Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint on May 13 against the D.C. Bar, alleging it has acted as a “partisan arm of leftist causes.”
The U.S. Department of Justice in Washington on April 27, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch TimesAccording to the DOJ, the agency seeks to advance President Donald Trump’s directives to end the weaponization of the federal government while nullifying the D.C. Bar’s prosecution of former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark.
D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia itself, the D.C. Bar, and others are named as defendants and accused of unlawfully prosecuting Clark based on his internal deliberations of potential fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
The Epoch Times reached out to the D.C. Bar for comment and was referred to the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clark wrote a draft letter for his litigation on potential fraud, which was never issued, and the D.C. Court of Appeals’ disciplinary authorities punished him over it, according to the complaint.
The D.C. Bar and others’ investigation and discipline of Clark were improperly based on “their disagreement with Mr. Clark’s performance of his discretionary Executive Branch duties, particularly with respect to a predecisional and deliberative document about potential election fraud in Georgia, which remains the subject of criminal investigation and civil litigation years later,” the complaint said.
Allowing proceedings against Clark to continue would mean state bar authorities can exert control over the executive branch, the DOJ said, adding, “That is not the law.”
The DOJ cited the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, or preemption, as a cause for dismissing proceedings and discipline against Clark. Preemption, the DOJ said, prevents states and the District of Columbia from regulating or interfering with federal officials performing their duties.
In the complaint, the DOJ also argued that a 2024 Supreme Court decision, Trump v. United States, offers protection for Clark.
In that landmark ruling, the justices said the president is entitled to absolute immunity “for conduct within his exclusive sphere of authority” because the president should have the “maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.”
The president would enjoy little immunity if federal attorneys could be targeted and disciplined for internal deliberations, the complaint said.
In the news release, the DOJ said this filing furthers Trump’s executive order, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” and his presidential memorandum, “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts.”
“The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said. “Federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues.”
In a similar case to Clark’s, the DOJ said it filed a statement in support of former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, who is looking to have the D.C. Bar’s prosecution of him taken up in a neutral federal court.
The DOJ noted in its news release that three former attorneys general have acknowledged that the D.C. Bar’s push to discipline federal attorneys “for making recommendations, factual assertions, and providing legal advice during confidential internal agency deliberations on law enforcement and sensitive public policy” is “improper and constitutionally impermissible.”
“President Trump promised to put an end to the weaponization of the legal process, and today’s lawsuit against the D.C. Bar makes good on that promise,” Woodward said.
Tyler Durden Thu, 05/14/2026 - 15:20Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court ordered the pre-trial detention of Andriy Yermak, the powerful former head of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Office and once the country’s second-most influential figure, on money-laundering charges tied to a high-profile corruption scheme.
The ruling marks a dramatic fall for Yermak, who served as Zelenskyy’s closest aide from 2020 until his resignation in late 2025 amid earlier raids. He was taken into custody directly from the courtroom following the decision.
Charges and AllegationsUkraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) named Yermak a suspect on May 11 in a scheme involving the laundering of approximately 460 million hryvnias (about $10.5 million or €9-10 million).
Prosecutors allege he participated in an organized criminal group that funneled illicit funds - originating from kickbacks at the state nuclear energy company Energoatom-through shell companies and fake contracts into the construction of a luxury residential complex (known as “Dynasty”) in the affluent village of Kozyn, south of Kyiv.
The broader “Midas” investigation into Energoatom reportedly uncovered a pattern where contractors paid 10-15% kickbacks to officials to secure or maintain deals. Funds were allegedly laundered between 2021 and 2025 via elite real estate development.
Yermak faces charges under Part 3 of Article 209 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code (legalization of criminally obtained proceeds). A conviction could carry up to 12 years in prison.
After multi-day hearings, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) imposed 60 days of pre-trial detention starting May 14, with an alternative of bail set at 140 million hryvnias (roughly $3.2 million). Prosecutors had requested a higher bail of 180 million hryvnias (about $4 million).
Yermak was remanded in custody immediately, though he could secure release if the full bail is posted while the case proceeds. His legal team plans to appeal the ruling.
Yermak’s ResponseYermak has strongly denied all allegations, calling them “groundless” and “baseless.” He stated he owns only one apartment and one car, and has no involvement in the luxury development.
After the hearing, he told reporters: “I don’t have that kind of money, and my lawyer will now work with friends and acquaintances [to raise the money for bail].” He added that he respects the court, has “nothing to hide,” and is proud of his service to Ukraine during the war. He mentioned visiting the front lines weekly and receiving international support, though he said he would not use it to influence the judiciary.
His defense argues the case lacks merit and may carry political undertones.
Background and Political ImpactYermak rose from a film producer and diplomat to become Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, wielding immense influence over policy, appointments, judiciary, and even early peace negotiations with Russia before the full-scale invasion. Critics accused him of consolidating power and sidelining longtime allies of the president.
He resigned in November 2025 after NABU raids on his properties linked to the wider Energoatom probe. Zelenskyy has not been implicated, and anti-corruption officials have stressed the president is not a subject of the investigation.
It is no wonder Democrats just love corrupt Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/wqKy6PjzWp
— Marcus Notrealius (@TheLieKeeper) May 14, 2026The case comes as Ukraine faces intense pressure to combat high-level graft to advance EU membership and sustain Western support amid the ongoing war with Russia. It has sent shockwaves through Kyiv’s political elite and fueled public frustration over wartime corruption.
This remains a developing story. The investigation is ongoing, with potential for more suspects and revelations as the case moves forward.
Tyler Durden Thu, 05/14/2026 - 15:00