and basically messed with dominion voting machines.

Now, Rosen knows that this is a completely ridiculous theory but he sort of left wondering what to do about that. Then, Clark sends him another urgent action item, which is, I think this is all in the same email, sends him a proof of concept letter for Georgia,

which is basically that the Department of Justice in Clark's view should send Georgia this letter that says,

“you have to convene your state legislator”

due to irregularities in the election and then you should consider appointing a new slate of electors. Now, Rosen and Donnie, you reject this. Donnie, you even write, there's no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this.

And several heated meetings in Sue and I'm skipping over a little bit here, but eventually Clark tells Rosen that Trump asked if he wanted to be the acting attorney general if Trump were to fire Rosen.

And Rosen's first off just completely dumbfounded

that Clark is telling him this, because Clark is his subordinate at this point. So then Rosen does something that's kind of amusing. He says to Clark, okay, I'll get you that office director of national intelligence briefing.

And Rosen says in his interview that he's basically doing this in order to try to dissuade Clark and tell him that these theories are wrong. He also tells Clark to call BJPAC

because Clark has been pushing these Atlanta fraud things, but BJPAC, the US attorney for the Northern District of Georgia has been debunking these things. Fast forward a little bit farther. January 3rd is a really big day in this whole story.

Clark tells Rosen that Trump is going to install him as the acting attorney general.

“So then I think Quinta mentioned earlier,”

senior DOJ leadership has a call at this point, and they agree to resign if Clark is put in place. Then around 6 p.m. there's a two to three hour meeting in the Oval Office with members of the Office of Legal Council,

senior department, senior justice department leadership, including Donahue, Rosen, and Clark, and Pats are belongs there as well. So during this meeting,

basically Trump is asking everyone their opinion

about installing Clark as the acting attorney general. And it was later described that this meeting was basically six against one that everybody but Clark in this meeting wanted Clark to not be the attorney general.

Pats have blown even calls the proposed Georgia letter, a murder suicide pact at this point. And at the end of this two to three hour meeting, Trump is basically dissuaded completely from installing Clark.

So that's pretty much how close it was. - And Quinta does this sound to you as Brithum suggested in response to the release of this, that the real salient take away is that Trump exercised appropriate leadership

and didn't do any of these things. (laughing)

That reaction reminds me a lot of the responses

“that we saw to some of the more damaging exchanges”

in the Mueller report, their Mueller reported that Trump would dial up the attorney general and say, "Investigate James Komi, "Investigate Hillary Clinton told the White House Council

"to destroy his notes or create false notes of a meeting "and the take away for defenders of the president "was sort of well, it's okay

"because that never actually happened

"that the people he was sort of bullying "into doing these things put their foot down "and convinced him otherwise or distracted him "and somehow entered that it didn't happen." I don't find that particularly exonerating.

The problem here is that Trump tried to do these things. He tried to work with Clark in this scheme to overturn the election results and it's sort of there but for the grace of God that rose in adonic you and other members of U.J. leadership

were able to prevent that from happening.

“But I don't find that particularly reassuring.”

It's sort of a situation where you have an empty number of air locks in the system and all but the last air lock, you know, fell apart and so we're saying, "Oh, well, the last one held, so it was okay."

No, the problem is that we got all the way

to the last barrier between the United States and an illegal user patient of democracy. Alan, I know you wanted to jump in here. - Yeah, I mean, just to echo what Quinn just said, it's a little bit like having someone

with a flame throw or walk up to a house and threaten to burn it down and then be persuaded from doing so and then the new story being, you know, "Arsonist saves house from fire.

"It's just, it's completely crazy." And the fact that we're even here discussing that there was a debate in the Justice Department, whether or not to encourage stakes to overturn their election results based on

nonsense conspiracy theories, it is itself incredibly damaging and something that in addition to a bunch of other players, but Trump in particular has to own because he created not just a culture

but made a bunch of direct asks to get people to even consider what would have been just to be clear, you know, about what this proof of concept that Clark was trying to send out to the States, what a video would have been a proof of concept

of the end of American democracy. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. - So just in fairness to Brick Hume, what he actually tweeted was a criticism of a Washington Post story on this report

that says this story never explains

why the plans these officials threatened to resign over did not go forward. The answer is that Trump decided against it. It is not to his credit that he even considered it, but his rejection should be part of any story on it.

“- I think that's pushing it, but fair enough.”

- How so, I mean, I'm just trying to-- - It just strikes me as the same thing the Allen was just saying, you know, that the the arsonist was standing in front of the house with a flame thrower. You know, it's not to his credit

that he was considering lighting the house on fire, but the fact that he ultimately backed down when the fire department and, you know, the hostage and negotiation squad arrived is an important part of the story.

- So Brick, in the Republican questioning of the Republican staff questioning of these witnesses, is this the point that they are emphasizing as well in these questions? - It is to an extent.

- There are also kind of pursuing a somewhat contradictory line of questions, which is, well, if the president believed and had seen these substantial allegations, isn't it his responsibility to go down

and investigate these things? And the witnesses sort of begrudgingly say, yeah, it would be if he believed these allegations to be true and constantly throughout Trump's, you know, contacts with the Department of Justice, he says,

you know, the American people have all, you know, they all say, you guys are disappointing the American people and just sort of a classic Trumpian technique, but it does appear that he sort of seems to be doing it. I do want to add one note on Jeffrey Clark,

after that Oval Office meeting, where Trump basically rejects his proposal. Clark gets out of the Oval Office and he says to everyone else there to rose into Donahue, Patsup Loan, he says, I know we were all in there

just doing what we thought was best for the country, so no hard feelings. And they all just look at him completely dumbfounded. So it's not even clear that he understands the ramifications of what he was proposing.

because again, it gets at the heart

“of what we saw throughout the Trump administration”

and one of the reasons why, in a sense, the culpability of people like Trump and his inner circle is almost sometimes harder to identify than with other wrongdoing presidents or wrongdoing government officials.

And that's the, and I apologize, I know this is a family podcast, but they seem to believe their bullshit in a way that is almost unprecedented in American history. So I'm actually willing to accept that Trump literally

subjectively really believed that Italian hackers or space lasers or Chinese bamboo importers or god knows what were conspiring to steal the election from him. That's quite possible.

But what that shows is not that Trump was doing what he thought was best for the country and therefore no harm, no foul. But it shows that Trump is incapable of separating his own desires, his own tendency

for magical and wishful thinking. He's unable to separate that from his evaluation of reality. And that makes him even more dangerous, I think of President then someone like, let's say Nixon, who while engaging in criminality

seem to actually understand what he was doing. And I think the defense of Trump that what he was just doing what he thought was right for the country is actually similar in a really troubling way

to one of the defenses of Trump made most strongly by Alan Dershoids,

one of his lawyers for the first impeachment trial,

that anything that he did with respect to the Ukraine and pressuring them to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, that was not impeachable because he thought that his getting reelected was best for the country and therefore he was acting in good faith.

But in fact, what that shows is that Trump lacks a critically important character trait for a president, which is the ability to separate your personal interests from your official duties. And the fact that with Trump, it appears to be

such a profound character flaw that he literally cannot tell reality from delusion. It's not an excitatory. If anything, it shows even more profoundly why up until the very last moment of his presidency,

he was unfit for the office that he was occupied.

“Just to build on that, I think it's not only--”

this argument is not only an echo of Dershoids' argument

during the first impeachment.

It's also an echo of the argument that Bill Barr made as attorney general in defending Trump when the Mueller report was first released, if listeners recall Barr kind of went out there in a press conference before the release of their report

and said, well, Mueller has these instances that he says look like obstruction of justice. But actually, Trump was just really frustrated because he thought he was innocent and so he was mad that he was being investigated

and therefore it's fine. Which is a similar version of the same argument that, you know, deep in his heart, Trump thought he was in the right. Therefore, we shouldn't be concerned

by what he was doing. And I think I would agree with Alan, in the big picture, if you abstract that out, you end up with a picture of someone who is so detached from reality and from the realities,

specifically of what his responsibilities are as a leader and as someone who is sworn to preserve, protecting to defend the Constitution that he shouldn't be the president at all. - So I wanted to jump back to something

that we talked about a little bit earlier, which was, you know,

Trump ultimately decided against the scheme

to install Clark as the acting attorney general, which is true and he did shut that down. But they were multiple other tracks that the Department of Justice officials had to deal with and I want to focus on a December 27th call

that Trump has with Rosen and Donahue. Last about an hour and Trump references three Republicans, Jim Jordan, Congressman Scott Perry and Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano. And this is the call where Trump says to Rosen and Donahue,

just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R congressman that was in the words of Donahue's note. In a lot of ways, this is sort of inseparable from Trump this Department of Justice track

that he's going down to try to challenge the election. This is completely inseparable from all of his other efforts that he's making. He even makes another effort to have a lawyer Kurt Olsen

reach out to the acting attorney general, Rosen, to basically get him to try to file the Supreme Court petition. So all of these things in Trump's mind are a part of the same effort.

So just because Clark is an installed,

“I think you can't say that the entire effort stopped.”

And eventually the Republican Congressman, as we know, did go on to challenge the election results on January 6th.

And I want to focus on two different avenues of potential remedy. One is the list of recommendations that the committee staff itself makes.

“And the second is the possibility of bar action”

against some of the individuals in question, particularly Mr. Clark. So Quinta, can you get us started here by just summarizing what the recommendations are that the report advances?

Sure. So it falls into a few different buckets.

First is this question of contacts

between the White House and the Justice Department. So the Justice Department did have a policy limiting those contacts during the Trump administration, but it clearly was not abided by, as shown in this report. And so part of what the committee recommends

is that that policy should be sort of strengthened and systematized. It also recommends that there should be a stricter oversight regime. So listeners of the show are probably aware. There are sort of constitutional questions

about the extent to which Congress

“could attempt to regulate communications”

between the White House and the Justice Department. But what it can do is create transparency requirements. So what the report suggests is that there should be

statutory requirements for the regular release

of logs of contacts that fit certain criteria to the Justice Department Inspector general. And there's legislation in Congress that would institute this. And then the committee also recommends

that there should be a procedure for the Inspector general to transmit matters that are urgent concern for the House and Senator Gigiashari committees for quick action. And it also recommends that the Inspector General's purview be expanded to include misconduct

by Justice Department attorneys, which is a long standing loophole. And again, there's legislation that in Congress that would address some of these issues. There are other proposals to the committee suggests

“that Congress should systematize the policies”

in the Justice Department against conduct that might influence elections. One aspect of the report that we actually haven't

talked so much about is that it's quite critical of bill bar

for rolling back some of the traditional Justice Department posture that it shouldn't make any statements or do anything that could undermine public confidence seem to influence an election and notes that bar personally in some instances

asked the FBI to investigate supposed instances of election wrongdoing that were had already been debunked essentially. So the committee suggests that the department should really come down more strongly on that.

Then there are other proposals as well. One's the iPhone particularly interesting are proposals to clarify obstruction statutes to make clear that behavior like Trump's which involves sort of leaning on state governments

to try to change how they count and certify the vote. To make clear that that would be prohibited. And that actually had a real echo for me been of conversations that happened after the release of the Mueller report about the need for Congress

to reform the existing obstruction statutes to make clear that they apply to the president because we're sort of in a circumstance right now where you could argue that these statutes cover what Trump did but it's not a slam dunk

and it will be pretty easy to just make this slam dunk. And then the last bucket is that the committee also recommends bar discipline for Jeffrey Clark. And Alan has looked at this a little more closely than I have. So I'll leave this to him.

But I did think that it was interesting that, you know, it has these kind of abstract ideas for what to do going forward. But also seems to feel that Clark's behavior is sufficiently agreed just that we should also be thinking about punishment for him looking backward from the bar association.

- All right, before we get to the question of bar discipline, I want to harp on this contact policy issue because this seems to me to be a policy that for post-watergate-related reasons, we all put a lot of faith in, but it strikes me

as wholly, wholly inadequate to the magnitude of the problem that this reveals. If the president of the United States wants to talk to the head of the civil division, he's gonna be able to do it.

It doesn't, the policy can't bind him. It doesn't matter if you say we're strengthening it reducing the number of people that have authorized contact, you know, reducing the number of types of authorized contact.

and wants to recruit the conspiracy theorist head

of the civil division who's an environmental lawyer to help him with his conspiracy theories, I don't see how any contact policy is going to be anything more than the smallest of speed bumps in that. And so my question to you, Alan,

is the committee just kidding itself that this is a plausibly responsive remedy for the problem that they have identified here. - I'd probably agree with you that this obsession with the contact policy is not really responsive to the problem.

And I do think this is a little bit of, this is a problem, we have to do something, this is something, this being the contact policy reform. I guess we should perform the contact policy.

“But I think the problem with focusing on the contact policy”

is not just that it's ineffective, but that to make it effective, you would have to create such a set of bureaucratic and potentially legal barriers between the White House, the president particular, and the justice department.

Now it either be unconstitutional, because of course, the president is the chief law for some officer of the United States, and there really is no question that when it comes to what counts as the unitary executive,

the Department of Justice is pretty well in there. And also probably counterproductive, because at the end of the day, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for there to be close and important coordination between the White House

and the Department of Justice.

“I mean, we kid ourselves if we think that law enforcement”

can or even should be a completely divorced from the priorities of the president. It inevitably has a political dimension as it should, because it is an expression of U.S. policy. So if we end up putting these enormous

or try to put these walls between the president and DOJ,

and first, the president is just going to find some other way

of influencing DOJ, he's going to find some other set of advisors in the White House who are going to accomplish these same purposes. But most importantly, it detracts us from what is really going on here, which is that the primary way of preventing abuse of White House power is making sure that the person in the White House

is not trying actively to abuse that power, because as our constitutional system is set up, we not just assume that we require that the president act in good faith and in the interests of the country. And trying to say, well, we can deal with the road president

through some bureaucratic fixes. I think just entirely misses the point. And I almost wish, though, I understand completely understand it, in some sense, as sympathize with the desire to reform and beef up the context policy.

I almost wish that we were wasting our time talking about it,

because it makes this sound like the problem is much less existential

than it really is. Which is that we elected and may again, in 2024, a authoritarian who is not interested in democratic and rule of law values. And no context policy is going to save us from that. Yeah, I just want to really footstomp that point

that there's a quality at which focusing on the context policy and the details of the context policy makes the problem seem like one of bureaucracy. When in fact, the problem is not a bureaucratic problem in character. So let's turn to the other major non-prophalactic alternative

that the committee offers, which is going after Jeffrey Clark and saying, OK, we can't necessarily prevent the president from leaning on Rosen and flirting with making Jeffrey Clark the acting attorney general, but we can sure take it out of his professional hide and retrospect

and thus create a disincentive or a real deterrence against behavior like that.

“Alan, what do you think is the prospect of something like this happening?”

And is it a good idea if it does happen? Well, the prospect for an investigation of these door complaint being filed with the DC bar, which is where Jeffrey Clark has his bar membership. That's, I think the complaint has already been filed.

So we should expect an investigation. I'm not sure we should expect an investigation. The bar council in the district dismissed without investigation a complaint about Bill Barr on grounds that it would embroil the bar council in politics.

attempting to use the structure of the justice department

and attempt to overturn an election rises to the level where the association decides that it's worth taking that risk.

“I think the point at the highest levels,”

law and politics kind of intertwines because law depends the practice, the professional practice of law depends on their beings, such as being as the rule of law. But the rule of law is not itself illegal phenomenon. It's a political phenomenon.

It's the willingness of people like the president, but also the lead lawyers like Jeffrey Clark to uphold it. And so I understand why the bar association is wary

of embroiling itself in this issue.

But at the end of the day, this is kind of why it exists. If it's not existing to safeguard the one social and political phenomenon that allows it to exist as a bunch of lawyers, then what exactly is it doing? So is your view that when a justice department

lawyer contemplates becoming counsel to a sort of self-cube

“by the president, he should have his eye on his license?”

Yes, I am comfortable drawing that line there. And I'm well aware, and I'm actually quite sensitive to the concern about the parade of horrible of once we do this, we'll go down the line of investigating any government lawyer

for anything that the opposing party,

or whatever party has control over the bar association bonds, I actually understand that. But this is not, I think, a particularly slippery slope, because this is such a unique situation. And it is, I think, so many standard deviations away from even

the average bad government lawyer conduct that I do think one can certainly draw some principal distinctions. Yeah, I agree with Alan there. I mean, I think there's a couple of points you can make here.

“I would say that I think that when you get to a point”

where American politics has gone so far off the rails, that the existence of professional institutions that uphold professional standards is actually a pretty good place to turn to say, "What are you guys doing? What are you here for?" But another point, which I do think is important,

is if you conceptualize Clark as a lawyer, who is his client here? Because is he representing the United States, or has he kind of gone rogue and started representing Donald Trump? Because I think that adds an additional element to how we think about his misconduct here.

It's not that he gave bad legal advice in a memo to the president of the United States. He's gone around the usual channels and is trying to help Trump the person legitimately hold onto his office. That doesn't strike me as something that is appropriate for a justice department

official to do. And I think it is a pretty clear bright line that I'm comfortable drawing. So, Bryce, is there any discussion in the depositions of how the senior officials who were interviewed Donahue and Rosen perceived Clark's behavior as an ethical or moral matter?

Yeah, I mean, they thought it was absolutely bizarre. I mean, I just want to go back to something earlier. In the January 3rd, Oval Office meeting with Trump, where Clark is advocating for himself to be attorney general. Pat's a balloon calls the draft letter to Georgia, a murder suicide pact and says,

"It will damage anyone and anything that it touches." And, you know, throughout this whole process, Clark is violating the White House contacts policy and Rosen is telling him that. He's like, "Why are you doing this?" And then he even starts doing his own quote on quote due diligence into Atlanta investigations. And he's going completely off the rails and Rosen's telling him,

"Who told you to conduct investigations and interview witnesses?" And Donahue says, you know, he's getting very, very heated at Clark sort of understandably. And the whole time Clark thinks he even says to the acting attorney general Rosen, he says, "Well, the president has offered me the position of acting attorney general. I told him I would know my decision by Monday. I need to think about that a little bit more."

So he's trying to like sort of hold over his relationship with the president, trying to hold it over their head. So I mean, throughout this whole thing, I mean, Rosen says repeatedly, you know, "I've known this guy for 20 years and something is completely off after the fact, after the January 3rd, Oval Office meeting." Both Rosen and Donahue say, "You know, they pretty

January 3rd meeting is Trump expects Rosen to fire Clark. And he turns to me says, "Well,

aren't you going to fire him now?" And Rosen basically says, "Well, I don't have the power to do that.

He serves at the pleasure of the president." And then Trump says, "Well, I'm obviously not going to fire him." So it's just really striking that even Trump can tell that what Clark has done by this point, at the end of a two and a half hour Oval Office meeting, even Trump can tell that what Clark has done is completely subverted his bosses. All right. So before we close, I want to just flag whether the question of whether there are potential remedies that the committee may have missed.

It seems to me that one of them, for example, should be, you know, the confirmation process that Jeffrey Clark was a Senate confirmed official and perhaps the Senate should be extracting from

nominees certain expectations of behavior that they can hold people to. But I'm curious whether

any of you have thoughts about additional means that Congress may have to prevent officials from behaving this way. I'm not sure this is necessarily a congressional remedy, but I do think an important thing to consider in the wake of all of this is what the social and professional sanctions should be for this kind of behavior, not just formal ones like barn professional discipline, but that's obviously really important. But I suspect that even more important is what sort of

reception these individuals, these bad actors and based on the reporting in the Senate report

“and the lack of any credible, I think factual response to it. I'm comfortable characterizing Clark”

as a deeply bad actor. I think this regard. And what strikes me, I think, is, you know, if we legal community is serious about being a profession and a profession means a group of people that organize themselves and that regulate themselves and that hold themselves to high standards. That means that there has to be in extreme cases a sort of professional and even social shunning of those who violate the deepest most profound values of that profession. Now, I say that

with a certain reluctance because it sounds like cancel culture. Well, I think exactly right, I say that with a certain reluctance because I think we live in a very polarized time. We live in the environment where a quote unquote cancellation can happen really unjustly and you have pylons and social media doesn't help with all of this and all of that is true. That being said,

“there are extreme cases where I think the only appropriate and frankly the only effective”

remedy is to make clear, right, at the highest levels that if you act this way, right, if you actively try to subvert American democracy, you will not be welcome in polite society. And I think that lawyers, especially the lead lawyers, they want to continue being lawyers, they want to continue making a lot of money, but mostly what they want with the care about most of all is the good opinion

of their peers, right? That's kind of all that humans ultimately want, right? We're just social animals,

where we want to be liked and he is striking to me that, you know, Jeffrey Clarke having left the Department of Justice in a way that I think is just the height of legal disgrace is not a pera in the legal community, right? He is the chief litigation director for a right-wing conservative legal impact advocacy organization, the new civil liberties alliance. And this, you know, that has

“all sorts of fancy lawyers and academics and judges on its board. And so I, you know, I think that”

the legal community has to think really hard about what to do with the sorts of individuals. And I think that there's a really useful comparison here to be made with Alberto Gonzalez, who was attorney general during the Bush administration and resigned in disgrace after the political firing of several U.S. attorneys, a scandal that although big at the time is trivial to completely meaningless compared to what happened in this situation. Back then in 2007 or 2008, I think there was

still a understanding among the conservative legal establishment that standards have to be upheld and Gonzalez found himself essentially unemployable for several years. Now, over time, he managed to rehabilitate his reputation, he managed to come back and he's doing fine now, right? And I don't think people should be perious forever, right? I think, you know, we should all be willing to forgive those that, you know, truly apologize and try to repent for their actions. But that

evading this sort of professional and personal social consequence, but it's even thriving

“to me is exceptionally disturbing and something that I think, although it's not, you know, a”

matter of law or policy or a converse or DOJ procedure is ultimately at the end of the day,

what is going to determine whether or not the United States remains a rule of law devoted culture or one where, you know, one party slides into authoritarianism. So you will not be supporting Mr. Clark's visiting professorship at the University of Minnesota. I will not, though, I suspect there is little danger of that happening. Quinta, your thoughts? I completely agree with with Alan here.

And I'd written about this a little bit in November in January for the Atlantic, basically arguing

that, you know, professional sanctions are too slow and also that in the absence of a sort of

“systematized truth commission, which I think is really what we need, that social sanctions are”

pretty decent fallback for anyone who's interested. There's a great essay by Jacob Levy, who's at McGill about the use of social sanctions, who he made this great argument that's shunning and I'm going to quote him here, is quote an important fallback when official impunity have been granted. And I kind of think that's where we're here that official impunity has been granted, you know, the committee has left kind of grasping at straws a little bit with these recommendations

about DOJ contacts and so we shouldn't set aside the importance of that kind of social sanctioning in the absence of bigger fixes. We're going to leave it there. Bryce Clim, Alan Rosenstein, Quinta Jurassic, thank you all for joining us. The law fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution, our audio engineer, this episode is Kara Shillin of the esteemed firm goat rodeo. Hey, have you tweeted the law fair podcast, rated us on whatever podcast distribution

service you found us, shared us on all the socials. I didn't think so. So you better do that.

“You should also buy our merch at the law fairstore.com. You should become a material supporter of”

law fair at our Patreon page patreon.com/law fair. The law fair podcast is edited by Jen Pachia Howell.

Our music is performed by Sophia Jan and as always, thanks for listening.