Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(140,913 posts)
Thu Aug 29, 2024, 03:22 AM Aug 29

Jeffrey Clark filing says he is 'unindictable' for anything related to Jan. 6 or other election subversion efforts

Source: Law & Crime

Aug 28th, 2024, 5:45 pm


Attorneys for former U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Clark on Wednesday told a federal court their client was “unindictable” in criminal cases emanating from the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In a two-page letter addressed to the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Clark’s lead lawyer in his D.C.-based bar discipline case cited “supplemental authority” for a recently scuttled effort to transfer disbarment proceedings to federal court.

The filing is the latest knock-on effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s blockbuster midsummer ruling on presidential immunity. The ruling created anew two forms of criminal immunity for U.S. presidents and explicitly provided such immunity to former president Donald Trump.

In an effort to salvage and fast-track the Jan. 6 conspiracy case against Trump – which was returned to the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan early this month – special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment on Tuesday afternoon. The new version lacks several pages worth of references to various individuals and topics that previously appeared in the first indictment, which was roughly nine pages longer than the present charging document.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jeffrey-clark-filing-says-he-is-unindictable-for-anything-related-to-jan-6-or-other-election-subversion-efforts/



Link to LETTER (PDF viewer) - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079908-clark-unindictable-letter

Link to LETTER (PDF) - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25079908/clark-unindictable-letter.pdf
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jeffrey Clark filing says he is 'unindictable' for anything related to Jan. 6 or other election subversion efforts (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Aug 29 OP
Defendents get to choose whether or not they are "indictable" now? Think. Again. Aug 29 #1
Geez, talk about "white priviledge"..... AZ8theist Aug 29 #2
Yes, but only Republican defendants. Kid Berwyn Aug 29 #5
"He voss only obeyink orders ..." (nt) muriel_volestrangler Aug 29 #3
More seriously, are they arguing that not only does he have immunity for anything Trump told him to do muriel_volestrangler Aug 29 #4
And at the time of his crimes Simeon Salus Aug 29 #6
He was employed by the government, until Jan 14th, though he was doing campaign stuff muriel_volestrangler Aug 29 #8
Clarks law license is on the line in this case. riversedge Aug 29 #7

muriel_volestrangler

(102,360 posts)
4. More seriously, are they arguing that not only does he have immunity for anything Trump told him to do
Thu Aug 29, 2024, 05:27 AM
Aug 29

but, by saying he's "unindictable", are they saying that anything he decided by himself to do is also covered by Trump's dictatorial immunity? If so, how far down the chain do federal appointees get immunity for their actions?

riversedge

(72,824 posts)
7. Clarks law license is on the line in this case.
Thu Aug 29, 2024, 06:58 AM
Aug 29



As an administrative adjunct, or arm, of the D.C. Court of Appeals, the disciplinary counsel qualifies as an Article I court. Oppositely, the appellate court itself is considered an Article III court.

“The entire key purpose of removal is to allow Mr. Clark to obtain an Article III court adjudication of his immunity defenses and for such immunity defenses not to be adjudicated by an Article I court (or by a state court, had Mr. Clark’s jurisdiction of bar licensure been different),” the Wednesday letter concludes. “The hostility shown in the District Court below and before the panel to allowing removal jurisdiction to attach to a bar disciplinary matter is thus misplaced.”

In other words, Clark is saying his immunity arguments must be heard by an actual federal court – and that the bar disciplinary body lacked the necessary authority to review such claims.

The Court of Appeals has not given any indication as to when they might issue their final decision on Clark’s case.
............
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Jeffrey Clark filing says...