Trump Pardoned Jeffrey Clark, Then His Justice Department Sued to Erase the Ethics Case
Chapter 1 — The Government Went to Court for Clark
Chapter 2 — The Letter Clark Wanted DOJ to Send
Chapter 3 — A Defense of Federal Authority, Used to Stop Discipline
1 · The Government Went to Court for Clark
1.1 — Erase the Proceedings, Block the Next Case
Trump's Justice Department sued to erase Jeffrey Clark's attorney-discipline proceedings after a board found he tried to make DOJ announce false election findings. In late 2020, Clark headed DOJ's environmental division and was acting head of its Civil Division; before the events at issue, he had no role in its election investigations. Trump had already named Clark in an election-related pardon. Clark then sought permission to supplement his objections to the board's report in light of the pardon; the disciplinary docket lists that motion as granted. DOJ said the lawsuit carried out Trump's directives and asked to block discipline based on Clark's government work.
2 · The Letter Clark Wanted DOJ to Send
2.1 — A Letter That Could Turn Votes Into a Legislative Choice
2.2 — A Unanimous Finding, a Split on the Sanction
Trump told DOJ leaders to call the election corrupt, although its investigations did not support the major allegations. Clark urged them to send Georgia a letter claiming election findings they had not made, intended as a model for several states. It would have urged legislators to consider replacing the electors chosen through the popular vote. Clark said Trump had offered him the acting attorney general's job, but Trump ultimately rejected appointing him and the letter was never sent.
Every board member agreed that Clark attempted intentional dishonesty. The majority found it flagrant and recommended disbarment; two members favored a three-year suspension with proof of fitness before reinstatement. The board rejected allegations about misleading electors language and attempted serious interference with justice. Clark had no prior disciplinary record.
3 · A Defense of Federal Authority, Used to Stop Discipline
3.1 — Candid Advice Does Not Explain the False Claim
3.2 — Accountability on Hold
DOJ argues that local authorities cannot police federal lawyers' confidential advice to the President without violating the Constitution and chilling candid counsel. The board found Clark's violation was knowingly pushing false claims after his initial proposal. The board also rejected Clark's Supremacy Clause and separation-of-powers defenses: it said the proceeding addressed attempted dishonesty, not second-guessing executive deliberations. That board ruling did not decide DOJ's later federal lawsuit. The D.C. Court of Appeals had already rejected his narrower argument that the federal ethics statute did not apply to D.C.
As of October 10, 2026, the D.C. disciplinary docket lists Clark's case as on hold. The federal lawsuit is listed as ongoing with no relief granted. The disciplinary authorities have had to defend their proceedings in that separate suit. Using government lawyers to try to erase accountability for an election ally's attempted dishonesty is an abuse of public power.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
Full Source Index
Primary Sources
- [1]
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]
Secondary Sources
- [8]