Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official during the Trump administration, is facing a two-year suspension from practicing law, as recommended by a disciplinary committee in Washington, DC. This decision comes after Clark advocated for the department to contact Georgia and question the legitimacy of Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election.
Clark, who worked as an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, attempted to send an official letter to Georgia officials following the election, urging them to intervene in the election results. However, his superiors at the Justice Department rejected this proposal, citing false and misleading information included in the letter.
The disciplinary committee's findings highlighted that while Clark believed he was acting in pursuit of a historic cause, his actions were deemed reckless. The committee noted that Clark's personal beliefs clouded his judgment, preventing him from objectively assessing the situation and distinguishing between President Trump and candidate Trump.
During the disciplinary trial, Clark maintained his belief that he had the authority to send the letter to Georgia. Testimonies from then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donohue emphasized that the Justice Department did not find substantial evidence of election fraud, contrary to Clark's assertions.
The disciplinary counsel sought a severe sanction, such as disbarment, for Clark, while his defense team argued against disciplinary action. The committee's recommendation for a two-year suspension is part of the attorney discipline process and is subject to further review.
Comparatively, Clark may face less severe consequences than other attorneys, such as John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, who are at risk of disbarment for their post-election legal activities on behalf of Trump. The committee's report indicated that Clark's level of culpability was not as significant as that of Eastman and Giuliani, based on the evidence presented in each case.
The committee emphasized that its recommendation was based solely on the evidence presented in Clark's case and not on external factors. The 213-page report outlining the decision marks an initial step in the disciplinary process for Clark.
