House Ethics Committee members are set to meet privately Wednesday as debate rages over whether the panel should release its report on its investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz. But even if they elect not to release it, that might not be the end of the road.
The committee doesn’t disclose its agenda. But Ethics members are under intense scrutiny as they figure out how to address the report, which lawmakers in both chambers have said they would like to review, particularly given Gaetz’s attorney general nomination.
The committee could vote to adopt or release a report during its closed-door meeting. If the vote is along party lines — the same number of Democrats and Republicans sit on the committee — a tie means the motion fails and defers to the majority, which is Republican. (Reminder: There is precedent for Ethics releasing reports about former members.)
It’s also possible that they postpone that vote, dragging this out further.
Here’s a breakdown of what could happen if members vote not to release the report, and other ways the investigative findings could see the light of day.
Someone leaks it to the press: Ethics Committee members and staff don’t take the prospect of a leak lightly, if the panel votes to keep the report under wraps.
Part of that is wanting to protect the credibility of the panel, but members also take an oath, pledging: “I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.”
So even if Democrats want this to come out, many don’t want to be responsible for breaking that oath — or the potential consequences, like censure or expulsion at the hands of their colleagues.
Using the House floor: Some lawmakers are privately theorizing that, should the committee block the release of the report, a lawmaker could go to the House or Senate floor and read it into the congressional record rather than leak it to the media.
That’s what happened when The New York Times and The Washington Post were waiting for a Supreme Court decision on whether they could leak the Pentagon Papers — so then-Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) read the papers on the Senate floor on June 29, 1971. He made it through 4,100 pages of the 7,000-page leaked document before submitting the rest into the record. (It resulted in a Supreme Court case, Gravel vs. USA.)
Any member who dares to take this step could face near-immediate consequences, including censure or expulsion. Republicans could quickly bring up a privileged resolution, bypassing Ethics and Rules, to punish whoever comes to the floor with the report.
“Let’s say a Democrat chose to go ahead and do that on the floor, the downside would be that it would blow up the Ethics process. Now that may not be the world’s biggest loss, because in the House it’s been pretty weak, but you would then simply be saying: ‘We’re no longer gonna abide by the rules, because we don’t believe in the rules,’” said Meredith McGehee, an independent expert in government ethics.
Sharing it with senators: Even if the Ethics panel doesn’t want to make the report public, they can vote to share it with the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of potential confirmation hearings. Some Republican senators have called to see the report, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn.
McGehee pointed to another option: Instead of handing over the report, House members could make the report available in a secure room where senators could — gulp — venture to the House to read it. That, of course, would cut down on some leak risks associated with distributing copies of the report to the entire Judiciary staff.
Sober warning: Staff-driven leaks have happened before, but typically not in a situation with so much at stake. In addition to losing a job, there are also real concerns of political violence if a staff leaker’s name became public.
