Election challengesFederal 2020-election conduct pardoned Nov. 7, 2025 · New York disbarment remains a separate professional-discipline outcome · Arizona 2024 indictment dismissed June 18, 2026
Rudolph Giuliani
Track state-legislative presentations, public fraud allegations, the January 6 rally speech, litigation outcomes, and later attorney-discipline records as separate evidence streams. Committee conclusions are labeled as committee findings rather than court judgments. New York’s Appellate Division disbarred Giuliani in July 2024 after sustaining professional-misconduct findings tied to false 2020-election statements; that is a professional-discipline outcome, not a criminal conviction. On November 7, 2025, Trump issued a full federal pardon covering U.S. citizens for conduct relating to 2020 alternate-elector activity and efforts to expose alleged voting fraud; Giuliani is specifically named. That federal pardon is tracked separately from state proceedings and attorney discipline. In Arizona, the 2024 indictment naming Giuliani was dismissed on June 18, 2026 after litigation over the grand-jury presentation; the attorney general announced an intent to seek a new indictment. The dismissal and any future charging decision remain separate from the federal pardon and from the historical professional-discipline record. The June 21, 2022 Select Committee hearing record also preserves late-November voicemails from Giuliani and Jenna Ellis to Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler; the committee record says Cutler asked through counsel that the calls stop and that Giuliani continued outreach. This is committee-preserved contact evidence, not a criminal conviction. Committee-preserved Nevada records also document Kenneth Chesebro telling state Republican officials that Giuliani and other Trump-campaign figures had asked him to help organize the December 14 alternate-elector meeting; the hub treats that as documentary coordination evidence, not as a criminal conviction or a finding that every participant shared the same intent. The Senate impeachment-trial record also preserves a roughly 7 PM January 6 voicemail in which Giuliani, calling Senator Mike Lee’s phone while trying to reach Tommy Tuberville, asked Republican senators to slow the electoral-count proceeding. The recorded request is documentary evidence; impeachment managers’ conclusions about coordination or Trump’s state of mind remain their argument rather than a criminal-court finding. The November 25, 2020 Gettysburg Pennsylvania Republican policy hearing is also tracked as a separate state-pressure presentation: the Trump campaign announced Giuliani’s participation, and contemporaneous AP reporting documents Trump calling into the event after Pennsylvania certification. The hearing documents the campaign’s legislative-pressure presentation; allegations voiced there are not treated as adjudicated findings. The Ruby Freeman/Shaye Moss defamation litigation is tracked as a separate civil-court stream. A federal district court entered default judgment against Giuliani in 2023 as a discovery sanction, holding him civilly liable on defamation, intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and civil-conspiracy claims; a jury then awarded the plaintiffs approximately $148 million in damages. A later federal bankruptcy-court opinion recites that judgment. This is a civil judgment, not a criminal conviction, and it is kept separate from the Select Committee’s findings and Trump’s own statements. The Select Committee final report also records two connected calls with Rep. Jim Jordan at 7:33 p.m. and 7:49 p.m. on January 6 while Giuliani testified he was trying to reach members of Congress to encourage continued electoral objections; the July 21 hearing separately preserves his 7:02 p.m. voicemail to Sen. Tommy Tuberville asking senators to slow the count. These contacts are tracked as congressional phone-record/testimony evidence and do not by themselves establish that the recipients agreed to Giuliani’s requests. A December 13, 2020 campaign email displayed in Robert Sinners’s Select Committee interview also records Kenneth Chesebro conveying to Sinners and Mike Roman that Giuliani wanted the elector activity kept quiet until voting was completed. Sinners did not recall a specific conversation explaining the request, so the hub treats the email as documentary evidence of the secrecy request without inferring motive, agreement by every recipient, or criminality from that communication alone. The file also cross-references the Select Committee report’s finding that Giuliani participated in a January 2, 2021 private briefing reportedly attended by nearly 300 battleground-state legislators. The committee’s scale estimate is not a court judgment, and attendance does not by itself establish agreement or unlawful conduct by every participant. The November 25 Gettysburg-to-White-House sequence is also preserved: after Giuliani presented election allegations at the Pennsylvania Republican policy event, committee evidence says Trump invited Pennsylvania lawmakers to the White House that evening. The committee final report says the White House discussion touched on a possible special legislative session to appoint Trump electors. That is committee-preserved evidence about the pressure campaign and is not presented as a separate criminal conviction of Giuliani or the legislators who attended.
Pence strategyFederal 2020-election conduct pardoned Nov. 7, 2025 · disbarred in California · U.S. Supreme Court certiorari petition filed in September 2026
John Eastman
Track the Pence legal theory, Eastman/Chesebro communications and testimony by Pence counsel Greg Jacob and Judge J. Michael Luttig separately from later professional-discipline outcomes. The congressional hearing record also preserves Greg Jacob’s testimony that Eastman sent an 11:44 p.m. January 6 email—after Congress had reconvened—again asking Pence’s team to delay certification for 10 days. This is tracked as a documented communication and committee-preserved testimony, not as a criminal conviction. California’s Supreme Court disbarred Eastman on April 15, 2026 after the State Bar process found him culpable on 10 of 11 disciplinary charges. On June 26, Justice Kagan extended his deadline to seek U.S. Supreme Court review to September 12, 2026. Reuters reported on September 14 that Eastman filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the disbarment. The disbarment is a professional-discipline outcome, not a criminal conviction; the petition is a request for discretionary review and does not itself reverse or stay the California order. On November 7, 2025, Trump also issued a full federal pardon covering specified 2020-election conduct and specifically named Eastman. The site treats that federal clemency as a separate legal event: it does not rewrite the committee evidence trail, the California disciplinary findings, or any state-law proceeding. The June 16 hearing record also preserves Greg Jacob’s sworn testimony about the January 4 Oval Office meeting with Trump and Pence: Jacob said Eastman presented both an outright-rejection theory and a roughly 10-day adjournment theory, and acknowledged in Trump’s presence that the proposal would violate the Electoral Count Act. That testimony is maintained as a witness record, distinct from the committee’s broader conclusions and from Eastman’s later professional-discipline outcome. The June 16 hearing also preserves the January 6 2:14–2:25 PM email exchange in which Greg Jacob rejected Eastman’s theory as Pence’s team was being evacuated and Eastman replied by blaming Pence and Jacob for the siege. This is tracked as authenticated documentary evidence and sworn testimony, separate from the committee’s broader conclusions and Eastman’s later professional-discipline record. The evidence file now also includes the December 23, 2020 “January 6 scenario” memo preserved as Chapman053476, which the Select Committee identifies as an Eastman email attachment sent to Boris Epshteyn and Kenneth Chesebro. The document is tracked as primary documentary evidence; the committee’s conclusions about its legal significance remain separately labeled as committee findings. The evidence file now also separates Eastman’s January 3, 2021 six-page memorandum from the shorter December 23 memo. The Select Committee report describes the later document as “war gaming” multiple January 6 alternatives, including rejection/deferral scenarios and a possible return to state legislatures. The document trail is presented separately from the committee’s conclusions about legality or intent and from Eastman’s later professional-discipline outcome. Eastman’s December 9, 2021 Select Committee deposition also records him invoking the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he stayed at or participated in the Willard Hotel “war room,” whom he met there, and whether he communicated with Trump from the hotel. The hub records the invocation as a constitutional-rights fact and does not treat it as an admission or evidence of guilt. The file now also includes the November 28, 2020 committee-preserved email exhibit in which Jenna Ellis sent Mark Meadows and presidential executive assistant Molly Michael an Eastman article on state-legislature authority, marked “for POTUS.” That record establishes routing of Eastman’s theory into senior White House channels but does not by itself establish that Trump personally read or adopted the attachment. The file also now cross-references the Select Committee report’s finding that Eastman participated in a January 2, 2021 private briefing reportedly attended by nearly 300 battleground-state legislators. The committee’s attendance estimate and characterization are investigative findings; participation alone does not establish that each attendee agreed with Eastman’s legal theory or acted on it. The aftermath record now also includes Eric Herschmann’s sworn account that Eastman contacted him on January 7 about Georgia litigation and preserving an appellate issue; Herschmann said he demanded an “orderly transition” and told Eastman to obtain a criminal-defense lawyer. Separately, a committee-preserved January 11 email from Eastman to Rudy Giuliani explicitly asks for inclusion on a presidential pardon list. FactFlag treats the call as witness testimony and the email as primary documentary evidence; neither a lawyer’s warning nor a pardon request is itself a criminal conviction or admission of guilt. Eastman did not receive a January 2021 Trump pardon; his later November 2025 federal pardon remains tracked as a separate legal-status event.
White House contactsFederal 2020-election conduct pardoned Nov. 7, 2025 · Arizona 2024 indictment dismissed June 18, 2026; announced re-presentation not yet a charge
Mark Meadows
Track Meadows's role as a conduit among Trump, state officials and outside lawyers, including Georgia-related contacts and archived White House communications. Participation in a communication is not itself presented as proof of a crime. The Arizona 2024 indictment naming Meadows was dismissed on June 18, 2026 after litigation over the grand-jury presentation. The attorney general said she intends to return the matter to a new grand jury; that announced plan is not itself a new indictment or conviction. Trump’s November 7, 2025 proclamation specifically names Meadows in a full federal pardon for covered 2020-election conduct. That federal clemency is reported separately from state criminal proceedings and from the underlying communications record; it does not convert allegations into findings or erase independent state-court dispositions. DOJ’s own FOIA production adds a direct contact ledger: Rosen’s calendar records a Dec. 21 five-minute phone call with Meadows and a Dec. 29 West Wing meeting attended by Meadows, Rosen and Richard Donoghue; the same production includes later Jan. 3 logistics messages connected to a 6:15 p.m. White House meeting. Those records establish that the contacts occurred, but the calendar entries and logistics messages do not by themselves establish the substance, purpose or legality of every discussion. The January 6 documentary record also preserves a sequence of contemporaneous messages sent to Meadows while the Capitol attack was underway: Laura Ingraham at 2:32 PM, Donald Trump Jr. at 2:53 PM, Sean Hannity at 3:31 PM, and Brian Kilmeade at 3:58 PM each urged a stronger public presidential response or asked that people be told to leave. Those messages establish that multiple Trump allies were pressing the White House chief of staff for action during the attack; they do not by themselves establish what Trump personally saw at each minute, prove the full substance of Meadows’s communications with Trump, or constitute a judicial finding about criminal responsibility. The Meadows file now also records a November 28, 2020 committee-preserved email from Jenna Ellis to Meadows and presidential executive assistant Molly Michael, marked “for POTUS,” attaching John Eastman’s article on state-legislature authority to choose electors. The exhibit establishes that Meadows was a recipient in the White House routing chain; it does not by itself establish Trump’s receipt, Meadows’s agreement with the article, or criminal intent. The file also includes Meadows’s January 5 email to John Aycoth saying the D.C. Guard would be on hand to “protect pro Trump people.” The committee record establishes Meadows’s written wording and expectation, but the email is not a Defense Department deployment order and is not treated as proof that the Guard received a partisan command or that Trump issued a 10,000-troop order. The file now also includes the conflicting January 5 contact record: Hutchinson testified that Trump asked Meadows to contact Roger Stone and Michael Flynn and that she understood both calls were completed, while saying she did not know what was discussed. Kristin Davis later testified that Stone told her no Meadows call occurred and that she believed Stone had never spoken with Meadows by phone. FactFlag therefore treats the Stone-call question as disputed in the public witness record, while the content of any Stone or Flynn call remains unestablished.
Justice DepartmentFederal 2020-election conduct pardoned Nov. 7, 2025 · D.C. Board recommended disbarment; discipline remains pending
Jeffrey Clark
Track the proposed Justice Department intervention involving Georgia, resistance from senior DOJ leadership, the January 3 White House leadership confrontation, and later committee findings separately from professional-discipline litigation. The June 23, 2022 hearing record preserves Richard Donoghue and Jeffrey Rosen testimony about a December 28 draft letter that would have urged Georgia officials to convene the legislature over claimed election irregularities; Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign it. The same hearing record describes the January 3 Oval Office meeting over whether Clark should replace Rosen, including Donoghue’s testimony that no participant supported Clark and the committee’s use of White House call logs showing Clark being referred to as Acting Attorney General before the meeting. These are committee-preserved testimony and records, not a criminal conviction. On July 31, 2025, a majority of the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended disbarment for attempted dishonesty connected to the proposed Georgia letter; the D.C. Bar still lists the matter as pending. On May 13, 2026, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit seeking to nullify the D.C. disciplinary prosecution. That complaint states DOJ’s legal position; it does not itself reverse the Board recommendation or constitute a merits ruling in Clark’s favor. Trump’s November 7, 2025 proclamation specifically names Clark in a full federal pardon for covered 2020-election conduct. That pardon is kept separate from the D.C. professional-discipline case and DOJ’s 2026 civil challenge to that disciplinary process; federal clemency does not itself decide those professional-regulatory issues. Donoghue’s authenticated December 27 notes also record Trump mentioning that people told him Clark was “great” and that he should put Clark in, adding an earlier documentary waypoint before the January 3 leadership confrontation. That note is evidence of what was said on the call; it is not by itself a finding that Clark committed a crime. The committee’s published report materials also cite a late-December message trail in which Rep. Scott Perry repeatedly urged Mark Meadows to contact Clark, including Dec. 26 and Dec. 28 follow-ups and a Jan. 2 request to be called immediately after Meadows spoke with Clark. The messages are preserved as congressional investigative evidence and are cross-linked to Perry’s congressional profile; they do not themselves constitute a criminal conviction of Perry or Clark. As of the current August 2026 research pass, the D.C. Bar still lists Clark’s disciplinary matter, 22-BD-039, as pending after the Board’s July 31, 2025 disbarment recommendation. The Justice Department’s separate federal lawsuit seeking to halt or nullify the D.C. disciplinary process also remains an ongoing civil challenge rather than a ruling clearing Clark. Reuters reported on July 17, 2026 that California and 19 other states backed the D.C. authorities’ effort to dismiss DOJ’s suit. FactFlag keeps the Board recommendation, the still-pending D.C. discipline, DOJ’s litigation position, the states’ defense of D.C. disciplinary authority, and any eventual federal-court ruling as separate procedural layers. The January 3 resignation-warning record adds a separate institutional-resistance layer. The Select Committee hearing and final report preserve testimony that senior DOJ leaders canvassed Assistant Attorneys General before the Oval Office meeting and expected broad resignations if Trump removed Rosen for Clark. Donoghue and Engel testified about warning Trump of that institutional consequence, while White House counsel also opposed the change. Trump did not install Clark. This is tracked as sworn testimony and committee-preserved evidence, separate from Clark’s later professional-discipline proceedings, federal pardon and DOJ’s 2026 civil challenge to D.C. disciplinary authority.
Select Committee final report — Chapter 4 context ↗House January 6 hearing compilation ↗D.C. Bar — In re Jeffrey B. Clark, Board report summary ↗D.C. Bar — pending cases ↗DOJ — May 13, 2026 complaint challenging D.C. discipline ↗June 23, 2022 Select Committee hearing — Rosen, Donoghue and Engel testimony ↗Richard Donoghue transcribed interview — committee supporting-material archive ↗DOJ FOIA Library — January 6 records and Meadows/Rosen communications index ↗DOJ Pardon Attorney — Nov. 7, 2025 2020-election proclamation ↗Reuters — Nov. 10, 2025 federal pardon scope and state-case distinction ↗June 23, 2022 hearing — Donoghue authenticates Dec. 27 notes ↗GovInfo — Select Committee report material / Perry–Meadows messages ↗Reuters — July 17, 2026 twenty-state filing backing D.C. disciplinary authority ↗Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse — United States v. Fox federal challenge docket summary ↗June 23, 2022 Select Committee hearing — Rosen, Donoghue and Engel testimony on Clark/Rosen leadership confrontation ↗Select Committee final report — Jan. 3 Clark/Rosen confrontation and DOJ resignation warning ↗ 