Kash Patel, with his own enemies list, has a warped view of law enforcement, but he's set to lead the FBI -- even though the bureau is not to act out of "vengeance"

Kash Patel (Getty)

 

Donald Trump has spoken often of his enemies list, which apparently includes the names of people he wants to see prosecuted in his second term. But the president-elect is not the only one in the incoming administration who has a list of enemies. Kash Patel, Trump's woefully unfit choice to be FBI director, also has such a list -- as The New Republic (TNR) has disclosed under the headline "The Who’s Who on Kash Patel’s Crazy Enemies List; Trump’s pick to run the FBI has already made it known who he plans to persecute if he gets confirmed." Will anyone in Congress have the guts to bring Patel in front of the body and demand he turn over copies of any enemies list, or similar document, that would reflect on his fitness to head the world's most vaunted law-enforcement agency?

We likely will know shortly after Jan. 20, 2025, but based on Timothy Noah's report at TNR, Patel definitely needs to be vetted seriously, given that -- in so many words, he has admitted he intends to operate outside the boundaries of U.S. law. Plus, Patel seems to be unaware that the word "vengeance" does not appear to be part of the FBI lexicon, but Trump picked him anyway -- perhaps because he might make the perfect toadie/fall guy for an integrity-challenged president. Noah writes:

As someday it may happen that a victim must be found
I’ve got a little list—I’ve got a little list
Of society’s offenders who might well be underground
And who never would be missed—who never would be missed!

—W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, 1885

Like Ko-Ko, Lord High Executioner in The Mikado, Kash Patel has a little list and has threatened to come after those people who bear the misfortune of being on it. “We will go out and find the conspirators,” Patel said last year on Steve Bannon’s podcast, “not just in government, but in the media.… Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”

Who are these conspirators? In his 2022 book, Government Gangsters, Patel names them; they number 60. President Donald Trump has nominated for FBI director someone who compiled and publicized his very own enemies list. As a public service, I append Patel’s entire list to the end of this article.

Patel doesn’t literally call his list, which appears as an appendix in Government Gangsters, an enemies list; more blandly, he calls it “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State.” But “deep state,” in the context of Trumpworld grievance, is no neutral term. In the book, Patel calls the deep state “a cabal of unelected tyrants” and “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.” Consider also the book’s title, and that in introducing the list Patel apologizes for omitting “other corrupt actors of the first order.” It’s an enemies list.

What kind of person keeps a list of enemies? A person with more than the usual share. Most of us have at most two or three enemies—not so many that you have to write all their names down to keep track. Patel is different, and it is not unreasonable to question his mental stability on these grounds alone. The most famous enemies list, you’ll recall, was President Richard Nixon’s, and not even Nixon’s allies considered it a sign of robust mental health.

You can’t fault Patel for partisanship, though. Counting conservatively, 17 percent of his list consists of people that Trump himself either appointed or nominated during his previous term. That doesn’t speak particularly well of our president-elect. How exactly did Trump happen to elevate at least 10 people to higher office who turned out to be enemies of the state?

Let's ponder that last paragraph for a moment. Patel informs us that at least 10 people he considers "enemies of the state" met Trump's standards for being elevated to higher office. What kind of standards did Trump use for appointments to high-level positions? Does the word "none" come to mind? Could it be that Trump himself is the real enemy of the state here? Noah writes:

Maybe [these people] are just enemies of Patel. Patel includes on his list former Trump Attorney General William Barr, and the only serious offense Patel accuses Barr of committing was threatening to resign if Trump installed Patel as his deputy. Characteristically, Patel complains not that Barr turned him down for the job but that Barr “undermined President Trump” by turning him down for the job. In addition to that would-be boss, Patel includes in his enemies list two actual bosses, National Security Council Chairman John Bolton (an “arrogant control freak” who also resisted hiring Patel but finally did so reluctantly) and Mark Esper (who tried unsuccessfully to fire Patel).

More conventionally, Patel includes on his enemies list the last three Democratic nominees for president: Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Former President Barack Obama, for some reason, is left off the list, even though Obama’s chief of staff John Podesta is on it.

What does Patel mean by his use of the vague term "deep state"? Noah shines light on that question:

The term “deep state” is most often used to disparage the civil service, which Patel more or less wishes to eliminate. In addition to reinstituting Schedule F, which would strip many civil-service protections from government workers, Patel favors legislation that allows the president to fire civil servants directly. But almost all the people on Patel’s enemies list are political appointees, who by definition come and go with new administrations and are therefore more properly categorized as the Shallow State.

Maybe Patel hesitated to punch down (though such considerations didn’t keep him from including 27-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson, the former assistant to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows who gave testimony damaging to Trump before the January 6 committee). More likely, Patel is just as clueless as most Trump loyalists about what it is government employees do all day and why they do it (topics dear to my heart that I wrote about here and here; see also The Washington Post’s recent series profiling individual civil servants).

Patel may be “fiery,” as newspaper euphemism puts it, but he’s also opportunistic, which probably explains why no member of Congress made his enemies list (excepting Senator-elect Adam Schiff and Representative Eric Swalwell, whom he mentions as numbering among those “other corrupt actors of the first order” he regrets leaving out). When he compiled this list, Patel knew that in a future Trump administration he might score a Cabinet or sub-Cabinet nomination requiring Senate confirmation; that obstacle course now lies before him.

Most cruelly, Patel includes in his enemies list no members of what he calls the “fake news mafia press corps.” Perhaps somebody tipped him that journalists prize such designations more highly than the Pulitzer. Here at The New Republic it remains a matter of institutional pride that Nixon’s enemies list included John Osborne, then TNR’s White House correspondent, plus two future TNR staff writers, Stanley Karnow and Morton Kondracke, and a future TNR owner, Martin Peretz. Patel also neglects Hollywood. Nixon included on his list Shirley MacLaine, Herb Alpert, Paul Newman, and Carol Channing, who said she considered it the highest compliment of her career.

Noah concludes by sharing Patel's full list. It's a doozy, and not the kind that would inspire confidence in any government agency Patel might "lead":

What’s Taylor Swift, chopped liver? Maybe Patel didn’t want to load too many of his own names knowing that Trump was sure to have a little list of his own.

But enough commentary. Here’s Patel’s list:

Michael Atkinson (former inspector general of the intelligence community)
Lloyd Austin (defense secretary under President Joe Biden)
Brian Auten (supervisory intelligence analyst, FBI)
James Baker (not the former secretary of state; this James Baker is former general counsel for the FBI and former deputy general counsel at Twitter)
Bill Barr (former attorney general under Trump)
John Bolton (former national security adviser under Trump)
Stephen Boyd (former chief of legislative affairs, FBI)
Joe Biden (president of the United States)
John Brennan (former CIA director under President Barack Obama)
John Carlin (acting deputy attorney general, previously ran DOJ’s national security division under Trump)
Eric Ciaramella (former National Security Council staffer, Obama and Trump administrations)
Pat Cippolone (former White House counsel under Trump)
James Clapper (Obama’s director of national intelligence)
Hillary Clinton (former secretary of state and presidential candidate)
James Comey (former FBI director)
Elizabeth Dibble (former deputy chief of mission, U.S. Embassy, London)
Mark Esper (former secretary of defense under Trump)
Alyssa Farah (former director of strategic communications under Trump)
Evelyn Farkas (former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia under Obama)
Sarah Isgur Flores (former DOJ head of communications under Trump)
Merrick Garland (attorney general under Biden)
Stephanie Grisham (former press secretary under Trump)
Kamala Harris (vice president under Biden; former presidential candidate)
Gina Haspel (CIA director under Trump)
Fiona Hill (former staffer on the National Security Council)
Curtis Heide (FBI agent)
Eric Holder (former attorney general under Obama)
Robert Hur (special counsel who investigated Biden over mishandling of classified documents)
Cassidy Hutchinson (aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows)
Nina Jankowicz (former executive director, Disinformation Governance Board, under Biden)
Lois Lerner (former IRS director under Obama)
Loretta Lynch (former attorney general under Obama)
Charles Kupperman (former deputy national security adviser under Trump)
Gen. Kenneth Mackenzie, retired (former commander of United States Central Command)
Andrew McCabe (former FBI deputy director under Trump)
Ryan McCarthy (former secretary of the Army under Trump)
Mary McCord (former acting assistant attorney general for national security under Obama)
Denis McDonough (former chief of staff for Obama, secretary of veterans affairs under Biden)
Gen. Mark Milley, retired (former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Lisa Monaco (deputy attorney general under Biden)
Sally Myer (former supervisory attorney, FBI)
Robert Mueller (former FBI director, special counsel for Russiagate)
Bruce Ohr (former associate deputy attorney general under Obama and Trump)
Nellie Ohr (wife of Bruce Ohr and former CIA employee)
Lisa Page (former legal counsel for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe at FBI under Obama and Trump; exchanged texts about Trump with Peter Strzok)
Pat Philbin (former deputy White House counsel under Trump)
John Podesta (former counselor to Obama; senior adviser to Biden on climate policy)
Samatha Power (former ambassador to the United Nations under Obama, administrator of AID under Biden)
Bill Priestap (former assistant director for counterintelligence, FBI, under Obama)
Susan Rice (former national security adviser under Obama, director of the Domestic Policy Council under Biden)
Rod Rosenstein (former deputy attorney general under Trump)
Peter Strzok (former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, FBI, under Obama and Trump; exchanged texts about Trump with Lisa Page)
Jake Sullivan (national security adviser under President Joe Biden)
Michael Sussman (former legal representative, Democratic National Committee)
Miles Taylor (former DHS official under Trump; penned New York Times op-ed critical of Trump under the byline, “Anonymous”)
Timothy Thibault (former assistant special agent, FBI)
Andrew Weissman (Mueller’s deputy in Russiagate probe)
Alexander Vindman (former National Security Council director for European affairs)
Christopher Wray (FBI director under Trump and Biden; Trump nominated Patel to replace him even though Wray’s term doesn’t expire until August 2027)
Sally Yates (former deputy attorney general under Obama and, briefly, acting attorney general under Trump).

Lawyers Evan Davis and David Schulte face backlash after writing article about Congress' power to block Donald Trump from taking office as president

Tweet reflects backlash Davis and Schulte have faced (Twitter)

As we reported in a post on Friday (12/27/24), a proposal from two legal scholars that Congress should consider blocking Donald Trump from taking office has generated backlash from the right side of the political spectrum -- even though the authors make a powerful argument that U.S. law provides for such action when a political figure has violated his oath by failing to protect the constitution by engaging in insurrection, as Trump is accused of doing on Jan. 6, 2021. Newsweek describes how the article raised hackles in some quarters under the headline "Proposed Plan to Block Donald Trump from Taking Office Sparks MAGA Fury." Politics Weekend Editor Peter Aitken writes:

What's New

Two legal scholars have suggested Democrats should block President-elect Donald Trump from taking office, even as MAGA Republicans decry the very idea.

Why It Matters

In a historic political comeback, Donald Trump secured the presidency in the 2024 U.S. election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. This victory comes nearly four years after the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, where a mob of Trump's supporters stormed Congress in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. The insurrection led to widespread condemnation and legal challenges for Trump, including an impeachment for incitement of insurrection, though he was acquitted by the Senate. Despite these controversies, Trump's 2024 campaign focused on economic issues, persuading voters of his capability to enhance their financial well-being, which played a significant role in his electoral success. 

What To Know

Who are Evan Davis and David Schulte?

Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, two experts with extensive legal experience, wrote an op-ed for The Hill in which they argued that Democrats would be within their rights to block Trump's certification on grounds of "an oath-breaking insurrection" that makes Trump "ineligible to be president."

Davis is a Columbia Law School-educated lawyer who previously served as the president of the New York City Bar Association and editor of the Columbia Law Review. Schulte works as an investment banker in Chicago, but he clerked for Justice Potter Stewart and was educated at Yale Law School.

Schulte is an ardent supporter of President Barack Obama, even renting his Martha's Vineyard home to the Obama family in 2013, and is friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton, according to Chicago Magazine.

Jan 6 Cited as Cause for Blocking Certification

The argument both men put forward relies on the 14th Amendment, which says that "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

The authors called evidence of Trump's involvement in the insurrection "overwhelming" and, therefore, disqualifying.

Davis told Newsweek: "I think the Dems will consider this because there should be some reluctance to set aside the Constitution and because they voted to impeach and convict for inciting insurrection. We wrote the piece to encourage attention to the Constitution, either by rejecting electoral votes or by a 2/3 vote to remove the disability."

Schulte told Newsweek: "I think members of Congress are becoming more aware of the issue by the hour, and they're duty-bound to consider it as guardians of the Constitution. How they'll react remains to be seen, both Democrats and Republicans. They've all taken the same oath of office.

"We wrote the piece to give voice to the constitutional issue and describe the interrelationship among the events, the official forums that have touched the issues, and the law of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.

"Congress will do what it does, and it has the power under section 3 to free Trump of the disability of disqualification by reason of insurrection. The politics are intense, though the law is clear. Should Trump be certified, unless the disability is relieved, his administration will labor under a cloud of illegitimacy."

On what arguments would opponents of their plan likely rely? Aitken provides insight:  

The authors noted that the Supreme Court's decision on Colorado's plan to leave Trump off the primary ballot, which the high court rejected, would likely be the main defense that critics of their plan would use.

The Colorado Supreme Court had determined that there was "clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used" in the 14th Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court determined that states lack the power to disqualify candidates for federal office.

The authors argued the decision's relation to Trump's certification "lacks merit" for, mainly, the fact that the power of certification of Electoral College votes "is uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution." Additionally, they note the U.S. Supreme Court decision "did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection."

"The rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a non-reviewable political question," Davis and Schulte wrote in their op-ed.

The Electoral Count Act that they also cited includes sections on "Grounds for objections" and "Consideration of objections and questions." Specifically, they refer to a 2022 amendment to the act that "provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes."

"The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not 'regularly given,'" the authors wrote.

"A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words 'not regularly given,'" they continued. "Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years' residency in the United States."

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger fire back at Trump, shooting holes in his plans to prosecute them, and others, based on revenge and no plausible legal theory

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (Getty)

 

Two Republicans from the U.S. House committee that investigated January 6 -- Liz Cheney (Wyoming) and Adam Kinzinger (Illinois) -- are fighting back against Donald Trump's threats to have committee members jailed. Trump has been unable to cite any alleged crimes that would support prosecution of members -- and that is a point Cheney has driven home to the public. 

Under the headline "Trump Names Top Targets in Chilling Revenge Threat; Donald Trump is laying out a dark vision for return to office," Malcolm Ferguson writes at The New Republic (TNR): 

Trump wants anyone involved with the House January 6 investigation committee in jail ASAP.

In a recent interview aired on Meet the Press—Trump’s first since his election night win—the president-elect laid out the framework for his draconian vision, starting with his revenge list.

“I think those people committed a major crime, and [Liz] Cheney was behind it,” he said of the House select committee tasked with investigating January 6. “And so was Benny Thompson. Everybody on that committee.… For what they did, yeah, honestly, they should go to jail.”

The committee, run by the aforementioned Cheney and Thompson, as well as six other Democrats and another Republican, was shut down when Republicans won the House back in 2023.  

The committee accurately deduced that Trump did indeed incite acts of violence during his attempt to hold onto the office after his 2020 defeat, which he refuses to acknowledge to this day. He also accused the committee of deleting and destroying evidence regarding January 6, a claim with no evidence. 

Trump also has said he wants other perceived enemies, including Special Counsel Jack Smith, to face prosecution. Regarding Smith, Trump said in an article at CNN:

While he won’t push his attorney general pick, Pam Bondi, to investigate his enemies, he’s not shutting it down, either:

"She’s a very smart person. She’s — she was a great attorney general in Florida. She’s very experienced. I want her to do what she wants to do. I’m not going to instruct her to do it, no."

A few moments later, however Trump undercut this message when he argued that former Rep. Liz Cheney and other people on the House committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, insurrection committed a “major crime.”

Cheney wasted little time in firing back, making sure the public knows Trump has few, or no, facts to back up his grand legal theories. 

Is "do what she/he wants to do" grounds for Bondi, or Trump, to seek a criminal action against Cheney, Kinzinger, Smith, or anyone else? Of course not; the standard is a showing of probable cause, and we have seen no signs that Bondi or Trump can come close to meeting it. Ferguson writes:

Trump used the entire election cycle to fill out his “prosecute and imprison” list, and is so deep in his lies about January 6 that he’s convinced himself of his own victimhood. It’s us who are the problem, not him. When asked if he would finally concede the 2020 election now that the dust has settled and he’s won again, Trump replied, “No, why would I do that?” 

Various outlets have reported that President Biden has put preemptive pardons on the table for anyone who might be on one of Trump’s lists. 

Meanwhile, Kash Patel, Trump's choice to be FBI director, is showing signs that he is not up to the task Trump has planned for him. We will have much more on that subject in upcoming posts, including insights from a policy and legal expert in a previous Republican administration --  a gentleman who actually knows what he is talking about. How far off track is Kash Patel, according to our expert? The answer is "way, way off." We invite you to stay with us because this is an expert whose voice definitely needs to be heard.

Congress has authority to block Trump from taking office for violating his oath related to the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol -- but does Congress have the guts?

(Facebook)

Congress has the power to block Donald Trump from taking office as president based on his oath to protect the U.S. Constitution and his failure to uphold that oath by engaging in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and giving aid/comfort to our nation's enemies, according to an analysis yesterday by two legal experts writing at The Hill.

The article drew a fair amount of backlash, apparently from right-wing readers who concluded that authors Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte do not know what they are talking about. That, of course, raises this question: Do Davis and Schulte know what they are talking about? Davis was editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and Schulte was editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal; both clerked for Justice Potter Stewart. Davis is a New York lawyer who served as president of the New York City Bar, and Schulte is a Chicago investment banker. Their backgrounds indicate the answer to our question is yes.

So, how did they conclude that Congress could block Trump's path to the White House? Let's take a look. Under the headline "Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now," Davis and Schulte write:

The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.  

Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.

When did these proceedings take place, and what prompted them? Davis and Schulte spell it out:

The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.

The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection. 

Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have. While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!” 

As you can see, the U.S. Supreme Court is up to its neck in this issue, and a reasonable person could conclude the justices intentionally botched the case before them in order to keep Trump's candidacy off life support. Davis and Schulte seem to hold that view, and they explain their thinking:

Some will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, precludes Congress from rejecting electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6, on the basis of 14th Amendment disqualification. This view lacks merit for three reasons.

First the majority’s suggestion that there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment is what lawyers call dicta. Dicta is the musings of an opinion that is not required to decide the case. The holding that Section 3 is not self-executing may be an alternate holding, but thoughts about the kind of implementing statute required are plain dicta. Dicta is not precedential. The four dissenters strenuously objected to this part of the opinion as overreach to decide a question not presented. This overreach is a power grab, which Congress is not required to credit.

Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.

Third, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists. The Electoral Count Act was first enacted in 1887 and later amended and restated in 2022. That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes.

The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with normal use of the words “not regularly given.” Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth, and 14 years’ residency in the United States.  

To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.

The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

What about backlash generated by The Hill article? We will examine that in an upcoming post.

 

After reading this report on the Matt Gaetz sleazefest, you might want to take a heavy-duty shower to wipe out the stench from exposure to Trump's AG pick

Matt Gaetz (ABC)

After reading about the House Ethics Committee report on former Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL), many Americans probably asked, "Where can I go for an industrial-strength shower to wipe off this sleaze?" Just how sleazy is this story, in which the committee accused Gaetz of paying for sex, using illegal drugs, and having sexual relations with a 17-year-old? The New York Times has five takeaways that help answer that question. Writes investigative reporter Michael S. Schmidt:

After a yearslong investigation, the House Ethics Committee released a 37-page report on Monday into former Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, and allegations that he engaged in an array of illegal and untoward conduct, including having sex with a 17-year-old girl.

Mr. Gaetz, who had been President-elect Donald J. Trump’s first choice to be attorney general before Mr. Gaetz withdrew from consideration, has repeatedly denied he did anything wrong.

Here are takeaways from the report:

(1) The report says the evidence shows Mr. Gaetz engaged in a range of questionable conduct, some of it illegal.

The committee concluded that Mr. Gaetz regularly paid women to have sex with him from 2017 to 2020 and had sex with an underage girl in 2017, during his first term in the House, and that the girl was paid.

The report says that Mr. Gaetz used illegal drugs — including cocaine and Ecstasy — on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2019. It also says that he accepted gifts of transportation and lodging, in excess of dollar limits on what members of Congress are allowed to accept, as part of a trip he took to the Bahamas where he had sex with women whom he paid.

The report adds that he used his position to falsely claim to the State Department that a woman he had sex with was really a constituent who needed help obtaining a passport.

Mr. Gaetz also obstructed the committee’s investigation, the report said.

The report concluded that “there was substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”

(2) It is not clear that Mr. Gaetz will face further prosecution.

The Justice Department has already investigated Mr. Gaetz for the same matters examined by the House panel. Prosecutors informed Mr. Gaetz’s legal team in February 2023 that they would not bring charges. The prosecutors had concluded that they could not make a strong enough case in court, people familiar with the matter said at the time.

There is no indication that the committee’s report has any evidence that would not have been available to federal prosecutors. And in less than a month, the Justice Department will be under the control of Mr. Trump, who just weeks ago wanted Mr. Gaetz to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

The House Ethics Committee report does not include a criminal referral, but concludes that Mr. Gaetz broke state prostitution laws in Florida.

But the bar to say someone broke the law is lower than having to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

(3) The panel did not find sufficient evidence to accuse Mr. Gaetz of sex trafficking.

The committee said it “did not obtain substantial evidence” that Mr. Gaetz had violated federal sex-trafficking laws, one focus of the Justice Department inquiry, though it concluded that he had sex with a girl when she was 17 and that the girl was paid.

The committee said it had no evidence that Mr. Gaetz was aware the girl was a minor at the time. At the time she had sex with Mr. Gaetz, the report said, the girl had just completed her junior year in high school.

Evidence uncovered by the committee showed that Mr. Gaetz paid for women to travel to New York and Washington to have sex with him. But, the committee said, the women were over 18 at the time.

“While Representative Gaetz’s relationship with these women involved an exploitative power imbalance, the committee does not have reason to believe that he used force, fraud or coercion as those terms apply under the applicable laws,” the report said.

But, the report said, the committee found that by having sex with the 17-year-old, he violated Florida’s statutory rape law.

“The committee received evidence that Representative Gaetz did not learn that Victim A was 17 years old until more than a month after their first sexual encounters,” the report said. “However, statutory rape is a strict liability crime. After he learned that Victim A was a minor, he maintained contact and less than six months after she turned 18, he met up with her again for commercial sex.”

(4) Some of the women Mr. Gaetz had sex with for money felt impaired by drug or alcohol use.

The women whom committee investigators questioned said that their sexual interactions with Mr. Gaetz were “consensual.” But one woman said that she “felt that the use of drugs at the parties and events they attended” may have impaired her “ability to really know what was going on or fully consent.”

The committee said that “nearly every woman that the committee spoke with could not remember the details of at least one or more of the events they attended with Representative Gaetz and attributed that to drug or alcohol consumption.”

Some of the women expressed regret at what they had engaged in. One woman said that when she looks “back on certain moments, I feel violated.” Another woman said, “I think about it all the time,” adding, “I still see him when I turn on the TV and there’s nothing anyone can do. It’s frustrating to know I lived a reality that he denies.”

(5) The committee believed the Justice Department was unhelpful in its investigation.

Initially, after it was revealed in 2021 that Mr. Gaetz was under federal investigation, the Justice Department told the panel to stand down as it completed its inquiry — a request the committee complied with.

In 2023, Mr. Gaetz announced that the department had decided not to charge him, leading the committee to restart its inquiry.

But, at that point, the Justice Department refused to respond to the committee, according to the committee.

The committee said that “after three months without a response despite repeated follow up,” it filed Freedom of Information Act requests with Justice Department offices, “which to date have not been adequately processed.”

“The committee continued to reach out to D.O.J. throughout 2023, having still not received a substantive response to its request for information,” the committee said.

The committee said it received its first correspondence from the Justice Department in January 2024.

“At that time, D.O.J. provided no substantive response or explanation for its delay,” the report said.

But the department told the committee it does not give nonpublic information about investigations that do not result in anyone being charged.

The committee said this stance by the Justice Department is “inconsistent with D.O.J.’s historical conduct with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House.”

“D.O.J.’s initial deferral request and subsequent lack of cooperation with the committee’s review caused significant delays in the investigation,” the report said.

Matt Gaetz's history of drinking, partying, and womanizing, catches up with him as House ethics report shines unflattering light on his bad habits

Matt Gaetz: Crimes and Misdemeanors (AP)

 

An ethics investigation found that former Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) made payments totaling tens of thousands of dollars to women for sex and drugs on at least 20 occasions. It also found evidence that he paid for sex with a minor, according to a report at The Guardian. Robert Tait and Joseph Gedeon write:

A House ethics committee report on Matt Gaetz, the former Florida Republican congressman, found “substantial evidence” that he paid for sex with a minor, among other serious violations of state law and congressional rules.

The investigation concludes that Gaetz, Trump’s first pick for attorney general, made payments totaling tens of thousands of dollars to women for sex and drugs across at least 20 separate occasions. The report also states that in 2017 Gaetz paid a 17-year-old girl for sex when he was 35 years old, which would constitute statutory rape under Florida law.

“The committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” the Republican-led panel wrote in the investigation.

What punishment, if any, might be imposed against Gaetz? That was not immediately clear, but here is how Newsweek addressed the issue:

Legal experts have told Newsweek that former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz could be charged with taking drugs and having sex with a minor.

It follows a House Ethics Committee report alleging that the Republican potentially committed crimes, including statutory rape.

Statutory rape occurs when a person is too young to legally give consent to sex.

Several lawyers who spoke to Newsweek said that Gaetz could be charged. However, they said senior Republicans will likely block any investigation and prevent charges from being brought forward.

Los Angeles-based attorney, John J. Perlstein, told Newsweek that it would be legally permissible to prosecute Gaetz.

"It is possible for Matt Gaetz to still face criminal charges, as there don't appear to be statute of limitations issues for the relevant charges," Perlstein said. "However, the decision to bring charges lies with the two sovereignties involved: the state of Florida and the U.S. federal government."

"Given the affiliations of those in leadership—Trump's influence over the federal level and Ron DeSantis at the state level—it seems unlikely that charges would ever be pursued," he said.

Former federal prosecutor, Neama Rahmani, agreed that political pressure will likely prevent a prosecution.

"It's possible, but not likely that Gaetz faces criminal charges. We've seen indictments result from a Congressional investigation recently, that being the January 6 committee," he told Newsweek.

"But a prosecution requires a prosecutor who is willing to pursue the case. I don't think Trump's Attorney General or appointed U.S. Attorneys will do so.

"And Florida is a red state, so I don't think the Florida Attorney General or county prosecutors will file this case."

"If we see criminal charges, the most serious would be sex with minors. Not knowing the minor was underage is not a defense," he said.

Gaetz may still have a political career within the Republican Party.

He told a Turning Point USA event in Arizona on Sunday that he could be a candidate in the 2026 Florida gubernatorial election or run for the soon-to-be-vacant Florida U.S. Senate seat of Marco Rubio, Trump's nominee for U.S. secretary of state.

In short, legal experts look for Trump, DeSantis, the GOP, and squishy prosecutors to provide cover for Gaetz, even though the evidence against him appears to be overwhelming. And Gaetz could wind up right back in Congress? Sheesh, so much for Republicans' "tough-on-crime" stance. 

My guess is that many folks in the public, once they become aware of how this case might play out, will be none too pleased, meaning Matt Gaetz and his sleazy past could become a political albatross for the GOP. The allegations paint a grim picture:

The committee said it did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Gaetz violated the federal sex trafficking statute. It said there was evidence he paid women to travel across state lines to New York and Washington, DC for commercial sex but that the women were over 18 and that, while there was an “exploitative power imbalance” in the relationship, the committee did not have reason to believe Gaetz used force, fraud, or coercion.

According to the report, Gaetz used payment apps, including Venmo and PayPal, to transfer money directly to more than a dozen women during his time in Congress.

The committee determined that Gaetz regularly used illegal drugs including cocaine and ecstasy between 2017-2020, and appears to have set up a pseudonymous email account from his House office to purchase marijuana, violating both state laws and House ethics rules.

The committee believes that Gaetz “knowingly and willfully” attempted to obstruct the investigation, including failing to comply with subpoenas, withholding evidence, providing misleading responses, and making false public statements about “voluminous documentary evidence” that he never actually produced.

Investigators also highlighted a 2018 trip to the Bahamas where Gaetz allegedly “engaged in sexual activity” with multiple women. One woman told the committee that the trip itself served as “payment” for sexual services. The same witness reported that Gaetz took ecstasy during the Bahamas visit, which investigators determined violated House gift rules.

The Gaetz legal team fought hard to keep the report from seeing the light of day, arguing in a new lawsuit on Monday morning: “If publicly released, it would significantly damage plaintiff’s standing and reputation in the community. It “would be immediate, severe and irreversible.” Gaetz has long maintained his innocence.The report comes after a more than three-year investigation and represents a reversal following an earlier committee vote not to issue the results of an inquiry it began in the spring of 2021, when Gaetz was the subject of an FBI investigation.

Its leak came nearly a month after Gaetz withdrew his nomination to be Trump’s attorney general amid a fierce backlash, partly fueled by speculation over what the report might contain. How did all of this come crumbling down on Gaetz, who once seemed to have a promising political future? Tait and Gedeon report that it seems to be a case of self-immolation. The House inquiry – triggered after the justice department launched a separate criminal investigation into Gaetz that was later dropped without charge – was instigated to look into a broad range of accusations.

These included allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds for personal use and accepted gifts in breach of House rules.

Gaetz, who has denied all the allegations, in effect forestalled the report’s release by abruptly resigning from Congress last month after Trump nominated him as his attorney general in a decision that drew fierce bipartisan condemnation.

However, its contents became a subject of intense speculation as both Republican and Democratic senators voiced serious misgivings about Gaetz’s suitability to preside over America’s vast federal judicial and law enforcement structure.

Some critics accused Gaetz, a far-right representative from Florida, of resigning prematurely – long before the Senate had the chance to confirm or reject his nomination – with the purpose of preventing publication of the report, knowing its contents were likely to be damaging. Gaetz spoke out bitterly against the committee's actions. The ethics committee originally voted along party lines against releasing the document, even as some senators demanded to see it in advance of Senate confirmation hearings that had been due to be held early next year. The Republican speaker, Mike Johnson – a close ally of Trump – vocally opposed releasing the report.

The change of heart is notable given that Gaetz later said he would not attempt to return to Congress after withdrawing his nomination:

Gaetz angrily condemned the committee’s revised decision – first reported by CNN – in a vitriolic social media post on Wednesday, pointing out that he was never criminally charged.

“The Biden/Garland DOJ spent years reviewing allegations that I committed various crimes,” he wrote.

“I was charged with nothing: FULLY EXONERATED. Not even a campaign finance violation. And the people investigating me hated me.

“Then, the very ‘witnesses’ DOJ deemed not credible were assembled by House Ethics to repeat their claims absent any cross-examination or challenge from me or my attorneys. I’ve had no chance to ever confront any accusers. I’ve never been charged. I’ve never been sued.

“Instead, House Ethics will reportedly post a report online that I have no opportunity to debate or rebut as a former member of the body.”

He described his 30s – his age range when the alleged misconduct occurred – as a time of “working very hard – and playing hard too”.

“It’s embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life.”

But in a pointed jab at the House’s current ructions over a continuing resolution (CR) bill on public spending aimed at keeping the government open, he concluded: “At least I didn’t vote for CR’s that f--k over the country!”

The full Gaetz report can be read at this link.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump clash with Congress over spending bill, but wind up with diminished political power and little else to show for their efforts

Elon Musk (right) with his posse (AP)

 

Donald Trump's decision to engage in the Congressional spending fray presents a foreboding sign for the next four years in the United States, according to a report at the Associated Press (AP). It serves as a reminder that Trump (a) Is inept at almost all areas of governance; and (b) His tendency to rely on threats to bully people and get his way only goes so far.

A team of AP reporters, under the headline "What Trump’s decision to wade into spending fight tells us about the next 4 years," writes:

After days of threats and demands, Donald Trump had little to show for it once lawmakers passed a budget deal in the early hours of Saturday, narrowly averting a pre-Christmas government shutdown.

The president-elect successfully pushed House Republicans to jettison some spending, but he failed to achieve his central goal of raising the debt limit. It demonstrated that despite his decisive election victory and frequent promises of retribution, many members of his party are still willing to openly defy him.

Trump’s decision to inject himself into the budget debate a month before his inauguration also showed that he remains more adept at blowing up deals than making them, and it foreshadowed that his second term will likely be marked by the same infighting, chaos and brinksmanship that characterized his first.

“Stay tuned. Buckle up. Strap in,” said Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., a senior appropriator.

The spending battle likely will be the first of many wasteful imbroglios to mark Trump's second term. Why? Trump has demonstrated that he has little knack for governance and maybe even less for persuasion, AP reports. And these are not items Trump can push through on his own:

A glance at Trump’s agenda shows a cascade of opportunities for similar showdowns in the years to come. He wants to extend tax cuts that he signed into law seven years ago, slash the size of government, increase tariffs on imports and crack down on illegal immigrants. Many of those efforts will need congressional buy-in.

For many of Trump’s supporters, disruption could be its own goal. Thirty-seven percent of those who voted for him this year said they wanted “complete and total upheaval,” according to AP VoteCast, a broad survey of more than 120,000 voters. An additional 56% said they wanted “substantial change.”

But the past few days made clear the difficulty Trump could face in quickly fulfilling his goals, especially with Republicans holding only thin majorities in the House and the Senate. Some lawmakers already seem weary of the apparent lack of a unified strategy.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said the budget battle was “a valuable lesson in how to get our act together.”

“There are no layups and it gets more complicated,” he said

In short, Trump has not taken office yet, and a member of his own party is admitting that the president-elect doesn't have his act together. That's comforting. From the AP report:

How Trump’s demands fell flat

The trouble started when top lawmakers released a copy of the bill, known as a continuing resolution, that was required to keep the federal government functioning until March. It wasn’t the president-elect but Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a Trump confidant, who first began whipping up opposition to the legislation on social media by calling it excessive spending.

Trump eventually waded into the fight. He ordered Republicans to cancel the bipartisan deal they had made with Democrats. And he demanded they increase the debt limit — the cap on how much the government can borrow — in hopes of preventing that thorny issue from coming up while he is in charge of the government.

He ratcheted up the pressure even as his demands shifted. First he wanted to eliminate the debt limit altogether. Then he wanted to suspend it until 2027. Then he floated an extension until 2029.

If there was a shutdown, Democratic President Joe Biden would take the blame, Trump insisted.

“All Republicans, and even the Democrats, should do what is best for our Country, and vote “YES” for this Bill, TONIGHT!” Trump wrote Thursday, before a vote on a version of the bill that included a higher debt limit.

Instead, 38 Republicans voted no. It was a stunning brush-off to Trump, whose power over his party has at times seemed near-absolute.“Without this, we should never make a deal,” he wrote on Truth Social, his social-media site. If he didn’t get what he wanted, Trump said, there should be a government shutdown. He also said members of his own party would face primary challenges if they refused to go along, saying “Republican obstructionists have to be done away with.” He singled out Rep. Chip Roy of Texas by name and with insults. But in the end, lawmakers left out that debt ceiling increase, and a final deal passed early Saturday. Once the matter was resolved, where did everyone stand? Mostly on shaky ground it seemed:

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he had been in “constant contact” with Trump, who, he added was “certainly happy about this outcome.”

If Trump agreed, he didn’t say so himself.

After days of frequent social-media messages, Trump again went silent on Friday. He did not offer a reaction to the final vote or issue any statements. Instead, he went golfing at his Florida resort.

More clashes to come

The circus-like atmosphere of the funding fight was reminiscent of Trump’s first term. Back then, one budget standoff led to a government shutdown when Trump demanded money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. After 35 days — the longest shutdown in history — he agreed to a deal without the money he wanted.

It was a political low point for Trump, and 60% of Americans blamed him for the shutdown, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll at the time.

Trump didn’t stop trying to bend Republicans to his will then. He’s certainly not going to do so now.

He is cranking up the pressure on his own party over his Cabinet picks, pushing reluctant Republican senators to get on board with some of his most controversial choices, such as anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as defense secretary.

The spending debates next year seem certain to further test Trump’s influence in the House. Many conservatives view the rapid growth of the federal debt as an existential threat to the country that must be addressed. But some Republicans fear a voter backlash if steep cuts are made to federal programs upon which Americans rely.

Concerns about deficit spending could intensify if Trump pushes expensive tax cuts that he promised during the campaign, such as eliminating taxes on tips, Social Security and overtime pay.

He also wants to extend the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017 that are set to expire next year. He has called for further lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, but only for companies that produce in the United States.

Trump has said he will pay for the dips in revenue with aggressive new tariffs that economists warn will lead to higher prices for consumers.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said reducing spending would likely continue to be a gulf between Trump and House Republicans.

“That’s never been really a campaign promise of Trump, but it’s a big priority for House Republicans,” he said.

There was no sense that the animosity was dying down on Saturday. Some Republicans faulted the House leadership for not securing Trump’s “blessing” on the original deal. Democrats cast Trump as second fiddle to Musk.

While Trump stayed quiet, Biden announced that he signed the budget legislation.

“This agreement represents a compromise, which means neither side got everything it wanted,” he said. “But it rejects the accelerated pathway to a tax cut for billionaires that Republicans sought, and it ensures the government can continue to operate at full capacity.”

After Trump and Musk combine to torpedo bipartisan spending bill, Trump's alternative package fails, with Congress teetering toward a government shutdown

Trump and Musk sink bipartisan spending bill (Getty)

What is the No. 1 talent for Donald Trump and Elon Musk when they put their heads together? The most striking clues to that question came on Wednesday when Trump and Musk worked jointly to torpedo a spending bill that was designed to ensure the government keeps running and avoids a shutdown. Given what they did to that bill, it appears their main talent when working in tandem is breaking things. But the road is getting rocky for the GOP's "dynamic duo," as a Trump-backed alternative bill failed last night, leaving Congress headed for a government shutdown tonight.

Reports came out late yesterday afternoon that Trump supported a new bill to fund the government, and and he called it a "very good deal for the American people," and the House of Representatives was to vote on it last night. That measure failed, however, according to a CNN report at about 9:45 CST. But that came only after Trump and Musk had combined to hold the chamber hostage for a grotesque performance of "Chaos Theatre." Trump was demanding that GOP members embrace the new bill in a show of unity. In the process of backing a bill that went down to defeat, Trump reportedly alienated House members on both sides of the aisle. From the CNN report:

Congress is barreling toward a government shutdown after the GOP-led House failed to pass a funding plan backed by President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday, leaving Hill Republicans scrambling to find a path forward.

The Trump-endorsed plan was opposed by almost all Democrats, who are frustrated and angry after the president-elect tanked an earlier bipartisan deal, and a significant number of Republicans.

Government funding expires at the end of the day on Friday.

The GOP measure included a three-month extension of government funding, a two-year suspension of the debt limit into January 2027, as well as roughly $110 billion for disaster relief, according to five sources. The House voted 174 to 235, with 38 Republicans voting against the measure and 2 Democrats voting in favor.

The GOP measure included a three-month extension of government funding, a two-year suspension of the debt limit into January 2027, as well as roughly $110 billion for disaster relief, according to five sources. The House voted 174 to 235, with 38 Republicans voting against the measure and 2 Democrats voting in favor.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting ahead of the vote that he was “not just a no, I’m a hell no,” on the new GOP proposal, according to a source in the room.

Democrats have argued that the two-year suspension of the debt limit will help Trump pass his tax plan, and they aren’t willing to make it easier for him, given their opposition to it.

“This bill is designed to set up the GOP tax scam 2.0,” Jeffries said in remarks on the House floor ahead of the vote. “That’s what this bill today fundamentally is all about.”

Trump upended the government funding effort on Wednesday when he came out against the bipartisan plan that House Speaker Mike Johnson had backed. Trump is now demanding that any deal to avert a shutdown also address the looming debt limit, a complex issue that typically requires weeks to months of painstaking negotiations on Capitol Hill to resolve.  (Is this another example of Trump not knowing what he's doing, being ignorant of governance.)

In other words, Trump blew up an earlier effort to reach a spending measure, and then tried to bully members into supporting his flawed effort to paper over the problem. That did not work, with Trump leaving members of both parties pissed off at his failed attempts to correct what he had screwed up.

That's the kind of "leadership" delusional Americans (i.e., mostly White conservatives) voted for on Nov. 5, so they can look forward to much more of this incompetence and more episodes of "Trump Can't Govern, and Why Didn't All Sentient Beings Know That Before?" How are Democrats going to bail the country out this time? Republicans show no signs of being able to do it.

When the day was over, Trump critics were openly mocking the president-elect, by referring to Musk as his "shadow president." Trump clearly had been upstaged, and that is likely to make him and his oversized ego highly agitated.