UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2024, 12:55 p.m. ET): On Thursday morning, Gaetz announced that he would withdraw his name from attorney general consideration. “While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition,” Gaetz said in a statement.
The selection of former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Justice Department might be the ultimate act of disruption. The powers of the attorney general are truly awesome. Prosecuting criminal cases brought by the federal government is a responsibility that requires an AG to exercise measured judgment and discretion when charging decisions are considered. Experience, knowledge of the law and character beyond reproach are necessary prerequisites of any nominee to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S.
That’s why the intention to nominate Gaetz has set off a firestorm in Washington, especially on Capitol Hill, where he earned a pugilistic reputation as a take-no-prisoners disrupter best known for his fierce opposition to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Gaetz was the ringleader in the unsuccessful effort to stop McCarthy from becoming House speaker. Eight months later he was the ringleader in the successful effort to remove McCarthy. These antics earned Gaetz the disdain of the vast majority of his colleagues. To say Gaetz is disliked by House Republicans would be a wild understatement.
The plan to nominate Gaetz has set off a firestorm in Washington, especially on Capitol Hill, where he earned a pugilistic reputation as a take-no-prisoners disrupter.
Ordinarily, nominees for Cabinet positions are thoroughly vetted to identify any potential obstacles to confirmation. Trump has eschewed any pretense of a normal vetting process and instead has sought an attorney general nominee prepared to torch the very department he would lead. Not to quibble about Gaetz’s qualifications, but he has scant experience as a lawyer and was the subject of a lengthy sex crimes investigation by the Justice Department that resulted in no charges filed against him.
The House Ethics Committee, while under no obligation, customarily defers its own investigations as the Justice Department pursues them against sitting members of Congress. Even though the Justice Department ended its investigation of Gaetz, the Ethics Committee resumed or continued its own. Shortly after he was announced as Trump’s choice, Gaetz abruptly resigned his congressional seat to prevent the release of what would most likely have been a damning report.
Once a member of Congress resigns from office, the House Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction over the matter. Remember, too, that an ethics investigation is not a criminal investigation but rather an inquiry to determine whether a member has violated House rules. The committee can issue 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 finds potential criminal wrongdoing and refers the matter to the Justice Department for consideration and review.
Gaetz thought his resignation could block the report’s release and avoid having disturbing details from the report going public.
Well, not so fast.
While the Ethics Committee technically loses jurisdiction over members after their service has ended, there is nothing in the House rules that prohibits the committee from disclosing investigative information and reports about departed members. As a courtesy, the committee has typically ceased all investigative activities once a member has departed. That’s not a requirement, and there are precedents when the committee — after losing jurisdiction following a member’s resignation — has released reports and public statements.
There is nothing in the House rules that prohibits the committee from disclosing investigative information and reports about departed members.
Specifically, in the matter of Rep. Don Lukens, R-Ohio, that involved sex with a 16-year-old minor, a report was released after he departed Congress in 1990. The same is true in the matter of Rep. Bill Boner, D-Tenn., who resigned in 1987 following an investigation that involved the misuse of campaign funds, improper gifts and the acceptance of a bribe. After Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigned in 2006 when it was revealed he had sent inappropriate text messages to House pages, the Ethics Committee deposed several sitting members to determine what they may have known about the matter.
In short, the precedent of post-resignation disclosure is particularly stronger surrounding sexual misconduct by members.
Having served on the House Ethics Committee for eight years and as chairman for two, I’m very familiar with the mentality of committee members, who are serious and fair-minded about their duties. There are 10 committee members evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and they take their responsibility to maintain and enforce standards of conduct seriously. No one enjoys serving in this capacity to cast judgment on one’s colleagues. It’s the congressional equivalent of serving in the internal affairs division within the police department. But this is a job that must be done. When members of Congress resign because of scandal, they usually leave quietly and go about the task of quietly rebuilding their lives, relationships and reputations. They don’t get nominated for U.S. attorney general. There is a compelling case for the release of the Ethics Committee report on Gaetz. The Senate is demanding to see the report as part of its official record and constitutional duty to advise 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. Precedent is well-established, and the American people should know and understand how it would affect Gaetz’s ability to carry out the duties as the country’s top law enforcement officer. If the Ethics Committee declines to release the report, a member of Congress is likely to go to the House floor and move for its immediate release, forcing a vote by the entire House. Given Gaetz’s unpopularity among his former colleagues, expect the motion to pass overwhelmingly. Please spare us the drama. It’s time to release the report.
Charlie Dent
Charlie Dent is executive director and vice president of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, where he leads bipartisan, bicameral policy education programs for members of Congress. He is a board member of the National Archives Foundation, CARE USA and Research America and an advisory board member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. Previously, he served seven terms in the House representing the 15th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. 
