AG (Allison Gill) (0:00)

MSW Media hello and welcome to the Daily Beans Special Edition, the audio version of the Matt Gaetz House Ethics committee report released December 23, 2024. Mr. Guest from the Committee on Ethics submitted the following report with dissenting views and rights. In accordance with House Rule 11 clauses 3A, 2 and 3B, the Committee on Ethics hereby submits the following report to the House of Representatives, including the views of Chairman Guest on behalf of the dissenting committee members. Plural so I just want to, you know, before we get into this, remind everyone that Speaker Mike Johnson did not want this report released. Matt Gates, right now as we speak, is over on Twitter tweeting his way through it, drawing more attention to it than it probably would have otherwise gotten. But I wanted to read this report. I'm going to read through it. I posted on Blue sky whether people wanted color commentary or not. I may break in with some comments, but in general, I'm just going to read through the report. We'll see how far I can get in one episode. We'll take breaks every 12 to 15 minutes. And also, don't forget the House of Representatives. Most Republicans voted to send this report back to the Committee. Now, I don't know how many of them already knew that the Committee had voted to release the report before they had that vote, but there were a lot of Republicans who wanted to cover this up. So let's begin with part one, the introduction on April 9, 2021, the committee announced it was investigating a series of widely reported allegations relating to Representative Matt Gaetz. At the request of the Department of Justice, the the Committee deferred its review during the 117th Congress. After it was organized for the 118th Congress, the committee reauthorized its investigation into the allegations involving Representative Gates. Specifically, the Committee undertook a review of allegations that Representative Gates may have engaged in sexual misconduct and or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift. In June 2024, following extensive fact finding, the Committee determined to continue its review and its expanded review to include allegations that Representative Gates may have dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship and and obstructed government investigations into his conduct. At the time, the Committee determined to take no further action on the allegations relating to the House floor state identification records, personal use of campaign funds, and acceptance of a bribe or gratuity. On November 14, 2024, Representative Gates resigned from the House after the President Elect announced his intention to nominate Representative Gates for the position of United States Attorney General. As a result of Representative Gates resignation, the Committee lost jurisdiction to continue its investigation. Representative Gates subsequently withdrew from consideration for the position of Attorney General. At this time, he has not announced any intent to seek higher office or return to Congress. The Committee has typically not released its findings after losing jurisdiction in this matter. However, there are a few prior instances where the Committee has determined that that it was in the public interest to release its findings even after the Member's resignation from Congress. The Committee does not do so lightly in this instance. Although several Committee members objected, a majority of the members of the Committee agreed that the Committee's findings should be released to the public. In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following from at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gates regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with Him. In 2017, Representative Gates engaged in sexual activity with a 17 year old girl. During the period of 2017 to 2019, Representative Gates used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and Ecstasy, on multiple occasions. Representative Gates accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas in excess of permissible amount. In 2018, Representative Gates arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. department of State that she was a constituent. Representative Gates knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee's investigation of his conduct and Representative Gates has acted in a manner that reflects deep discreditably upon the House. Based on the above, the Committee concluded there was substantial evidence that Representative Gates violated House rules, State and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the permission of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress. The Committee did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Representative Gates violated the federal sex trafficking statute. Although Representative Gates did cause the transportation of women across state lines for purposes of commercial sex, the Committee did not find evidence that any of Those women were under 18 at the time of travel. Nor did the Committee find sufficient evidence to conclude that the commercial sex acts were induced by force, fraud, or coercion. Representative Gates was uncooperative throughout the Committee's review. He provided minimal documentation in response to the Committee's requests. He also did not agree to a voluntary interview. On July 11, 2024, the Committee issued a subpoena to Representative Gates for his testimony. He did not appear despite having received notice of the date and time of the deposition. The Committee then sent Representative Gates a set of written questions to which he issued a public response that ignored most of the direct questions about his misconduct and mischaracterized the Committee's investigation and his participation up to that point. Despite Representative Gates claims to the contrary, the Committee's singular mission is to protect the integrity of the House. When faced with serious public allegations against a member, the Committee will often investigate. And when such allegations are false, the Committee has a shared goal with the Respondent to disprove those allegations. While the Committee considered whether to establish an investigative subcommittee to consider sanctions against Representative Gates, the Committee ultimately determined that it would not risk the further victimization of the women involved in the matter. Most of the women with whom the Committee spoke also gave statements to the Department of Justice and urged the Committee to rely on those statements in lieu of requiring them to relive their experience. They were particularly concerned with providing additional testimony about sitting Congressmen in light of the Department of Justice's lack of action on their prior testimony. DOJ refused to provide the relevant statements and other significant evidence to the Committee. DOJ cited internal policies about protecting uncharged subjects like Representative Gates, general concerns about how DOJ's cooperation with the Committee may deter other victims in other matters, and various appropriate policies relating to Congressional oversight of DOJ itself. DOJ's initial deferral requests and subsequent lack of cooperation with the Committee's review caused significant delays in the investigation. Those delays were compounded by Representative Gates obstructive efforts. The Committee has determined that its findings must be released without further impediment. Accordingly, on December 10, 2024, the Committee voted on whether to release this report. Although several members did not support its release, a majority of the members voted in favor. All right, before we get to section two, I wanted to just add a little commentary here in this paragraph where they say that when faced with serious public allegations against a member, the Committee will often investigate. And when such allegations are false, the Committee has a shared goal with the Respondent to disprove those allegations. And we also learned a little bit earlier here in the report that Matt Gaetz refused to sit for an interview and then minimally responded to written inquiries. And I just want to say that right now, Matt Gaetz is on Twitter saying that he was not charged by the Department of Justice and therefore didn't get a chance to face his accusers. But he was offered that chance multiple times and was then denied. The Committee also failed to file a criminal referral to the Department of Justice for his defying the subpoena that he was issued. So none of those obstructive behaviors were referred criminally to the Department of Justice. But let's talk about the DOJ for a second. They recognize here that, you know, they say the DOJ refused to provide the statements of the victims, citing internal policies about protecting uncharged subjects like Representative Gates, concerns about how DOJ's cooperation with the committee may deter other victims and other matters and other policies. And I am torn because I am very pro the Department of Justice when it's warranted, share their work product with Congress. However, there is a policy saying that if you don't charge someone, they don't want to release that stuff. And in general, the Department of Justice doesn't hand stuff over to Congress. I've Talked to Andy McCabe about this and other former DOJ employees. They simply don't hand it over because Congress isn't, as, I don't know, careful with information, I guess, is the way to put it. So that is normal for the DOJ to not hand these things over to the committee or to any committee. We saw it and were glad when it happened when Jim Comer and Jim Jordan repeatedly asked for a bunch of irrelevant stuff or stuff they would cherry pick from the Department of Justice, who refused to hand things over. And Congress does this, too, when the DOJ asks for their stuff. The January 6th committee, for example, dithered for three or four months handing over their work product to the DOJ in the Donald Trump January 2020, or, excuse me, 2020 election subversion case, January 6th subversion case. So both are very reluctant to hand over their work products. I still think the transparency, the transparency should be there. But it is important to note that when DOJ just hands testimony over to Congress and it's released to the public, that does have a chilling effect on witnesses who are willing to cooperate with the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice wants to bring you in for an interview, you are probably less likely to be very open and honest and forthcoming if you know that the Department of Justice will simply hand your testimony over to Congress, which will likely leak to the public. So that chilling effect is a real concern. And also, we need to recognize that there's a timing issue here. The Matt Gaetz investigation at the Department of Justice started under the Trump administration. Okay. It didn't start under Merrick Garland, and it wasn't overseen by the Biden administration. In fact, the U.S. attorney who eventually declined to bring charges the U.S. attorney in Florida left the same week that they decided not to bring charges, federal criminal charges against Matt Gaetz. That means that Trump was in control of the investigation into Gaetz for the entire time that he was being investigated. Trump has a history of botching cases against him and his friends. You'll recall in the hush money case, the Southern District of New York was investigating. And Trump and Barr said stop to the DA because the Southern District, our Southern District of New York, Trump's Southern District of New York is investigating the Stormy Daniels hush money election subversion case. And so the da, Alvin Bragg, stopped for a year while the Trump administration sat on that, hoping to expire the statute of limitations. Right. And did nothing and then failed to bring charges and likely actually maybe made a declination after they installed their own personal attorney, U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, which makes the case impossible to bring again, even, you know, when Merrick Garland gets there. This is what happened to the Mueller obstruction charges. Bill Barr whipped up a memo saying, we declined to prosecute Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. The Department of Justice declines. And with that declination in hand, if Merrick Garland tried to bring those obstruction charges, it would have been dismissed immediately because the Department of Justice, regardless of the asshole in charge, the Department of Justice declined to bring charges. It's impossible to resurrect those kinds of charges. So imagine, if you will, Donald Trump's appointed U.S. attorney down in Florida investigating this, getting testimony from the victims, eventually reporting out that they were not good witnesses and that's why they didn't bring charges. Imagine them sabotaging this. Imagine them getting conflicting testimony, drawing out conflicting testimony from. From these. From these very young women that would be used in a court of law to impeach them as witnesses. So do I think federal criminal charges should have been brought? Absolutely. I also think Florida state charges should have been brought. But the Florida Attorney General is a friend of Trump, as was the U.S. attorney who decided not to bring charges. And if you're wondering why it took so long until 2022 for the U.S. attorney to. You can talk to the Republicans in Congress about that. They also delayed the DC US Attorney appointed by Biden until November of 2021, the very US Attorney that would end up investigating Donald Trump before the case was handed over, of course, to Jack Smith. So just a few things to keep in mind about why there were no federal criminal charges. There were also no state criminal charges, and he did violate state laws. So keep that in mind. Let's go to part two after this quick break, this is going to be the procedural history, so it'll give you a little background. But we do have to take a break and get a a word in from our sponsors, so stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. You are listening to the Daily Beans and this is the audio version of the Matt Gaetz House Ethics Report. We are now on to part two, procedural history on April 9, 2021, the committee publicly announced it was investigating allegations relating to Representative Gates, including whether he may have engaged in sexual misconduct and or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use and or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice requested that the Committee defer all investigation of Representative Gates, and the Committee did so in February 2023, after the committee asked the Department of Justice for an update on its deferral request. Public reports indicated that the Department of Justice had inform to Representative Gates and multiple witnesses that the Congressman would not be charged in connection with the investigation. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice informed the Committee it was no longer requesting a deferral. The Chairman and Ranking Member reauthorized the matter in May of 2023 in accordance with Committee Rule 18A. On June 18, 2024, the Committee announced that the scope of the inquiry would focus on allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, acceptance of improper gifts, dispensation of special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and obstruction of government investigations. At that time, the Committee also stated it would not continue to investigate allegations of sharing inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misusing state identification records, converting campaign funds to personal use, and accepting a bribe or improper gratuity. The Chairman and ranking member sent nine requests for information and six Freedom of Information act requests. The committee also authorized 29 subpoenas for documents and testimony, reviewed nearly 14,000 documents, and contacted more than two dozen witnesses. The Committee also reviewed sworn written responses from an associate of Representative Gates, Joel Greenberg. As discussed further below, however, the Committee determined that due to credibility issues, it would not rely exclusively on information provided by Mr. Greenberg in making any findings. Shortly after DOJ withdrew its deferral request and the Committee reauthorized its review, the Committee sent DOJ a request for information after three months without a response. Despite repeated follow up, the Committee submitted FOIA requests in several relevant DOJ offices, which to date have not been adequately processed The Committee continued to reach out to DOJ throughout 2023, having still not received a substantive response to its request for information. On January 12, 2024, the Committee received its first correspondence from DOJ on the matter. At that time, DOJ provided no substantive response or explanation for its delay. Instead, DOJ simply stated that, quote, it does not provide non public information about law enforcement investigations that do not result in charges. The Committee says this policy is inconsistent with DOJ's historical conduct with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House. Thereafter, the Committee determined to issue a subpoena to DOJ to obtain records relating to its investigation of Gates. DOJ did not comply with the subpoena by the date required, but suggested it remained, quote, committed to good faith engagement with the Committee. In the spirit of cooperation, the Committee provided a list of specific responsive documents setting out particularized demands to the subpoena. Among the particularized demands was a request for any exculpatory evidence relating to Matt Gaetz. On March 13, 2024, committee members met with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative affairs and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal division of the DoJ. The DoJ officials again cited no legal basis for failing to comply with the subpoena. DOJ subsequently requested additional context for the Committee's demands, which the Committee provided. After further attempts at meaningful accommodation of DOJ's concerns about the breadth of the Committee's requests. DOJ ultimately provided publicly reported information about the testimony of a deceased individual. To date, the DOJ has provided no meaningful evidence or information to the Committee or cited any lawful basis for its responses. The Committee hopes to continue to engage with DOJ on the broader issues raised by its failure to recognize the Committee's unique mandate. As the Committee has told the DoJ, the committee and DOJ should be partners in their shared mission of upholding the integrity of our government institutions. The Committee initially made narrowly tailored requests for information to Representative Gates, seeking information limited to the allegations that would not be within DOJ's jurisdiction, the alleged acceptance of an improper gift and sharing of nude images and videos on the House floor. The request also invited Gates to provide additional information relevant to any of the allegations under review. Representative Gates sought numerous extensions and complained about the burden of the request. Representative Gates ultimately provided only three pages of information in response to the Committee's initial request. On May 20, 2024, the Committee requested Representative Gates inform the Committee whether he would agree to participate in a voluntary interview and provided him a list of alleg he could make any response or provide any information regarding the allegations. Four days later, on May 24, Representative Gates provided brief written denials of the allegations and demanded that the Committee address leaks prior to quote me providing any oral testimony to the Committee. On June 28, 2024, the Committee requested that Representative Gates provide the Committee with all records previously produced to the Department of Justice, as well as dates of availability for an interview by July 8. At that time, the Committee made an explicit request for any exonerating information. The Committee also informed Representative Gates it could not permit further delays. Representative Gates did not produce the requested documents or dates of availability, and on July 10, he asked for another extension through the August recess to produce documents he deemed appropriate. Representative Gates did not provide these documents despite multiple extensions provided by the Committee. The Committee noted to Representative Gates that an interview would be an opportunity to respond to the allegations against you and relevant questions arising out of the review. However, he declined to voluntarily participate again, making demands of the committee. Instead, on July 11, the committee issued a subpoena for Representative Gates testimony. The subpoena was served electronically to Representative Gates and his chief of staff, who had communicated with the Committee on behalf of the Congressman throughout the investigation. Representative Gates did not appear to testify pursuant to the Committee's subpoena. Representative Gates did not provide a legal basis for his failure to appear, but informed the Committee that, quote, upon information and belief the House will not take action to enforce the subpoena. The Committee informed Representative Gates that following his failure to comply with the subpoena and to provide a fulsome response to previous requests for information, the Committee would, quote, rely on the record available to make its findings in this matter. Representative Gates responded by stating that he had prioritized providing evidence that, quote, most clearly and directly proves his innocence and states that he welcomed written questions from the committee. The Committee subsequently sent a set of written questions to Gates. Representative Gates issued his responses publicly, which did not answer most questions, and asserted he would, quote, no longer voluntarily participate in the investigation on November 14, 2024. Representative Gates submitted his resignation to the House on December 10, 2024. While several members of the Committee objected, a majority of the members voted to release the report. All right, that is part two. Next up is part three, Relevant laws, rules, and other applicable standards of conduct. And this section will cover which federal laws the Committee believes Matt Gaetz violated, which state laws they believe he violated, and then it will draw some conclusions. We'll cover this section after another quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. Just a little bit of commentary on the last section that we covered. You know, talking about or defending the Department of Justice and not handing over anything that's, you know, was part of an investigation where charges weren't brought is fine. But failing to fully explain why charges weren't brought and also not responding at all with your policy position for several months is a problem. So I just wanted to put that little piece of color commentary out there. Let's start with Section three here. Relevant laws, rules and other applicable standards of conduct. And this is Section A, federal laws. Section 1591 of Title 18, U.S. code prohibits trafficking, including recruiting, enticing, or transporting a minor for commercial sex while knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor. Section 1591 also prohibits trafficking adults for commercial sex, using force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion. The Man Act, 18, U.S. code 2421, prohibits the knowing transportation of individuals through interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity. Section 2423 specifically prohibits the transportation of minors with the intent to engage in commercial sex or illegal sexual activity. However, if a defendant establishes that he or she reasonably believed that the individual with whom they engaged in commercial sex was at least 18 years old, the defendant may avoid criminal liability. Sections 2421 and 2422 are not limited to transportation of minors, but the Criminal Division of DOJ has stated that, quote, it does not prosecute these statutes in every case in which they are violated, but only where there is evidence of a victim of severe forms of trafficking in persons. Federal law also prohibits obstruction of Congress. Specifically Title 18, U.S. code 1505. It is a crime either corruptly or through threats to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry of a House committee or to endeavor to do so. Federal law also prohibits tampering with witnesses in a Congressional proceeding. Pursuant to 18 U.S. code 1512, it is a crime to knowingly intimidate, threaten, or corruptively persuade or attempt to do so, or to engage in misleading conduct toward an individual with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding or to cause someone to withhold or alter evidence. The witness tampering statute also prohibits the lesser offense of intentionally harassing a witness in an attempt to dissuade the witness from testifying. False statements to Congress in connection with an investigation are also prohibited pursuant to Title 18, U.S. code 1001. So I'd like to interject here the fact that the Trump U.S. attorney botched the investigation failed to bring charges. Whatever happened, they declined to bring charges. This is where I think Merrick Garland's DOJ failed. A clear violation of Title 181505 obstruction of Congress should have been investigated. If it was and not charged. The public interest, I think would demand to know about the declination of that prosecution. Just my two cents. Part B these are Florida State laws. Under Florida's statutory rape law, it is a felony For a person 24 years of age or older to engage in sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old. A person charged with this offense may not claim ignorance or misrepresentation of the minor's age as a defense. It is also a criminal offense under Florida state law to solicit, induce, entice or procure another to commit prostitution or to purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution or to aid, abet or participate in such actions. Florida defines prostitution as the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire, but excludes sexual activity between spouses. In Florida, unauthorized possession of controlled substances is also a criminal offense. Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 controlled substances are deemed by Florida law as having a high potential for abuse. Cocaine and mdma, commonly referred to as ecstasy or Molly, are controlled substances under Florida law. So that is the section on Florida law. And let me add my commentary here. Why were state charges not brought now for doj for federal criminal charges, there's a little gray area if you knew the person was underage or not. There is no gray area in Florida state laws. This would have been an open and shut statutory rape case in Florida State. However, the Attorney general, whether they even considered bringing charges, I'm not sure. But if they did, they obviously declined to do so. Why? That's what I want to know. So my two main questions so far why did Merrick Garland's DOJ fail to bring obstruction of Congress charges under Title 18 1505? Or did they investigate and decline to bring charges because they didn't have sufficient evidence? And if so, why didn't you tell us? And number two, why did the Florida State Attorney General declined to bring charges? Did Matt Gaetz's dad have something to do with it? Was it a political decision to not investigate, not bring charges? Because as I said, as is outlined here in section 3B of this report from the House Ethics Committee, a person charged with statutory rape may not claim ignorance or misrepresentation of the minor's age as a defense. So even if the victim told Gaetz she was 21 or 19. That doesn't matter in the State of Florida. So where are those charges and Part c in section 3 House Rules and Other Standards pursuant to 5 U.S. code 7353 and House Rule 15, no. 25, clause 5 the gift rule Members of Congress are subject to broad limitations on the solicitation and acceptance of gifts. Under the Gift Rule, members may not knowingly accept any gift as provided in the rule. As the Ethics Manual explains, gifts include gratuities, favors, discounts, entertainment, hospitality loans, forbearances, services, training, travel expenses in kind, contributions, advanced payments, and reimbursements after the fact. The general provision of the Gift Rule allows a member to accept a gift valued less than $50 so long as the source of the gift is not a registered lobbyist, foreign agent, or private entity that retains or employs such individuals. A gift received through personal friendship where the fair market value is more than $250, requires formal approval from the Committee. With respect to a trip, the value is viewed as a whole and thus includes transportation, lodging, and meal expenses paid for by the gift giver. Certain considerations must be made in determining whether to accept a gift over $250 related to a personal friendship, such as one the history of the personal friendship, including any previous occasions of exchanging gifts 2 whether the gift giver personally paid for the gift or sought a tax deduction or business reimbursement for the gift and 3 whether the gift giver gave similar gifts to other members, officers, or employees of the House. In addition, members are required to report the receipt of certain gifts from non relatives where the aggregate value exceeds the minimal value. The minimum value in 2024 is $480, excluding any gifts valued under $192. In 2018, it was $390, excluding any gifts valued under $156. There's also an exemption for gifts of personal hospitality for which there is no value limit and no reporting requirement. The personal hospitality exemption, however, is limited. It applies only to stays and meals in someone's personally owned home, and it does not include air travel to get to that location or stays in a property that is rented out to others. House Rule 23, Clause 15, governs the payment for use of non commercial aircraft by House members. Members may use personal funds for the use of an aircraft supplied by an individual on the basis of personal friendship. Members may only accept a flight of non commercial aircraft without reimbursement under very limited circumstances under the Gift Rule. As a general matter, the personal friendship exception can apply only if the aircraft is owned by the member's personal friend, the use of the aircraft is for personal purposes and the member receives written approval from the Committee where the value is in excess of $250. Section 5341 of Title II U.S. code establishes the Member's representational allowance. It provides that its purpose is to, quote, support the conduct of the official and representational duties of a Member with respect to the district from which the Member is elected. The Ethics Manual notes, however, that assistance to a non constituent is not entirely prohibited under this statute and explains, quote, in some instances, working for non constituents on matters that are similar to those facing constituents may enable the member to better serve his or her district. Nonetheless, members should not devote official resources to casework for individuals who live outside the district, but instead may refer the person to his or her own representative or senator for assistance. The Code of Ethics for Government Service sets forth standards of conduct for all government employees. Paragraph two of that Code provides that those in government service should uphold the Constitution, laws and legal regulations of the United States and for all Governments therein and never be a party to their evasion. Paragraph 5 states they should never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not. All public servants are charged under the Code with upholding the principles articulated, quote, ever conscious that public office is a public trust, unquote. House Rule 23, Clause 1 states, quote, a member of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House. House Rule 23, Clause 2 states that members, quote, shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House. All right, with that, why don't we take another quick break before we get into section four? The factual background, which starts on page 10 of the report, which we will link in the show notes so that you can read it in its entirety if you so choose. Again, I'm going to issue a content warning now for the factual background stuff that's coming up here for sexual abuse, illicit drug use, etc. But first, again, like I said, a quick break. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. Thank you for tuning in to the audio version of the House Ethics Committee Matt Gaetz report released Monday, December 23rd. Very early in the morning, Christmas Eve Eve. And we knew last week that this report would be released by the end of term after voting concluded Voting concluded after midnight on Friday night, averting a shut funding a continuing resolution that passed the Senate and has been signed by President Joe Biden. So let's get into the factual background. This is section four. It starts on page 10. And again content warning for SA and illicit drug Use Section A Allegations of Sexual Misconduct and drug use on March 30, 2021, the New York Times reported that Representative Gates was under investigation by the DOJ for possible violation of sex trafficking laws. The investigation reportedly related to allegations that Gates had sex, had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, and paid for her travel with him on April 1, 2021. Additional reporting indicated the federal investigation included allegations involving cash payments, the use of illegal substances, the recruitment of women online for sexual and the use of campaign funds to pay for travel for women. The DOJ investigation was part of an ongoing inquiry involving a former county tax collector in Florida named Joel Greenberg, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2022. Section 1 representative gates arraignment with Joel Greenberg the Committee's record shows that shortly after he was sworn into Congress in 2017, Representative Gates became friends with Mr. Greenberg, who had also recently taken office as the Seminole County Tax collector. According to Mr. Greenberg, the two met at the house of Christopher Dorworth, a Florida lobbyist. Mr. Greenberg and Representative Gates frequently attended parties and other gatherings with young women in attendance. Many of those women were initially contacted by Greenberg via the website seekingarangement.com now seeking.com and Mr. Greenberg subsequently introduced the women to Representative Gates. Seekingarangement.com advertised itself as a sugar dating website that primarily connected older men and younger women seeking mutually beneficial relationships. The website was generally understood by many of the women interviewed by the committee to involve, at minimum, an exchange of companionship for money. There have been prosecutions against individuals for sex trafficking that originated with contacts made through Seekingarangement.com or similar websites, and some have called for the website to be shut down due to its facilitation of prostitution. Platforms such as Seekingarangement.com are known to make it easier for traffickers to exploit victims and connect with buyers. The committee did not receive any evidence that Representative Gates had his own account on seekingarangement.com Mr. Greenberg indicated he frequently showed the site to Representative Gates and that he provided his login credentials to Representative gates. According to Mr. Greenberg, he and Representative Gates would split the costs of, quote, drugs, hotels and girls. For example, the committee reviewed evidence that such activity occurred in July of 2017. Specifically, evidence showed that Gates, Mr. Greenberg and others gathered at a rental property located in Brickell neighborhood the Brickell neighborhood of Miami, Florida. Please Forgive me if I'm pronouncing that incorrectly. For a weekend beginning on July 7, 2017, Representative Gates and Mr. Greenberg also spent time in Fort Lauderdale during the Miami stay, during which time Gates withdrew at least $1,200 in cash from three different accounts at one single ATM. On June 22, 2017, Gates paid $6,308 for that rental booking. On July 9, 2017, Mr. Greenberg paid Representative Gates $1,600 by check. Mr. Greenberg stated the check was reimbursement for a share of the rental. Mr. Greenberg also noted that they met up with another individual for dinner that weekend, and he shared a photo of Representative Gates himself and the other individual on social media. On July 8, 2017, the committee received evidence confirming that Representative Gates at times personally made payments to women who attended part with him and Mr. Greenberg, using various peer to peer electronic payment services, as well as checks and cash. The committee's record also indicates that Mr. Greenberg sometimes paid women for having sex with Representative Gates and was sometimes reimbursed by Representative Gates. Witnesses indicated there were times when a lump sum would be sent to one woman, who would then distribute the money evenly among the others who attended the parties. Likewise, in one instance, representative Gates sent $400 to Mr. Greenberg with the note hit up victim A. Mr. Greenberg then sent two women payments totaling $400, including victim A. On August 19, 2020, Mr. Greenberg was indicted on charges related to his misuse of motor vehicle records and identification documents in his role as Seminole county tax collector and his attempt to falsely accuse political opponents of being his political opponent of being a pedophile. He was additionally charged with sex trafficking of a child victim, a wire fraud, bribery of a public official, theft of government property, and related charges. He pled guilty to six charges, including sex trafficking of victim A. And in May 2021. In May 2021, he did that. But his sentencing was delayed until December 2022 due to his ongoing cooperation in several other matters. As part of his cooperation, he provided information that was ultimately corroborated and ended in successful prosecutions. So before we get on to section two, I want to talk a little bit about Dorworth, who was mentioned there at the beginning. Dorworth ended up suing these victims for defamation, but dropped his lawsuit the day before Gaetz had to be deposed. A lot of the discovery went to the committee, so I just wanted to put that out there. And also it feels to me like Greenberg is the fall guy, much like Cohen was the fall guy in the Stormy Daniels hush money election interference case, you get, you know, you end up with a unreliable star witness. Now, the Florida U.S. attorney declined to prosecute. Manhattan DA said, I don't think Michael Cohen is an unreliable witness. But that was the whole defense, wasn't it? So this is a pattern. Also, I think it was interesting that they mentioned that of all of the times they tried to get stuff from Matt Gaetz in response to these allegations and this investigation, to defend himself, he sent a grand total of three pages. So when you hear him complaining, I didn't get a chance to defend myself. He didn't take the opportunity to do so. All right, section two, Representative Gates interaction with the women he met through Mr. Greenberg. This is subsection one, transactional nature of the interactions. From 2017 to 2020, Representative Gates made tens of thousands of dollars in payments to women that the committee determined were likely in connection with sexual activity or drug use. Payments were made to these women using peer to peer payment platforms such as PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App. While Representative Gates had accounts in his name in each one of those platforms, he also sometimes paid women through other person's PayPal accounts or through an account held under pseudonymous email accounts. Representative Gates also paid some of the women by check or in cash. The following chart summarizes the payments made by Gates to Mr. Greenberg and women. This is just via peer to peer payment platforms or checks. Woman 1 From 2017 to 2020, $63,836.58. Woman 2 In 2019 and 2020, $4,189.82. Woman 3 From 2018 to 2019, $26,051.69. Did I say $2,651.69? I hope I did. Woman 4 From 2017 to 2019, $6,198.75. Woman 5 From 2018 and 2019, $4,025.27. Woman 6 $5,251.23. What are the cents for Matt Gaetz? I'm sorry, that's me interjecting in case you. In case you were confused. Who $0.23 did he turn on? The little thing that charges you a fee for making a business transaction and it cut out 77 cents anyway. Woman 6 There. That was from 2018 and 2019. Woman 7 In 2018 got 200 bucks. Woman 8 In 2017 got 600 bucks. Woman 9 Over a two year period, 2018 to 2020 got $1,280. Woman 10400 bucks in 2018 Woman 11500 bucks in 2017 Woman 12 $2,135.48 over 2018 and 2019 and Joel Greenberg got 3,950 bucks from 2018 to 2019. That is six figures for women in drugs. Six figures. It's twice what most people make in a year. The Committee's records indicate that Gates was in a long term relationship with Woman one, and therefore some of the payments may have been of a legitimate nature. However, as discussed further below, Woman one asserted her Fifth Amendment right when asked whether the payments to her from Gates were for sexual activity and or drugs or for her to pass on to others for such purposes. Based on that assertion, combined with evidence received from other sources, the Committee found substantial reason to believe that most of those payments were for sexual activity. The Committee was not able to speak with every woman who received payments from Gates that were suspected of being part of illicit activity. Several women initially were responsive to the Committee's outreach, but later told the Committee they would not voluntarily participate. Other women were clear at first contact they feared retaliation or were unwilling to voluntarily relive their interactions with Gates. Due to the women's reluctance to cooperate as well as the delay caused by the DOJ's deferral request and subsequent refusal to provide meaningful cooperation, the Committee was unable to determine the full extent of to which Gates payments to women were compensation for engaging in sexual activity with him. However, the record before the Committee provides substantial reason to believe that many of the payments in the chart above were made in connection with sexual activity or illicit drug use. The Committee was also not able to quantify the number of cash payments Representative Gates made to women or the amount of payments that other individuals such as Mr. Greenberg made on behalf of Representative Gates. Representative Gates refused to answer questions about his relationship with the women involved. There was, however, evidence that he understood and shared many of the women's transactional views of their arrangements. In one text exchange viewed by the Committee, Representative Gates balked at a woman's request that he send her money after he accused her of ditching him on a night when she was feeling tired, claiming she only gave him a quote drive by, the woman asserted to Gaetz that she was being treated differently than the other women he was paying for sex. The Committee also obtained text messages in which Gates then girlfriend informed some of the women who were typically paid for sex that quote, the guys, meaning Gates and Greenberg, wanted me to share that they are a little limited in their cash flow this weekend. Matt was like if it can be more of a customer appreciation week. A few months later, she noted that, quote, btw, Matt also mentioned he's going to be a bit generous because of the customer appreciation thing last time, unquote. Another woman specifically recalled the conversation with Gates about issues with Greenberg following through with expected payments after Greenberg's encounters with her. Mr. Greenberg told the committee that Representative Gates was aware that the women they had sex with and paid had met Mr. Greenberg through the sugar dating website, unquote. Representative Gates did not appear to have negotiated specific payment amounts prior to engaging in sexual activity with the women he paid. Instead, the women had a general expectation that they would typically receive some amount of money after each sexual encounter. In 2017, using an anonymous account, Representative Gates made payments to women largely without a description of the purpose of the payment. After several months, he began to use other payment accounts, including ones with his own name, using innocuous descriptions to indicate the purpose of the payments. Representative Gates did not provide any information regarding the tens of thousands of dollars in payments he made to over a dozen women, despite being offered the opportunity to do so by the committee. Representative Gates was provided with a list of women who the committee found received payments from him beginning in 2017, and was asked to inform the committee of the purpose of those payments, as well as to inform the committee how he knew the individual and whether, quote, if you engaged in any sexual activity with the individual, did she ever indicate to you that she expected payment for engaging in sexual activity with you? Rather than answer the questions Representative Gates asserted incorrectly, quote, you ask in part whether I've had sex with a list of adult women over the past seven years. The lawful consensual sexual activities of adults are not the business of Congress, unquote. Many of the women interviewed by the committee were clear that there was a general expectation of sex. One woman who was paid more than $5,000 by Gaetz between 2018 and 2019 told the committee that 99% of the time Gates and I were hanging out, there was sex involved, unquote. Text messages obtained by the committee show that Representative Gates would also ask women to bring drugs to the rendezvous, in some instances requesting marijuana cartridges and repaying the women directly, but in other cases requesting, quote, a full complement of party favors, vitamins or rolls. Representative Gates sent one woman several hundred dollars for marijuana cartridges. One woman stated that with respect to 2018, a Bahamas trip, quote, myself and Gates then girlfriend brought drugs with us and I do know that Matt supplied his then girlfriend with money. Another woman said she brought cocaine to at least one event with Gates and that she witnessed him taking cocaine or ecstasy on at least five occasions. Mr. Greenberg told the committee he would typically provide drugs such as ecstasy for events he attended and Representative Gates would pay him back in cash. Several other women observed Representative Gates to be under the influence of drugs. Additionally, nearly every witness interviewed observed Representative Gates using marijuana all right, we are going to end this very first episode of the audio version series of the Matt Gaetz Report released by the House ethics Committee Monday, December 23, early in the morning, just in time for Christmas. We will continue in our next episode which will come out shortly starting at the bottom of page 16 of this report. Thank you so much for listening. Everybody will be back with the rest of this report. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health and take care of your family. Happy Holidays. I've been ag and them's the beans. MSW Media.