ED MORRISSEY: Ethics Committee Final Report: ‘Substantial Evidence’ Gaetz Committed Statutory Rape.

Gaetz has repeatedly pointed out that the Department of Justice/FBI investigated these same allegations and declined to charge him. And that’s true, but it’s not quite on point, and it’s also not the exoneration that Gaetz at least implies it to be. The language quoted here specifically refers to “substantial evidence,” which is not the standard for prosecution. It’s not even the “preponderance of evidence” that would meet the standard for a successful civil lawsuit. “Substantial evidence” is a phrase that really doesn’t have a legal meaning as much as it does a political meaning — which is the context in which Ethics Committees operate, in fact.

This language strongly suggests that the House Ethics Committee would have taken some “substantial” political action, had Gaetz remained in Congress. Given the allegations here, one has to believe they would have recommended a rare expulsion from the House. George Santos got expelled by the House in a 311-114 vote the previous year over accusations of fraud and misuse of funds, allegations which almost seem quaint in comparison. The second-most recent expulsion from the House was Ohio’s James Traficant two decades earlier, a Democrat who had been convicted in court of bribery and racketeering before being expelled. These allegations against Gaetz would likely have been too serious to recommend censure. Would a GOP-controlled House have expelled Gaetz over it? He must have thought so, or else he wouldn’t have taken the face-saving AG appointment as a means to end the process.

Ed notes that Gaetz is publicly speculating about running in the special election to replace Marco Rubio in the Senate next year, but concludes, “Maybe, but the more that comes out about Gaetz’ activities, the less likely that seems. He may need to content himself with the good gig he landed this month at OAN as one of its featured hosts.”