[And with this, Frank Drebbin becomes the first star of an Ethics Alarms film clip to be featured in consecutive posts!]
Speaker Mike Johnson is saying he does not think the House Ethics report into the conduct of Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz should be released, even though Gaetz must face a Senate confirmation hearing. “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report, because that is not the way we do things in the House,” Johnson said. “And I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”
“The rules of the House have always been that a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” Johnson said, when asked if the public has a right to see the report. “And so I don’t think that’s relevant.”
Of course the report is relevant. In fact, what the report contains is essential to determining whether President Trump has nominated a pedophile, criminal drug users and general slimeball as the nation’s top lawyer or not. “That is not the way we do things in the House” is no argument at all. How many times as a member of Congress been nominated for Attorney General with an ethics investigation pending? “Never”is the answer, so “how they do thing in the House” in this situation will be decided by the House. The House has a duty to the American people first, not to its members, or in Gaetz’s case, non-members. It wouldn’t be a terrible precedent—why does Johnson think that? For the House to willfully withhold relevant information from a Senate confirmation hearing for a key position in a President’s Cabinet would be the terrible precedent. Johnson’s position looks like part of a cover-up operation.
Now, if Gaetz were really a trustworthy and admirable nominee, he would publicly request that the Hose Ethics Committee release the results of their inquiry, since there wouldn’t be anything damning in it.
But he isn’t, so he won’t, because there is.
Ethics Alarms 
didn’t the FBI and DOJ determine no chargeable offenses occurred? Which would make this a witch-hunt and equivalent to Kavanaugh, Thomas, and other hearsay smears?
Ethical violations don’t have to be chargeable; in fact, most aren’t. As you know.
Jack. The predicate for the House ethics probe was the FBI investigation into sex trafficking. Pedophilia and criminal drug user are the two items you listed which would be crimes not mere ethics violations. With all due respect, your disgust with Gaetz is well known and he very well may be a slime ball but to list pedophile and drug use behavior as the rationale to release the probe’s contents when he was cleared of those charges by an FBI that is not his friend seems wrong. Many members of the House are eager to see him go down because he led the ouster of Kevin McCarthy when McCarthy reneged on promises to restore regular order. So far all we know for sure is that others have made allegations and the most heinous of those have not had enough credible evidence to stand on their own.
I don’t think Gaetz is the right man for the job but for other reasons. I’ve seen too many times that anyone who takes a stab at the power structure will have allegations hurled at them to destroy them. Are we going to investigate Tulsi Gabbard who a number of Democrats claim is a Russian asset? I am being facetious but Gaetz is an easy target because he does not play well in their sandbox.
If the past practice is to not release a report when the target resigns then he is not an ethics dunce. If the Senate wants to grill him on those matters they can. I will not countenance the idea that if he has nothing to hide Gaetz should want the results published. Such a report, even if it shows no evidence of a claim, will reinforce the idea among the public that there must have been fire because of the smoke even if the smoke was artificially created.
I don’t care what’s in the ethics report, or what isn’t It’s valid information and relevant to the Senate hearing.
I don’t understand your argument. Everything should be out in the open for a potential head of the DOJ. The Ethics Committee is, if anything, too lenient. The reports are about what could be proven, not allegations. Allegations are what trigger the investigations.
If it is in the interest of the American people then the report should have been delivered before the election. As a house member, he was running for his seat. The ethics committee has been working on this report for nearly two years but they held it back until after an election but now want to use it. Why? If the report was that damning the House should have moved to get the report sooner and if necessary eject him. If there was no plan to potentially eject him then what are we doing spending countless hours investigating him? Despite all that, there would have been no ethics investigation had it not been for some spurious claims that even an adversarial Justice department could not swallow. What it seems you are arguing is that fruit from the poisonous tree is relevant to when punishment is desired.
If we are going to bring ethical government back then we have to start focusing on what is important and not what is salacious. Gaetz has too little experience managing large organizations. Unlike Hegseth who had command experience Gaetz has none. Gaetz’s prosecutorial experience is too limited for him to be able to make needed judgement calls. We need to focus on qualifications related to the job.
I almost bet Gaetz was chosen simply to avoid another nominee getting confirmed and then recusing himself from everything like Sessions did. I am not so sure Trump’s learning curve is all that flat.
There is a long-standing, bi-partisan policy in the House that Ethics Committee reports cannot be released so as to influence elections. The Committee has always had the potential to be a partisan weapon, and if there is going to be any ethical oversight of the House at all, that policy’s a no-brainer. No such policy exists regarding ongoing investigation when the members has been nominated for a major Executive Branch role, and that is as it should be too. Past reports include the evidence as well as the committee’s conclusions from it.
Please understand the I am simply pushing for the Senate to vote up or down on the qualifications of the nominees. There is adequate reason without the report to vote him down. I don’t think Gaetz is qualified but House ethics reports are to be used internally for House purposes. What stops the House from investigating anyone and releasing a report on them. No one should have to defend themselves on unproven issues. Everything is proved if there is never a defense presented. Trump learned that the hard way in that sex case where he was found civilly liable for some claim of sexual assault.
We now have similar claims against Hegseth about similar matters that were dismissed as spurious years ago by the local police. Nonetheless, information was leaked to Vanity Fair who ran with it. Pelosi herself talked about the tactic of the “smear”.
To say that ethics reports are withheld to prevent them from being used by partisans during elections seems to be at odds with the demand to release it to assess fitness for an office.
It seems to me that the ethical course of conduct for any lawmaker is to judge the person on his or her professional qualifications. One can use the fact that, barring other disqualifying factors such as lack of experience, an ethics investigation took place in the House which is suppressed is enough to disqualify the nominee without revealing information that has not been proved or even been subject to a defense.
Does it strike anyone as ironic that there is a longstanding bipartisan agreement by the Ethics committee not to release findings before an election to avoid partisan weaponization. If you need a policy that speaks volumes about its member’s ethical compass.
Nah, it strikes me as obvious. They need enforcement of ethics standards, but the House members have to enforce them, and they will always be partisan and biased. What’s ironic is that any House members have the gall to criticize SCOTUS for policing their own members.
so true. I do think if the policy is to protect the incumbent’s electoral chances against an opponent then the argument that the public needs to know for other offices because we cannot have unethical conduct condoned seems incongruent. That is my thinking.