Role: Republican election-law attorney; founder of the Election Integrity Network (project of the Conservative Partnership Institute, CPI); central figure in the post-2020 “election integrity” infrastructure; participated in the January 2, 2021 Trump-Raffensperger phone call; coordinator of nationwide poll-worker / poll-watcher recruitment and election-administration pressure campaigns for 2022, 2024, and 2026 cycles.

Status: As of May 2026, Mitchell is the operational leader of the principal “election integrity” movement infrastructure outside of TPUSA. Not individually indicted in J6 prosecutions but documented as participant in Trump-Raffensperger call. Faced bar discipline in DC; no significant ongoing criminal exposure. Continues sustained Election Integrity Network operations.

Role in Democratic Erosion / J6

Trump-Raffensperger Call

• January 2, 2021 call
• Mitchell participated as Trump legal advisor
• Trump’s “find 11,780 votes” statement
• Subsequently became central evidence in Fulton County prosecution
• Mitchell resigned from Foley & Lardner upon disclosure

Election Integrity Movement Architecture

EIN has been the principal operational vehicle for:

• Nationwide poll-worker recruitment
• Coordinated pressure campaigns on state election officials
• Litigation infrastructure for election-administration challenges
• Movement-base mobilization on election-administration issues
• “Stop the Steal” institutional successor framework

Continuing Infrastructure

• Coordination with True the Vote, Heritage Action, TPAction
• Coordination with state-level election-integrity groups
• Direct movement-discipline mechanism on Republican secretaries of state and election officials

Legal Status and Investigations

Criminal

• No criminal charges
• Considered as conspirator in some Fulton County analyses

Bar Discipline

• DC Bar: Various complaints filed; some proceedings pending
• Foley & Lardner: Resigned January 4, 2021 upon disclosure of Trump-Raffensperger participation

J6 Committee

• Cooperated to limited extent
• Documents central to Committee report

Personal-Public Interest Conflicts

Financial Holdings

• CPI / EIN compensation
• Speaking and consulting fees
• Pre-2021 Foley & Lardner partnership equity (since separated)

Foreign Exposure

• No FARA registrations

Specific Decisions Intersecting Personal Interests

• CPI funding dependence: Continued operational role depends on continued CPI funding
• Election-integrity-narrative dependence: Personal political position depends on continued movement-engagement on election integrity

Key Connections

• Donald Trump — Direct
• Mark Meadows — CPI affiliation
• Russ Vought — CPI / CRA coordination
• Stephen Miller — Movement-coordination
• Charlie Kirk — TPAction coordination
• Leonard Leo — Movement-network coordination
• Various state-level Republican election operatives
• True the Vote leadership — Coordination

Investigative trail pointers (public records)

Education only — verify independently. Absence of hits is not proof.

Use public-records-research-specialist, corporate-intelligence-investigator, and public-corruption-ombudsman evidence tiers.

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

For Trump Supporters: Questions Worth Considering

Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2, 2021 phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — the call where Trump told Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes.” She was there as Trump’s legal advisor. She resigned from her law firm Foley & Lardner two days later, on January 4, when the call became public. She then founded the Election Integrity Network (EIN) at the Conservative Partnership Institute and built it into the nation’s primary operational infrastructure for poll-watcher recruitment, election-administration pressure campaigns, and “election integrity” framing across 2022, 2024, and 2026. She coordinates with True the Vote, Heritage Action, and state-level Republican election operatives. She has no criminal charges.

Here’s a question worth sitting with: Mitchell was a campaign-finance attorney with a Republican specialty — she built her career on knowing election law. She was on the phone while Trump pressured a state official to “find” exactly enough votes to change the outcome in a certified election. That specific number — 11,780, one more than Biden’s margin — wasn’t a request to investigate fraud; it was a request to manufacture a specific numeric outcome. Mitchell resigned from her firm when the call became public. She has not publicly stated that the call was improper. She subsequently dedicated herself to building the primary infrastructure for election administration oversight. If you believe election administration should be conducted by neutral professionals rather than partisan pressure operations — what does it mean that the leading architect of poll-watcher infrastructure was on the call where Trump asked a state official to change his certified results?

A second question about the Election Integrity Network: EIN’s operations are nationwide: recruiting poll workers and poll watchers in targeted precincts, pressuring state election officials, coordinating litigation. Poll watchers serve a legitimate function — oversight of the counting process. But there’s a difference between neutral oversight and coordinated partisan pressure operations recruiting specifically in precincts to challenge results. What is the difference between a poll watcher serving as an independent observer and a poll watcher recruited by a partisan pressure network specifically to challenge results in precincts the recruiting organization’s candidate lost? Which one does EIN’s model produce?

If the answer is yes, then that standard applies here too. Consistent standards for powerful people aren’t partisan. They’re the foundation of any system where laws matter more than who you know.

A second question: The people documented in these profiles hold, or have held, significant power over systems that affect your life — government programs, elections, law enforcement, the economy. When powerful people act in ways that benefit themselves or their allies rather than the public they serve, the costs fall on everyone. That’s true regardless of party.

You don’t have to agree with every political perspective represented in this knowledge base. You just have to ask whether the documented facts meet your own standard for how public officials should conduct themselves. That’s a question every citizen has the right — and the responsibility — to ask.

Sources

• January 6th Select Committee Final Report
• Trump-Raffensperger call recording (released January 2021)
• NYT, multiple investigative pieces
• Atlantic, multiple pieces
• Politico, multiple pieces
• CPI / EIN public materials and Form 990 filings

Cross-References

• djt-profile.md
• mark-meadows-profile.md
• russell-vought-profile.md
• charlie-kirk-profile.md
• leonard-leo-profile.md
• mike-davis-profile.md
• jan6-coup-plotters.md
• democratic-collapse-scenarios.md
• conflicts-of-interest-matrix.md