Analysis: Matt Gaetz and the Real Reason He Needs to Leave

Scoop: Matt Gaetz eyes early retirement to take job at Newsmax, the Axios headline blared.

You could feel the invisible exclamation marks – a half dozen at least – at the end of the line. After all, this is a big story. According to the article, the 38-year-old Gaetz, with a behavioural age that swings back and forth between 14 and 17,

…has privately told confidants he’s seriously considering not seeking re-election and possibly leaving Congress early for a job at Newsmax, three sources with direct knowledge of the talks tell Axios.

Three sources! You know what that means — Matt Gaetz was really keen for this story to find a reporter, preferably several reporters.

Now I wonder why?

Unfortunately, the reporter at Axios, Alayna Treene, didn’t wonder why. In spite of using paragraph sub-headings like “Why it matters” and “Between the lines” the actual content didn’t go beyond the superficial reporting Matt Gaetz wanted to see in print. It doesn’t appear to have occurred to Treene to question or analyse anything she was told so she obligingly gave Gaetz exactly what he wanted.

That’s a mistake with republicans, especially delinquent exhibitionists like Matt Gaetz. There’s a lot more going on here than this superficial article reports. Time to dig below the surface.

In her first paragraph, Treene writes: “he’s seriously considering not seeking re-election” then, under the sub-title The Backdrop, she notes “Gaetz has previously toyed with the idea of running for higher office.” There’s no doubt at all that Gaetz is extremely ambitious. Already he’s gone to ludicrous lengths to make a name for himself yet Treene doesn’t question this abrupt ending to long-cherished political ambitions.

That it’s out of character is an understatement considering how much effort Gaetz has expended to get noticed, from shouting at witnesses in hearings to staging a “sit-in” to disrupt a highly confidential hearing in the Capitol’s SCIF.*

The wording of this sentence got a second look:

One of the sources said Gaetz has had early conversations with the network about what a position could look like.

That sounds more like Gaetz is attempting to talk Newsmax into creating a position for him; rather than the network already having a position they want him to fill. It suggests Gaetz approached them, not the other way round.

Two sentences later: “Some critics now say Fox is not conservative enough” which, we’re supposed to believe, is the reason Matt Gaetz sought out Newsmax rather than the far bigger audience and much heftier paycheck at Fox. That’s just comical because it’s all too obvious that Fox flatly turned Gaetz down when he approached them.

Matt Gaetz is “possibly leaving Congress early.” Now that really set the alarm bells clanging! Memories of Jason Chaffetz came flooding back.

Chaffetz made it all the way up to Chairman of the prestigious Government Oversight Committee, just a step away from the Speaker’s job that he coveted. In a Washington Post article, Chaffetz was described as “in a town full of overly ambitious people, he is especially known for dripping with ambition.”

Then suddenly, in April 2017, he announced his resignation, with a departure date set for June. He said he’d run for office again but he never did. He joined Fox on July 1, 2017, and by 2021, the man “known for dripping with ambition” has sunk into relative obscurity.

It also reminded me of Michele Bachmann, another republican dripping with ambition. She ran for President in 2012. But unlike Chaffetz and probably Gaetz, she at least made it to the end of her last term in office. The curious thing about her departure was that it came after she’d finally gained some real recognition and status within the House Republican caucus.

When the House bills on immigration collapsed in 2014 (thanks to underhanded interference from Ted Cruz), the newly-elected majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, gave the job of writing a replacement bill to Steve King who enlisted Bachmann to help him in the all-night effort. Their bill passed the House and Bachmann gushed with the thrill of it all as Congress recessed for Summer 2014. Yet she didn’t run for re-election, even with the promise of more success in the future.

So far the similarities between Bachmann, Chaffetz and Gaetz are:

• loved the limelight, well-known to the public and frequently interviewed,
• extremely ambitious
• unexpected departures at a time when they were considered successful, with Chaffetz (and probably Gaetz) not waiting till the end of their current term.

And there’s one more thing that links all three: multiple and extremely serious ethics violations. All three were/are under scrutiny by the House Ethics Committee** for offences likely to lead to FBI investigations.

Michele Bachmann’s investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) “found “substantial reason” to believe Bachmann’s campaign violated campaign finance laws and rules that barred the use of campaign staff members to promote her book, “Core of Conviction.” The OCE then referred her, along with 430 pages of investigative materials, to the House Ethics Committee.

The Democratic Coalition, among other groups and individuals, filed complaints with the OCE against Jason Chaffetz because, in violation of House and Committee rules, he had publicly revealed a highly confidential communique from FBI Director James Comey just days before the 2016 election. He’d also framed the communique in such a way as to deliberately mislead the public into believing the FBI was about to file criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. As with Bachmann, the OCE found substantial evidence that Chaffetz’s rule-breaking constituted serious offences and he too was referred onto the House Ethics Committee.

Gaetz has been referred directly to the Ethics Committee, several times. The first complaint was for witness tampering after he’d threatened Michael Cohen the day before the former Trump lawyer was slated to testify to the House Oversight Committee. The second complaint involved an invasion of the Capitol SCIF* during a highly confidential hearing, a stunt he organised and led. In the wake of both complaints, Gaetz refused to cooperate with the Committee’s investigations which were ultimately conducted without him.

In July 2020, new complaints surfaced. Politico reported:

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz has privately engaged in several spending practices in his nearly four years in office that appear to be in conflict with the House’s ethics rules.

Gaetz… improperly sent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to a limited liability company linked to a speech-writing consultant who was ousted from the Trump administration, in direct conflict with House rules.

In another possible violation, a private company installed a television studio in his father’s home in Niceville, Fla., which Gaetz uses when he appears on television. Taxpayers foot the bill to rent the television camera, and the private company that built the studio — which Gaetz refuses to identify — takes a fee each time he appears on air, his office said. It’s unclear how much it cost the private company to construct the studio.

His disrespect for rules and blatant disregard for ethics has become increasingly obvious since 2019.

Now Matt Gaetz is back in the news and this time it’s DoJ with far more serious accusations regarding federal sex trafficking laws. Did the House Ethics Committee know of these allegations? Have they been conducting their own investigation to get ahead of the inevitable felony charges? That there’s no word from the Committee does not mean there’s no investigation. In order to protect those members who are ultimately found innocent, the House Ethics Committee doesn’t publicise their work.

But this is what is known: the Committee has the power to recommend

• to the House: censure and expulsion that prohibits holding any kind of office in the US
• to the FBI: criminal investigation

We also know there’s one very important limitation to the Committee’s power: if a member leaves office before punishments can be enacted, the House investigation ceases forthwith. Consequently, when the Committee warns members in advance that official action will be taken against them, those members usually opt for resignation rather than risk a punishment that could hurt their reputation and/or future job prospects.

Bachmann left to avoid her case going to the FBI for criminal investigation. Most likely Chaffetz left for the same reason. Neither wanted to stay where they’d be demoted and blocked from any chance of future advancement — or worse, convicted of criminal charges.

And Gaetz? He’s racked up even more trouble for himself than Bachmann and Chaffetz put together. Since 2019, the House Ethics Committee has had more of their time taken up by an uncooperative and arrogant Gaetz than anyone else. This latest investigation might constitute the final nail they need to put in Gaetz’s political coffin and rid themselves of a serial trouble-maker.

Resigning from Congress won’t make the DoJ investigation go away but it will prevent the House Ethics Committee from reporting its findings to a full session of the House. Since their rule is to close all files on members who resign, it would also mean the evidence they’ve accrued can no longer be passed onto any law enforcement agency like the FBI. Gaetz might well be very anxious to close that door. It certainly would be a very compelling reason for him to hightail it out of there.

*SCIF stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. The SCIF in the basement of the Capitol is a soundproof, windowless room used for top-secret briefings and confidential hearings.

**Membership of the House and Senate Ethics Committees comprise equal numbers from both parties

Follow Michelle Dale on Twitter at @Mopshell