Panel recommends suspending Trump DOJ official's law license for 2 years
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Jeffrey Clark, former acting assistant attorney general, at the U.S. Capitol in June 2023. Photo: Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images
Trump ally Jeffrey Clark should be suspended from practicing law for two years over efforts to overturn President Biden's 2020 election win, a disciplinary board recommended in a Thursday ruling that the ex-DOJ official's representatives called "unlawful."
Why it matters: Clark is seen as a potential candidate for a senior administration position if former President Trump is elected in November for a second term.
- The D.C. Bar made a non-binding, preliminary ruling in April that set off a process that could result in penalties including Clark's disbarment, which the Disciplinary Counsel had pushed for.
- If this recommendation is adopted he'd escape the less severe penalty — unlike former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, who are both challenging disbarment over similar allegations.
Driving the news: Clark is charged with "attempted dishonesty and attempted serious interference with the administration of justice" related to when he was assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's environmental division that drafted a letter to Georgia election officials.
- The "Proof of Concept" letter claimed the Department of Justice had evidence of fraud in Georgia when it didn't.
What they found: "What Mr. Clark did was objectively reckless, but subjectively, the evidence indicated that he thought he had been chosen for a historic cause, to which he applied all of his energies," the three-person D.C. hearing committee wrote in its 213-page report and recommendation.
- "At the eleventh hour of the Trump Administration, he sought to take over responsibility for investigations into election matters, and relying on what was, at best, a fraction of the information any reasonable attorney would expect to act on," the filing continued.
- "We accept that Mr. Clark believed he was in a unique position to act and believed it was his duty to do so. But his sincerity of belief does not make him less reckless," it added.
- "To the contrary, we conclude that his personal beliefs blinded him from objectively assessing the facts and the reality of his proposed course of action, and caused him to rationalize a broader role for the Department of Justice, failing to distinguish President Trump from candidate Trump."
Yes, but: The board rejected the Disciplinary Counsel's argument that Clark was as "culpable" as Giuliani and Eastman.
- "We cannot recommend sanctioning Mr. Clark from what might be true or what evidence was presented in other cases," the panel wrote.
- "We can only recommend sanctioning him for what has been proven in this case by clear and convincing evidence."
What they're saying: Clark's legal team in a statement posted to X noted the recommendation "currently has no legal effect" and vowed to "pursue multiple appeals to keep it that way."
- His lawyers argued that the recommendation should be dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's June ruling in a case brought by Trump that found presidents have immunity for "official acts."
- "This case never should have been brought; it violates the separation of powers," per the statement posted by the Center for Renewing America.
