Read the Full Matt Gaetz Report from the House Ethics Committee

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 to several relevant DOJ offices, which
to date have not been adequately processed.6 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 it “do[es] not provide non-public information about law enforcement investigations that
do not result in charges.”7 This “policy” is, however, inconsistent with DOJ’s historical conduct
with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House. 8
Thereafter, the Committee determined to issue a subpoena to DOJ to obtain records relating
to its investigation of Representative Gaetz. DOJ did not comply with the subpoena by the date
required, but suggested it remained “committed to good-faith engagement with the Committee.”
In the spirit of cooperation, the Committee provided a list of specific responsive documents, setting
999
6 The U.S. Attorney’s Office affirmatively declined the Committee’s FOIA request as “categorically exempt from
disclosure.” However, the reasons cited for not disclosing responsive records are not applicable to the Committee’s
request it did not consider the special access granted to Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522(8)(d) (stating that
FOIA “is not an authority to withhold information from Congress” even when an exemption may otherwise be
implicated), nor did it consider the overriding public interest exception, which has been applied to information that
would inform the public about proven violations of public trust (see, e.g., Columbia Packing Co., Inc v. Department
of Agriculture, 564 F.3d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1977) (federal employees found guilty of accepting bribes);
Congressional News Syndicate v. Department of Justice, 438 F. Supp. 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1977) (misconduct by
White House staffers)).
7
8
Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Jan. 12, 2024).
Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. (2014)
(hereinafter Young) (discussing information and documents provided to the Committee by DOJ relating to a Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation of Representative Young); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In
the Matter of Representative James McDermott, H. Rept. 109-732, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (2006) (hereinafter
McDermott) (noting that the investigative subcommittee requested and obtained documents from DOJ regarding its
investigation of the matter); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H.
Rept. 105-797, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 79 (1998) (noting the FBI provided “valuable assistance to the Investigative
Subcommittee throughout its inquiry.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation Pursuant to House
Resolution 12 Concerning Alleged Illicit Use or Distribution of Drugs by Members, Officers, or Employees of the
House, H. Rept. 98-559, 98th Cong., 1 st Sess. 21 (1983) (“the Special Counsel and the Attorney General entered
into an agreement whereby the Department was to provide the Committee non-privileged results of the
Department’s drug investigation, provided that access to the material was restricted to certain named individuals and
that certain security precautions were taken.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rept. 97-110,97th Cong., 1 st Sess. (1981); Comm. on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers, H. Rept. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980); Comm.
on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rept. 96-1537, 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980) (noting the Special Counsel and DOJ entered into an agreement “covering the receipt of
confidential information in respect to the investigation” into a Member who was a subject of DOJ investigations
known as ABSCAM).
9 Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Feb. 13, 2024).
5