President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to lead the Justice Department could be the ultimate act of disruption. The powers of the Attorney General are truly amazing. Prosecuting criminal cases brought by the federal government is a responsibility that requires an AG to exercise informed judgment and discretion when considering charging decisions. Experience, knowledge of the law, and impeccable character are necessary requirements for any candidate to serve as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the U.S.
That’s why the move to nominate Gaetz has created a firestorm in Washington, especially on Capitol Hill, where he earned a boxing reputation as a take-no-prisoners disruptor, best known for his fierce opposition to the former chairman of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. . Gaetz was the leader in the failed effort to prevent McCarthy from becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives. Eight months later, he led the successful effort to depose McCarthy. These antics earned Gaetz the contempt of the vast majority of his colleagues. To say Gaetz is not liked by Republicans in the House of Representatives would be a wild understatement.
Normally, nominees for Cabinet positions are thoroughly vetted to identify any obstacles to confirmation. Trump has eschewed any semblance of a normal vetting process and instead sought a nominee for attorney general who is willing to torch the department he would lead. Not to quibble with Gaetz’s qualifications, but he has little experience as a lawyer and was the subject of a lengthy sex crimes investigation by the Department of Justice that resulted in no charges against him.
The House Ethics Committee, while not required, usually delays its own investigations while the Justice Department pursues them against sitting members of Congress. Although the Justice Department ended its investigation into Gaetz, the Ethics Commission resumed or continued its own investigation. Shortly after being announced as Trump’s choice, Gaetz abruptly resigned his seat in Congress to prevent the release of what would most likely have been a damning report.
Once a member of Congress resigns, the House Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction over the issue. Also remember that an ethics investigation is not a criminal investigation, but rather an investigation to determine whether a member has violated the House Rules. The committee can impose various sanctions on a member, including a reprimand, censure and, in the most extreme cases, expulsion. Sometimes during the course of an investigation, the committee identifies possible criminal misconduct and refers the matter to the Department of Justice for consideration and review.
Gaetz believed his resignation could block publication of the report and prevent troubling details from the report from being made public.
Well, not so fast.
Although the Ethics Committee technically loses jurisdiction over members after their service ends, there is nothing in the House rules that prohibits the committee from making public investigative information and reports on deceased members. As a courtesy, the committee has generally ceased all investigative activities once a member has left. That’s not a requirement, and there are precedents in which the commission — after losing jurisdiction following the resignation of a member — has released reports and public statements.
Specifically on the case of Rep. Don Lukens, R-Ohio, which involved sex with a 16-year-old minor, a report was released after he left Congress in 1990. The same goes for the case of Rep. Bill Boner, D-Tenn., who resigned in 1987 after an investigation into misuse of campaign funds, improper gifts and taking bribes. After Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigned in 2006 when it became known that he had sent inappropriate text messages to House pages, the Ethics Committee ousted several sitting members to determine what they might have said about the issue knew.
In short, the precedent for post-dismissal disclosure is particularly stronger when it comes to member sexual misconduct.
Having served on the House Ethics Committee for eight years and as chairman for two years, I am very familiar with the mentality of the committee members, who fulfill their duties seriously and honestly. There are ten committee members evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and they take seriously their responsibility to maintain and enforce standards of conduct.
No one likes passing judgment on colleagues in this capacity. It’s the congressional equivalent of serving in the internal affairs division within the police department. But this is a job that needs to be done.
When members of Congress resign over a scandal, they usually leave quietly and go to work quietly rebuilding their lives, relationships, and reputations. They are not nominated for U.S. Attorney General. There are compelling arguments for the publication of the Ethics Committee’s report on Gaetz. The Senate demands that the report be seen as part of its term of office and as a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent.
In life there are rules and there are exceptions to rules. In this case, there are compelling reasons to release the Gaetz report. The precedent is well established and the American people should know and understand how this would affect Gaetz’s ability to perform his duties as the nation’s top law enforcement official.
If the Ethics Commission refuses to release the report, a member of Congress will likely go to the House of Representatives and call for its immediate release, forcing a vote by the entire House. Given Gaetz’s unpopularity among his former colleagues, we can expect the motion to pass with an overwhelming majority.
Please spare us the drama. It’s time to release the report.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
