The House Ethics Committee released a 37-page report on Monday accusing a former Florida Republican congressman of engaging in illicit activities while in office. The report alleges that the congressman, identified as Matt Gaetz, regularly paid women for sex, including a 17-year-old girl, and purchased and used illicit drugs during his time in Congress.
The findings detail explicit accounts of sex-filled parties and vacations that Gaetz participated in while representing Florida's western panhandle. The bipartisan panel concluded that Gaetz violated multiple state laws related to sexual misconduct while serving as a member of Congress.
The report states, '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.'
This report follows a nearly five-year investigation into Gaetz, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Despite his resignation from Congress, the Ethics Committee proceeded with the release of the report, prompting Gaetz to file a lawsuit seeking to block its publication.
In his lawsuit, Gaetz argues that the report contains 'untruthful and defamatory information' that could significantly damage his reputation. He contends that as a private citizen, he is no longer under the committee's jurisdiction and should not be subject to its findings.
The Ethics Committee's decision to release the report after Gaetz's resignation is considered rare, as such reports are typically made public only after a member leaves office. The panel had been investigating claims against Gaetz since 2021, with the urgency increasing when he was nominated as the attorney general by then-President-elect Donald Trump.
Despite the failed attempt to force the report's release on the House floor, the findings have now been made public, shedding light on the allegations against the former congressman. Gaetz's legal team has raised concerns about the committee's authority to publish damaging information about a private citizen, emphasizing the potential impact on his constitutional rights and reputation.
