Jeffrey Clark gets court letter of support from ex-attorney general who resigned in disgrace
Photo: Fulton County sheriff's office

A disgraced former attorney general is coming to the aide of Jeffrey Clark, one of the co-defendants in the Fulton County, Georgia case.

According to the filing from former Ronald Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese,

Meese's problems began in the mid-1980s when a federal investigation revealed his connections to an Iraqi oil pipeline, The New York Times reported at the time. While he was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing, he was accused of "ethical lapses." The Iran-Contra scandal followed, in which Meese allegedly obstructed justice in the investigation of Reagan. He was never charged, however.

The scandal that followed involved Meese being accused of using his power as attorney general to score benefits for his company Wedtech. The special counsel urged further investigation and everyone other than Meese was indicted, though it's unclear how he escaped accountability, other than being the special counsel's boss. The report remains secret.

He was then charged by Reagan to study the effect of pornography on society. He infamously reported on his findings in front of nude statues, leading to ridicule.

Ultimately, Meese was forced to resign.

In touting his chops, Meese bragged about the legal and justice studies from the Heritage Foundation being named after him.

According to Meese's endorsement of Clark, he claims that the Justice Department's assistant attorneys general can operate outside of the purview of the DOJ, Allison Gill, of "Mueller, She Wrote" podcast fame, explained in her analysis of the filing.

"He then argues that the president can ask any officer in the executive branch to write up any advice or opinion, and that officer is obliged to respond," Gill said. "Is he saying Trump ASKED him to write that letter to GA? That’d be low-key hilarious. He says that those opinions are subject to executive, deliberative process, and atty client privilege. Okay wow. Yeah, no. Executive privilege is Biden’s to invoke. And even if not, US v. Nixon holds that POTUS does not have unqualified privilege to withhold documents."

"And deliberative process privilege," she continued. "DC circuit court has held in the Barr memo release that if the [Office of Legal Council] memo isn’t tied to deliberations about the relevant decision, the privilege doesn’t apply. I doubt a letter to GA with false statements in it is covered here. And attorney-client privilege? Since writing this letter is a predicate act under state RICO law for false writings, I imagine that would fall under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. I mean, come ON."

She noted that he claimed the letter by Clark wasn't sent to anyone.

"You can’t be serious. False writings don’t have to be mailed," Gill explained. "If he had mailed it, he’d [probably] be on the hook for mail fraud and forgery, too."

She cited one argument in which he claims he isn't aware of another case in which a president and senior Justice Department staffer are charged for discussions about asserting federal law enforcement authority. It's what President Richard Nixon and John Mitchell were linked to. Gill posted a photo of Mitchell's mugshot.

"Granted, Mitchell was federally charged and not charged in a state crime, but I don’t think that the supremacy clause applies here, either. The conduct was political in nature and not undertaken in his official capacity," she said.

MSNBC's legal analyst Katie Phang attacked the filing calling Clark’s conduct "indefensible. And for Meese to make excuses for it is shameful. Clark is a criminal co-conspirator and criminal co-defendant with Trump. Clark, a useful and willing patsy for Trump, sought fame and glory, but instead will do prison time."

"If scandal-ridden Reagan AG Ed Meese is the only person Jeff Clark could find to vouch for the propriety of his conduct, then Clark has a huge problem. (Hint: Clark has a huge problem.) Even filing an imprimatur from Meese shows, yet again, Clark's extraordinarily bad judgment," said legal analyst and professor Elizabeth de la Vega.

Clark's hearing will be held Monday.