A panel involved in attorney discipline in Washington, D.C., has made an initial finding against Jeffrey Clark, an attorney who held a high-ranking role in the federal Justice Department during Donald Trump’s time as president.
Clark was a supporter of Trump’s ambitions against the results from the 2020 presidential election (meaning Trump’s targeting of Biden’s win), and the then-president considered making Clark the head of the entire Justice Department as Trump’s time in office wound down, though Clark lacked experience in criminal law.
The discipline proceedings against Clark could eventually lead to his disbarment, though there are additional levels of review beyond this panel before such a consequence is actually implemented. The processes are all playing out under the auspices of the local (not federal) court system in Washington, D.C.
At issue in the dispute has been a letter that Clark is known for proposing when still in his federal role that would have pushed the idea of potentially serious, destabilizing problems with the 2020 presidential election despite the total lack of substantiating evidence for such claims. Clark and his team handling the discipline case actually stood behind the letter in the course of the recent proceedings to the point a lawyer for Clark said his client would have sent the letter if actually made head of the Justice Department, a role that would have been known as the acting attorney general.
As explained by NBC News, a key question in the case has been whether Clark was being sincere in his efforts after the 2020 presidential race or was engaging in deception. Hamilton Fox, a lead lawyer on the case against Clark, made the case as follows, per NBC: “He had no rational basis to believe it. I can’t look in somebody’s mind, but when somebody tells you something repeatedly, in which all of the evidence is to the contrary, then yes, I believe that person is acting intentionally, is intentionally dishonest.”
