CNN
—
A federal judge during a hearing Monday cast doubt on former Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark’s efforts to move his Georgia election subversion case to federal court.
The case stems from Clark’s efforts to use his senior role at the Justice Department to help former President Donald Trump reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election despite the objections of his bosses.
Clark was not present at the hearing, an absence that became particularly unusual after US District Judge Steve Jones said he would not accept a sworn statement from Clark as evidence in the case.
The hearing ended after about three hours without a verdict from the judge, who seemed frustrated and angry at times, with his probing questions directed at one of Clark’s lawyers at one point leading the Trump attorney to Steve Sadow, who was in court, whispered. , “It’s not good.”
Jones said he will make a decision on the matter as soon as possible but did not give a timeframe for his decision.
Clark and other defendants seeking to move their cases to federal court say they are acting on behalf of the federal government after the election, so they can try their state cases before the a federal judge. They can also have relatively friendlier trial settings or get the charges dismissed entirely by invoking the immunity protections granted to federal officials.
Clark’s attorney Harry MacDougald argued that “not one bit of (Clark’s) actions could have been done if he wasn’t a federal official.”
It’s in his lane because “the president put it in his lane,” MacDougald said.
Earlier this month Jones rejected a similar request to transfer the case from another co-defendant: Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Clark’s bid differs from Meadows and is a tossup, according to several former Justice Department officials, because he advocates within the Justice Department for the agency to act to undermine public confidence in elections. However, Clark’s superiors in the department opposed him, and his direct communication with Trump after the election was not allowed as part of his job.
Trump may also seek this avenue, but he has yet to submit any moves.
Clark was charged with violating Georgia’s racketeering statute, known as RICO, and attempting to make false statements. He pleaded not guilty.
Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat, opposed Clark’s bid to move his case. Lawyers from his office argued during Monday’s hearing that even if Trump had told Clark to get involved in the 2020 election, so he could send his draft letter to Georgia officials, that still wouldn’t be the case. within his federal duties.
After Trump lost the 2020 election, Clark began accepting conspiracy theories about an international scheme to rig voting machines against Republicans, according to both congressional reports and the previous CNN reporting. He also violated Justice Department policy by speaking directly with Trump on multiple occasions.
As part of these conversations, Trump is considering installing Clark as acting attorney general so he can send a letter to state officials about the alleged fraud.
Trump backed off the plan after top Justice Department officials threatened to resign in protest. These actions are part of Trump’s federal election subversion charges, in which Clark is an unindicted co-conspirator. Trump has pleaded not guilty to both charges.
During Monday’s hearing, MacDougald said the letter “never left the office” and argued that Clark was not fraudulent when he drafted it because, he said, it was part of Clark’s job.
“You can’t go into the Oval Office” for a meeting with the president and top DOJ officials unless you’re actively involved in a federal position, MacDougald said.
Jones asked several probing questions during the hearing, at one point challenging MacDougald about the fact that his bosses at the DOJ told him his claims of fraud in the 2020 election were false. , but he still included the claims in his draft letter to Georgia officials.
MacDougald argued at one point that the draft letter Clark wanted to send to officials in key states — including Georgia — to revisit their election results because of alleged fraud was similar to an unsolicited opinion within any federal agency, including courtrooms.
He told the judge that if this case against Clark is not transferred to federal court, states may be allowed to issue felony arrest warrants even for people who work for the judge and disagree with him.
“Did you hear that?” Jones joked in response, pointing at his clerks inside the courtroom.
MacDougald ended his arguments Monday with a more nuanced stance toward Trump — taking a dig at the position that Clark can’t act outside of his department office because the former president authorized Clark’s actions. after the election to Georgia.
The DOJ “is not an independent fourth branch of government,” MacDougald said.
But the prosecutors refused. “There is no federal authority here to protect,” argued Francis Wakeford for the state of Georgia.
“There has to be some basis in fact” that Clark’s draft letter to Georgia officials about the state’s presidential election was about his work, Wakeford said, adding that Clark was told by his superiors what the he said that was not true, ‘t about his job and not about anyone else’s job at DOJ.
Former Justice Department official Jody Hunt testified and strengthened Willis’ case by saying that a person in Clark’s role should not have been involved in investigating election fraud.
“In my experience it is not the role of the (DOJ) Civil Division to get involved in any affirmative matters related to elections or election irregularities,” Hunt confirmed.
Hunt was the head of the Civil Division under Trump before Clark took the role in a 2020 acting capacity.
Matters related to election fraud will be handled by the Criminal Division or the Civil Rights Division, Hunt said. It undermines Clark’s argument that he did his job as acting head of the Civil Division by participating in the 2020 election.
“It’s not part of the Civil Division’s responsibility” to handle matters related to election enforcement, Hunt said.
Hunt is an influential figure in the Trump administration, serving as the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division before Clark took over, and later represented a key January 6, 2021, damaging witness. testify against Trump.
At his own hearing, Meadows took the stand to testify in an unexpected, high-risk attempt to expand the court’s view of his role as chief of staff.
Clark’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment, although Clark submitted a sworn statement to the court about his service at the Justice Department, which the judge later rejected.
In the statement, Clark wrote that he never participated in campaign activities for Trump’s reelection, never acted in his personal capacity and never took “knowingly false positions” during his time on the Justice Department.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, who served in the Reagan administration, also sent a sworn statement to the court before the hearing, arguing on behalf of Clark, “The prosecution of the President and a [assistant Attorney General] is a great affront to federal supremacy that has never been seen in the history of our country,” according to the court filing on Sunday.
“If the premise of this prosecution is accepted, state law enforcement officials may arrest local US Attorneys and their Assistants as they deliberate whether and/or how to approach a possible prosecution by state or local officials,” Meese added.
But Jones said Monday he would block Meese’s affidavit from being submitted.
“With all due respect to the former attorney general,” the judge said, some of Meese’s submissions “provide opinions on matters” and thus will not be included in the official record, and will not be considered when he makes the his decision on the matter of removal.
It was one of two federal hearings this week on the transfer case to Georgia. Three “fake voters” facing charges have a hearing set for Wednesday on the same question.
This story has been updated with additional developments.
