When Equal Treatment Feels like Discrimination

American  Thinker 

Dr. Thomas Sowell famously and rightly remarked when people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination. 

The counter-programming from secretary of War Pete Hegseth during his September 30 Quantico speech to top military brass doubtless received a frosty reception from at least some of the high-ranking commissioned officers who had grown accustomed to preferential treatment.  

Consider the psychological mindset of a DIE-privileged general, perhaps someone like Hegseth’s predecessor (the race- and climate-obsessed Gen. Lloyd Austin) or Gen. C.Q. Brown, Jr., formerly of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter.  Or perhaps a waddling, comically obese officer such as the Sinophilic and melanin-crazed Gen. Mark (white rage) Milley.

Such officers sitting in the audience listening to Hegseth’s scary-sounding speech would feel singled out and offended by Hegseth’s demand for rigorous, uniform, meritocratic standards to be enforced.  After all, that’s not how progressives understand the word equity.

The DIE generals and admirals–turned–pronoun police might think (to themselves or zirselves): Hegseth was a mere platoon leader in Iraq, whereas I’m a two-star general who memorized von Clausewitz and studied military theory in the classroom at West Point.  I’m credentialed, and I’ve sat in on important meetings with allied generals throughout the world.  

I’m far more accomplished than Hegseth, who attained only the rank of major in the military before becoming a right-wing pundit on Fox News.  Who is Hegseth to lecture me about military readiness, or whether I need to get on Ozempic and commence daily P.T.?  How dare this administration humiliate me, force me to come to Quantico, and listen to this crap?

Apply Sowell’s truism to the recently indicted James Comey, who is accustomed to the preferential treatment afforded him due to his long-established progressive bona fides and well documented hatred of traditionalists and conservatives.

Years ago, as FBI director, Comey gave cooing speeches (“love letters“) to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a fake civil rights organization that libels conservatives as terrorists and extremists (just as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Lawyers’ Guild, the ACLU, and other far-left hate groups smear law-abiding conservatives).

Comey’s FBI chose to rely heavily on empirically debunked statistics provided by the ADL, SPLC, ACLU, and others, all of which maintain that so-called Christian terrorists and white supremacist extremists are by far the greatest threat to America’s fraying social fabric, while politically favored left-wing groups like BLM, Antifa, and the Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR all got a free pass on their terror ties and activities.

Like Catholics praying the rosary, J6 attendees, and concerned parents at PTA meetings, Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) found themselves under intensive surveillance and in the investigative crosshairs of the FBI during the Biden administration, merely for opposing censorship and promoting the free exchange of ideas on college campuses.

It’s easy to connect the dots here, with the Mueller-Comey-Wray FBI working hand in glove with far-left umbrella groups, whether government-adjacent 501(c)(3) NGOs like the ADL or the Tides Foundation, or “philanthropic” organizations like Arabella.  The George Soros-sponsored groups are strongly suspected of providing financial and operational support to domestic terror cutouts like BLM and Antifa, the latter of which the FBI long denied even exists.

The sermonizing Comey, whose sociopolitical beliefs are seemingly indistinguishable from your typical Antifa or BLM street thug (even if his tactics differ), must have been genuinely shocked to receive anything other than preferential treatment from the Pam Bondi–led DOJ.

But Comey needn’t fret too much.  He was egregiously undercharged in his indictment (two felony counts, including the predictable and benign-sounding false statement charge), and he can probably expect an acquittal from an Alexandria, Virginia–based jury practically guaranteed to have several government employees as jurors.  Plus, conveniently and coincidentally, there is a “randomly assigned” Biden-appointed judge presiding over the Comey case.  So the preferential treatment will soon be back on tap for the former FBI choirboy.

Thomas Sowell’s insight also applies to any federal employees who might be unable to regulate their emotions if they lose their jobs due to the current Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries (D) shutdown.

How awesome do federal employees have it in their preferential treatment?  These coddled crybabies are on fully paid vacation right now without losing any of their accumulated paid time off (PTO).  While furloughed feds and corporate/legacy media shills like Martha Raddatz shriek that the sky is falling and fissures are rupturing the earth every time the government shuts down, it’s just another taxpayer-funded paid vacation for the feds, as they receive full back pay while their PTO balance remains unaffected.

So imagine the jarring shock and dismay if a handful of these useless federal ninnies experience the Reductions in Force (RIF) tens of millions in the private sector have known?  What if the preferential treatment to which they are accustomed suddenly downshifts and becomes equal treatment, courtesy of Russell Vought and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

Naturally, equal treatment after preferential treatment will make them feel like victims of discrimination.  But that’s another psychological tic of the progressive mindset: an utter disregard for personal accountability coupled with a burning need to perceive themselves as eternal victims.

Podcast thread for Oct 5

 

We are not meant to be burdened by unneeded paranoia and fears. We are meant to be free of fears we make up in our heads.

Democrats Have No Clue What Normal People Want

Townhall 

In the movie “As Good As It Gets,” Jack Nicolson was asked how he write female characters so well. His answer, hilariously, was, “I think of man, and then I take away reason and accountability.” That is exactly what it is like to talk with a Democrat. They honestly live on a different planet, which is fine. The problem comes in when they try to force everyone else live in that world – normal people aren’t interested in pretending there’s no difference between boys and girls, as none of us would be here without that difference and we’re big fans of that difference – we just want to be left alone. That is the exact opposite of the nature of a Democrat.

They are the nosy neighbor always popping by because they saw the light on, borrowing things and not returning them while being stingy with their hedge trimmers. They’re quick to call the police if your music is a little too loud but don’t mow their lawn when it needs it – wildly lacking self-awareness. They are the morbidly obese person in spandex, disproving the claim that “one size fits all” while insisting, like a Jerry Springer guest, that “You know I look good in this.”

They do not, they never do.

But the insistence is their power; they’re like Bill Clinton with a state employee: they aren’t about to take “no” for an answer.

Still, they keep trying – bless their hearts, as they say in the south. They’re like a pig trying to put together a simple Lego set – it’s just not going to work out, but they continue to roll around in the parts.

They’re trying, desperately, to find some way to appeal to normal Americans so they can win an election, it’s just not working out.

Take Texas, for example. For years, Democrats have been pouring the GDP of a mid-sized country into statewide races under the delusion that they can win. They don’t. That doesn’t stop them from trying.

How much money did they throw at Wendy Davis? Remember her? She filibustered in support of abortion and became a celebrity. No other accomplishments, just talked about abortion and that was enough to make her a progressive celebrity. They threw money and media fawning at her like a rapper who just platinum at a strip club with a money gun making it rain. She ran for governor….and she lost, badly. Then she ran for Congress and lost that too.

What about Beto? How much money did they throw at the failed presidential candidate – perfect Butthead impersonator – when he ran for the Senate. How’d what work out again?

Now they have a guy named James Talarico, a State Senator they’re pinning their hopes for a Senate victory on because he’s “religious.” Yes, it really is that pathetic.

You may ask yourself how Democrats could embrace someone who is a “Christian,” because of their contempt for faith and anyone who has it. Well, it’s fake. Not Talarico’s faith, I have no idea if he really believes what he says or not, nor do I care, but the embrace of the idea is what is fake.

In an appearance on MSNBC (where he appears to have set up shop as they try to prop up another left-wing phony), you can see left-wing media personality Nicolle Wallace choke back the vomit as she asks him “this moment in our politics.” Talarico starts off with, “You know that, in addition to being a lawmaker, I’m also a seminarian…” because believers always preface everything with a reminder of what they are, obviously. (Never trust anyone who insists they are something – funny, smart, honest, etc. – if they really are it, people don’t need to be told, we will notice.)

This bowl-cut fake then says, “If you read the New Testament, Jesus doesn't spend most of his time preaching or teaching or even praying. He spends most of his time healing the sick.” Does this mean James is leaving politics and going to medical school? Nope. It means he wants to force everyone to pay for the health care of the uninsured – good ole socialized medicine. Democrats are now trying to wrap their politics in Christianity in the hope at A) it fools people into thinking the party of child genital mutilation and abortion is Christian, and B) to try to provide a “moral” cover for their horrible, failed ideas.

Tell me you don’t understand normal people without telling me you don’t have a freaking clue how normal people think.

This is not only the entire premise of how Democrats are functioning these days, it is the programming guidance for MSNBC.

Honestly, these people have no clue how people who are not in 100 percent agreement with them think or what we want.

Personally, I think Texas is safe. This year’s model of “the chosen one” to flip it blue has all the charm of a weirdo with kids chained to a radiator in his basement. In addition to that, they still have no idea how Christians, conservatives, or Christian conservatives think or what they want. As long as they treat talking with or trying to represent normal people like a trip to the zoo, they will continue to lose. That is a beautiful thing.

Violence and the Left’s Five-Part Strategy

Townhall 

President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a “major terrorist organization” is a major step in dealing with the epidemic of left-wing violence that has gripped the country.  For the first time, we have a president who understands that riots with pallets of bricks that show up at just the right time and place, attacks on law enforcement and on passing motorists, physical attacks on opponents and even assassination do not just arise organically but instead are all part of a larger subversive strategy that enables and supports the left’s violence.   

Just prosecuting a violent leftist here and there without countering that subversive strategy is like swatting a mosquito or two while leaving in place the pool of stagnant water that breeds them. Consequently, the president’s executive order recognizes that any effort to stop left-wing violence has to address the larger ideological, organizational, and financial feeder system that breeds and incites that violence.   

Now comes the challenge for mainstream Americans.  The radical left knows that the political will to carry out President Trump’s directive will depend on continuing support from mainstream America, and so the left will mount a counter-offensive to wear away public support for any attempt to counter the left’s subversion.  If you think leftists get unhinged when someone simply disagrees with them, wait until you see their reaction when their support network is investigated, their funding is threatened, and they feel exposed and cornered. The left-wing media and elected Democrats who supported the weaponization of government against peaceful opponents during the Obama and Biden administrations have already started a propaganda campaign with cries of “fascism” and “dictatorship” at the prospect of leftists being held accountable for inciting and committing political violence.   

To hold fast in the face of the left’s counter-offensive, mainstream Americans need to see how the pieces of the left’s strategy work together to demoralize and destabilize our system of government. In his must-read book, The Memo: Twenty Years Inside the Deep State Fighting for America First, Rich Higgins describes in detail the pattern of subversion that he encountered within America’s security apparatus and his attempt to warn President Trump about it. In addition to a shocking account of delay and subversion from within the deep state, Higgins also reveals in this book and in his other work how leftist violence is only one of five lines of effort in the Maoist approach to political warfare. Expanding on his work, we see the outlines of the left’s five-part strategy:

(1) Forming alliances of grievance groups:  Socialists, radical feminists, minorities, gender identity groups, climate extremists, Islamists, and other grievance groups are pulled together toward a common aim, the destruction of the Judeo-Christian foundations of America and the West.  Supported by a complex web of foreign and domestic funding, conflicting interests such as those of the LGBT movement and those promoting sharia law are tempered—at least for now—by that shared aim. 

(2) Non-violent action: Many of the left’s tactics are non-violent in themselves but promote a dangerous climate for anyone who disagrees with their authoritarian agenda. Condemnatory terms such as “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “transphobic,” or “fascist” and characterizing opposing opinions as driven by hate are all intended to intimidate and silence any viewpoints deemed politically incorrect by the radical left. Boycotts of companies that don’t toe the party line as well as deplatforming and debanking of opponents create a climate of fear and send a clear message that you will pay if you cross the left. 

(3) Violent action and intimidation: The above tactics provide propaganda air cover for looting, riots, attacks on people who disagree, and even assassination as supposedly legitimate means of bringing down “fascists” and the hateful and oppressive system they support. As was the case with the paramilitary Red Guard in China, we see that young people are particularly enticed to join in the destruction of the existing cultural and political order. 

(4)  Sanctuary:  Subversive actors need safe spaces where they can be encouraged and protected from the consequences of their actions, and so speech codes and leftist indoctrination in our education system make it clear that only left-wing opinions are permissible and that open exploration of ideas should not be tolerated.  Left-wing DAs who view criminals as victims and victims as oppressors release dangerous offenders on the street, undermining public trust in government protection.

(5) Direct political action: The above tactics then enable the election of radical leftists who use the formal power of government to attack and undermine our constitutional system. You don’t’ have to search long to see a number of public officials who already spout the Marxist line under the cover of “progressive” or “democratic socialist” labels.  

When we see the full extent of the left’s multi-front campaign of subversion, it becomes clear that only a multi-front response such as that in President Trump’s directive has any hope of protecting public safety and restoring our ability to have civil discussion of differences without threats of violence from the left.  When you hear the left bemoaning “weaponization” of government, remember that an age-old tactic of the left is to accuse their opponents of what the left actually does.   

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Interesting Result in Japan – Sanae Takaichi, Protege’ of Shinzo Abe, Wins Party Vote

Sanae Takaichi, 64, won the Liberal Democratic Party leadership election on October 4, 2025, positioning her as Japan’s likely first female prime minister.

Takaichi is a conservative ally of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and supports revising the pacifist constitution, boosting defense spending, and imposing stricter immigration policies. Her victory was unexpected and now she will face parliamentary confirmation potentially becoming Japan’s first female Prime Minister.

TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s governing party on Saturday elected former Economic Security Minister Sanae Takaichi, a hard-line ultra-conservative and China hawk, as its new leader, making her likely to become the country’s first female prime minister.

In a country that ranks poorly internationally for gender equality, the 64-year-old Takaichi makes history as the first female leader of Japan’s long-governing conservative Liberal Democratic Party. Takaichi is one of the most conservative members of the male-dominated party.

An admirer of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Takaichi is a protege of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ‘s ultra-conservative vision and a regular at the Yasukuni Shrine, seen as a symbol of Japan’s wartime militarism, which could complicate Tokyo’s relations with its Asian neighbors. (read more)

The Press Has Become So Much Worse Than You Could Have Imagined

RedState 

The phrase "you don't hate the press enough" has become an evergreen statement on the right. Just when you think our stalwart journalistic class has reached the bottom and can't possibly get any worse, they set down their beers and shout, "Watch this." Over and over, the Overton window is shifted further into unimaginable absurdity, and the last few days have been no exception. 

As RedState reported, a Joe Biden-appointed judge recently sentenced the would-be assassin of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to only eight years in prison, far undershooting the statutory norms and forgoing the Department of Justice's request for 30 years behind bars to deter future bad actors. She did so not out of some deep respect for precedent or the law, but because the assailant now claims to be "transgender."

In perhaps the most stunning courtroom commentary I've ever seen, Judge Deborah Boardman used a sentencing hearing to chastize the DOJ for not putting a man in a women's prison while outright celebrating an attempted murderer's "transgendermism." She went so far as to suggest that the infraction was a good thing because it allowed the "Ms. Sophie Roske" to be accepted for "who she is."

In light of that absolute insanity, how did the press respond? By changing their prior reporting to now address Roske as a "woman." 

Here was NBC News' headline about the same man just a few months prior, and to be clear, every single other mainstream news outlet did the same thing. From CBS News to CNN, to The New York Times, they are all now describing Roske as a woman after previously correctly describing him as a man.

We are living in George Orwell's 1984: "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

Not that it would matter because appearances do not dictate biological reality, but Roske doesn't even attempt to present as a woman. He's a tall man who speaks in a deep, booming voice. Yet, the press will still tell you he's a woman because they value the left-wing delusion of transgenderism over objective truth. Not to be too cliche, but if they'll lie to you about something that obvious, what else are they lying to you about? That's rhetorical, but I think it illustrates not just the crisis of credibility within the press, but the total collapse of it. 

For another example, let's take a jaunt across the pond. 

On Thursday, a man rammed into Jews outside of a Synagogue in Manchester, United Kingdom, before springing from the vehicle to begin stabbing them. Multiple people were murdered as a result of the attack. It was later revealed that the killer was a former migrant from Syria named Jihad Al-Shamie, and that he carried out the attack to make Jews "cower." 

How did "Good Morning Britain" cover it? By claiming that "we don't know his motive or religion." 

Yes, we may never know the religion or motive of the guy from Syria named Jihad who attacked Jews on Yom Kippur and told us he did it to make them cower. It is unfathomable how far down the rabbit hole the mainstream press has gone, both in the United States and in other Western nations. I'm convinced people like this could be lined up against the wall by murderous terrorists, and they'd still be using gender-affirming pronouns and apologizing for their own perceived bigotry. 

What you are seeing is mental illness. It is a collective psychosis that insists truth does not exist in favor of the deranged musings of their favored distortion of reality. We are well past the "preferred narrative." This isn't about political convenience because there's no political convenience in defending an Islamic terrorist or playing to the tiny minority of people who believe an attempted assassin's sudden conversion to "transgenderism" just in time for his sentencing should be affirmed. No, we are dealing with truly unhinged individuals, and they hold some of the most influential positions in society. 

And don't kid yourself. As bottom of the barrel as this current moment may feel, the press will find a way to get even worse. Believe that. 

Jeff Clark ‘Barfare’ Exposes Another Leftist Attempt To Target Trump Allies In The Courts

‘State legislatures and State Bar associations must reform themselves and commit to political neutrality or they will destroy themselves and the profession.’

RealClearInvestigations

When Jeffrey Clark was tapped to lead the second Trump administration’s chief regulatory review office, it marked an astonishing redemption. 

For years, congressional investigators and prosecutors had pursued the former Department of Justice official primarily over an unsent letter he drafted, in support of President Trump’s 2020 election challenge, calling for Georgia to consider launching a last-minute legislative session to review its results.

Trump’s return to power has not ended Clark’s troubles: Washington, D.C.’s legal disciplinary authority has recommended he be disbarred over his conduct from five years ago. Lawyers for Clark claim that the effort seeks to punish “thought crime” regarding their client’s belief in potential irregularities in an election that authorities declared devoid of widespread fraud.

Even as President Trump’s critics now claim he is engaging in retribution against a wide range of past assailants, including former FBI Director James Comey, his supporters say Clark’s case reveals there is an ongoing, politically motivated push to punish MAGA advocates. In their telling, the president’s adversaries who weaponized the justice system through “lawfare” have opened another front in their war through “barfare.” 

The Rise of Barfare

Since 2020, Democratic officials and progressive groups established specifically to target conservatives have lodged bar complaints against dozens of Trump-allied attorneys such as Clark. While supporters of these efforts say they are trying to hold officeholders and advocates accountable for actions that betrayed the canons of ethical legal practice, conservative opponents say the push to punish their political foes via bar complaints, often brought in politically partisan jurisdictions, threatens not only the ability of presidents to receive counsel but the American legal system itself.

“The most politicized situations are the ones where the bar should be the most reticent,” to consider punishing attorneys over their work, James Burnham, former DOGE general counsel, said during a recent panel discussion on alleged bar weaponization hosted by the right-leaning Federalist Society. “That’s when lawyers are supposed to be the most creative and the most aggressive. But it’s not the kind of situation where we want lawyers to be afraid to even engage in advocacy in the first place.”

The Clark complaint concerned his activities in the final weeks of the first Trump administration, while he served in part as acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. Clark, an environmental and regulatory lawyer by background, believed that there was potentially election-altering fraud or irregularities in Georgia and other states, requiring resolution before the fast-approaching Jan. 6, 2021, election certification date.

In response, he wrote a draft letter dated Dec. 28 and addressed to Georgia leaders recommending that the state legislature convene a special session to further probe potential irregularities and take remedial steps as necessary if they impacted the election outcome. 

Clark circulated the letter to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who were responsible for probing 2020 election issues. Rosen and Donoghue disagreed with its thrust — especially the suggestion that there was potentially election-altering fraud — and declined to sign and deliver it.

Trump Gets Wind

As Trump’s election challenge proceeded, he got wind of Clark’s views. Apparently finding an ally, the president floated the idea of making Clark acting attorney general. Clark allegedly offered to decline any such appointment if Rosen would sign off on the letter, the then-Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee would later report — an allegation Clark would flatly deny. In opposition to a possible appointment, Clark’s superiors convened a Jan. 3, 2021, meeting with President Trump and other officials, at which several said they and other colleagues would resign en masse should the president elevate him. 

Ultimately, the president backed off, and Clark’s letter was consigned to the ashbin of history — until one or several ex-Trump administration officials leaked word of its existence and contents to the New York Times. The Times wrote about Clark’s efforts in a Jan. 22 article titled “Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General.”

A flurry of probes pertaining to the president’s election challenge would follow. Clark — a Harvard- and Georgetown-educated litigator who had spent the bulk of his career as a partner at white-shoe law firm Kirland & Ellis — would spend the next several years facing the scrutiny of congressional committees, including the Democrat-dominated Jan. 6 Committee, and prosecution in cases brought by Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia, and Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. In June 2022, he was forced to wait outside his home in his undergarments while federal investigators searched his suburban Virginia residence, seizing electronic devices in connection with their Jan. 6 probe. 

In July 2022, in response to a complaint lodged by the then-Democrat-led Senate, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility charged Clark with violating the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. It accused him of engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty” by drafting the letter the board alleged contained false statements, and for “attempt[ing] to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.” 

The allegations against Clark rested in part on the argument that because his superiors disagreed with his views on potential election fraud in Georgia, Clark’s assertions in the letter were fraudulent.

Unprecedented Case

In his defense, Clark invoked a slew of privileges, and raised myriad procedural and substantive arguments — including that the local D.C. disciplinary board lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s conduct as a federal lawyer providing counsel to the president; that Clark enjoyed immunity from liability while rendering advice to the president; and that the purported false statements were merely proposed Justice Department positions for consideration by superiors — positions largely consistent, as his lawyers noted, with those raised by several U.S. Supreme Court justices and nearly 20 state attorneys general.

Clark’s lawyers argued during his trial that “[N]o one has ever been charged by the D.C. Bar with attempted dishonesty in a draft letter that recommended a change in policy or position where that document was not approved and never even left the office.” 

His lawyers made the point that sanctioning him for such conduct would lead to a limitless array of disciplinary actions against attorneys over private or internal deliberations on behalf of clients should they hold contrarian views.

Government “lawyers will be afraid to give their candid opinions for fear of losing their careers. Likewise, lawyers will not join government for the same reason,” Harry MacDougald, one of Clark’s lawyers, told RealClearInvestigations.

On July 31, 2025, despite acknowledging “that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases,” a majority of the board recommended that Clark be disbarred. While rejecting Clark’s arguments, including that he was protected as a government lawyer giving advice, the nine-member board said that the charges against him “focus on the truthfulness of the factual assertions” in the letter that he authored. 

Although Clark’s superiors had testified that Clark had “sincere personal concerns” regarding the integrity of the election, the board said, “they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states.”

Therefore, his continued efforts to press officials to send the letter “constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation,” the board said.

The tribunal added that Clark “should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”

The disbarment decision is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has final say over such decisions in the nation’s capital.

Claims of Unequal Justice

In an August 2025 filing with the appeals court obtained by RCI detailing Clark’s exceptions to the board’s order, his counsel contrasted the disciplinary tribunal’s treatment of the Justice Department lawyer with that of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. He received just a one-year suspension for doctoring a document submitted to the FISA Court supporting the government’s FISA warrant application that enabled them to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page.

“The disciplinary process in the D.C. bar is radically disparate according to the political affiliation and views of the respondent attorney,” Clark’s lawyers charged.

A preliminary review of public records indicates that a majority of the board that made the Clark recommendation was comprised of registered Democrats, individuals who had contributed to Democrat candidates, or public advocates of progressive causes. Only one board member was publicly identifiable as a Republican.

The board recommendation followed a trial before a separate three-member panel, at least two of whom were registered Democrats and had contributed financially to Democratic Party candidates, public records show. 

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which handed down the original charges against Clark and effectively prosecutes such cases, is also headed by an attorney, Hamilton P. Fox III, who, according to public records, is a Democrat.

“D.C. voted Democrat more than 90% against Trump all three times he was on the ballot – the most lopsided margin in the country to have its own Bar,” MacDougald noted on X in a response to the disciplinary authority’s decision.

Many prominent Republicans also took issue with the actions of Trump and his confidantes in challenging the 2020 election. This includes the sole publicly identifiable Republican board member, Margaret M. Cassidy, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association who concurred in the recommendation that Clark be disbarred.

After the panel handed down its recommendation to disbar Clark, MacDougald told RCI, “the reason Jeff has been singled out is lawfare – straight up political persecution.”

With the Clark disbarment decision now in the hands of federal judges, the lawyer may have just gotten a big boost. On Sept. 25, three former attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in support of his case. William P. Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey — all Republican-appointed prosecutors, but not all supportive of Clark’s conduct — echoed his arguments in writing:

“The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility…has no business – indeed, no authority whatever – in policing internal deliberative discussions and documents exchanged within the federal Executive Branch for containing purportedly ‘dishonest’ (yet somehow also ‘sincere’) ideas or assertions,” they said.

They added that “immunity for top advisors is necessary to ensure that the President may receive candid and necessary advice prior to acting.”

“Although we are not persuaded by Mr. Clark’s proposed legal strategy, and former Attorney General Barr has publicly criticized it in no uncertain terms, disbarring or otherwise disciplining Mr. Clark for those actions would set a dangerous precedent that would significantly interfere with Executive Branch functions,” while sending a “biting chill throughout the federal government,” they concluded.

Not Alone in the Dock

On the same July day that the D.C. tribunal formally made its recommendation to disbar Clark, three current Justice Department officials were hit with ethics complaints lodged with the bar disciplinary authorities where they are licensed to practice. 

The parallel complaints — targeting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, Special Counsel Brad Rosenberg, and Trial Attorney Liam Holland — allege they made “intentionally and materially misleading statements” in litigation over the Trump administration’s attempt to curtail the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The complaints note that presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court upbraided the lawyers over certain representations made to the court.

Several ex-DOJ staff members have defended their colleagues, writing that “our former colleagues took immediate steps to correct the record in response to plaintiffs’ evidence,” while noting that “leaving any such inquiry in the first instance to the court and the parties, who have intimate knowledge of the facts and circumstances that state bar authorities lack, would be a far better approach for determining whether sanctionable misconduct occurred.”

The Justice Department did not respond to RCI’s inquiries regarding the complaints against its employees.

The three complaints were filed by the Legal Accountability Center. The advocacy group’s executive director, Michael J. Teter, has said its efforts are aimed at “going on offense in defense of democracy” at a time when “the rule of law is under direct assault.” The organization maintains it is merely seeking to hold to account “attorneys who abuse their power and violate professional conduct rules.” Its financials are unavailable. A broken web link appears to tie the nonprofit to progressive tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.

Among the Legal Accountability Center’s initiatives is The 65 Project. The so-called “dark money” outfit was launched in the wake of the 2020 election to “shame” lawyers who represented President Trump in some 65 lawsuits challenging the election and “make them toxic in their communities and their firms,” according to Democrat operative David Brock, founder of the partisan watchdog group Media Matters, who is one of the group’s advisers.

Billed as a bipartisan effort, The 65 Project is led by staffers with ties to Democratic Party campaigns and causes. Teter, who also serves as its managing director, has worked for candidates including John Kerry and counseled the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. Its senior advisor, Melissa Moss, is a former Clinton appointee and finance director of the Democratic National Committee. 

The 65 Project was originally run through another nonprofit, Moss’ Law Works, which achieved notoriety for hosting a stage adaptation of the Mueller Report performed by Hollywood stars. According to archived websites, The 65 Project was sponsored by the Franklin Education Forum, a supporter of progressive causes previously chaired by Brock, and a grant recipient of Omidyar’s Democracy Fund. 

Neither Teter nor the organizations with which he is affiliated responded to RCI’s inquiries in connection with this story.

Justice or Harassment?

More senior officials, as well, have gotten hit with bar complaints in recent months. In September, the center filed a bar complaint against Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming, among other things, a conflict of interest in his interviewing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It also filed a complaint against Ed Martin, the former U.S. attorney for D.C., asserting he had abused his position and conduct rules by engaging in politically motivated investigations, among other matters. Martin, now a DOJ special attorney, also faces scrutiny from the D.C. disciplinary body. During his tenure as U.S. attorney, he had requested information of that office, citing in part the Clark case, indicating his concern that it might be biased against conservatives. 

Elected Republican officials around the country, including Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, and Lawrence VanDyke, the former solicitor general in Montana and Nevada, and a current judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have also been targeted.

Judging by their disposition, most of these accusations were of dubious legal merit. A recent analysis of nearly 80 complaints filed by third-party organizations like The 65 Project against attorneys who represented Trump or related causes — many of them Republican state attorneys general — found that in only three instances did attorneys face public discipline.

The conservative group America First Legal filed a bar complaint against Teter last fall for his The 65 Project work, claiming he was abusing the bar disciplinary process in targeting attorneys associated with Trump. It is unclear whether the Utah Bar, which received the complaint, has taken any action.

De-Weaponizing the Bar Discipline Process

Those who believe the bar is being weaponized against those who hold disfavored viewpoints — namely on the right — say corrective action is required. They assert that, beyond pursuing arguments regarding the immunity that federal lawyers ought to have from state and local authorities, there is a First Amendment right to viewpoint diversity that quasi-governmental entities, such as state bar associations, are currently violating. 

Some, such as Michael Francisco, an appellate litigator who formerly clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, believe that “attorneys are not capable of regulating themselves.” 

America First Legal’s Gene Hamilton echoed these remarks, adding during the Federalist Society panel: “I really do think that each of the state bar associations need to take a really hard look at the rules and to modify them to prevent abuses of the disciplinary process.”

Clark’s lawyer, MacDougald, told RCI that ultimately, lawyers advocating for Republican and Democratic causes will be losers if the weaponization of discipline doesn’t end. 

“Lawyers have a job to do and should be allowed to do it,” he said. “State legislatures and State Bar associations must reform themselves and commit to political neutrality or they will destroy themselves and the profession.”