House Democrats will soon have to choose between protecting an embattled colleague or insulating themselves from politically damaging accusations of hypocrisy.
The House Ethics Committee will begin the process Thursday of determining whether Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick warrants punishment as extreme as expulsion over accusations that she stole millions in FEMA funds and committed various campaign finance infractions.
The bipartisan panel that typically operates in secret is holding a public “trial” — the first in nearly 16 years — that will litigate those allegations as the third-term Florida Democrat faces federal criminal charges in her home state. Cherfilus-McCormick has maintained her innocence, saying “the full facts will make clear I did nothing wrong.”
House Democratic leaders have so far taken a hands-off approach to the saga.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his office say that Cherfilus-McCormick is “entitled to her day in court and the presumption of innocence,” and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California told reporters Wednesday he also would not “prejudge any outcome” of the Ethics Committee’s proceedings.
But after Democrats agitated for the removal of serial fraudster Rep. George Santos of New York ahead of a full Ethics process in 2023, the party could be vulnerable to political attacks if it doesn’t now police a credibly accused embezzler in its own midst.
“If they give us conclusions that this actually happened, and there’s no question of doubt as to the fact that laws were broken, then our colleague will have to face the consequences of that — it’s plain and simple,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) in an interview.
“You lose your credibility if you’re applying a different set of laws and a different standard to people of the other party,” he said. “I mean, how could we ever justify anything we do if we only apply that to Republicans, and we don’t follow the law?”
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said her party has to be mindful of how voters perceive corruption in Washington.
“I think there’s pressure on all of us in elected office right now,” she said in an interview. “Neither party is trusted by the public that we’re going to fight corruption. … I know from talking with my own constituents that this is a real issue for both parties, not just Republicans.”
These warnings come as Democrats have repeatedly over the past several months declined to punish their own members as they faced allegations of wrongdoing. They restored Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas to his post as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee after he received a pardon by President Donald Trump; he had taken a leave of absence while being scrutinized for allegations of bribery.
Most looked the other way when retiring Rep. Chuy García of Illinois boxed out other potential successors and orchestrated his chief of staff’s ascension to succeed him. And they helped Del. Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands dodge a Republican-led censure attempt following revelations she had texted convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during an Oversight Committee hearing.
Now they’ll have to decide what to do about Cherfilus-McCormick.
A House Ethics subcommittee will meet Thursday afternoon to consider a motion for summary judgment — in effect, whether or not to declare her guilty. If it does, the full panel will schedule a hearing for a later date to determine what punishment to recommend, and the House will then vote to execute it.
Members of the subcommittee could suggest something as minor, though embarrassing, as a reprimand or censure. It could also call for her expulsion. House GOP leaders believe they will have the requisite two-thirds majority to expel Cherfilus-McCormick and plan to force such a vote, according to three people granted anonymity to speak candidly about top House Republicans’ plans. But leaders are waiting to see what the panel recommends at the conclusion of the trial.
In a statement Wednesday, Cherfilus-McCormick said she was “innocent” and a “fighter,” and she criticized the Ethics Committee for proceeding with the trial despite her request for a delay that would give “my legal team reasonable time to prepare.” The committee already delayed the trial once after Cherfilus-McCormick lost her representation.
“I urge the Committee to follow its own precedents and uphold fairness and not allow this process to be driven by politics or numbers,” she said.
Santos is the most recent member of Congress to be expelled for using campaign donations for personal expenses — an action his colleagues took after the Ethics Committee issued a report substantiating the claims against him but before it could hold a trial and recommend punishment.
“Some of my Republican colleagues thought it was premature. They thought that he should have gotten a trial before we expelled him,” said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who pushed for Santos’ removal from office. “I always said that he admitted to the very thing we were accusing him of was enough process — enough due process — to throw him out.”
Cherfilus-McCormick, in contrast, is pleading not guilty — which LaLota suggested could give Democrats some political cover to give her the benefit of the doubt. He added, however, “The accusations are totally gross. Kind of looks like she did it.”
The last time the House Ethics Committee held a formal trial was in 2010 for the late-Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was ultimately censured for a vast range of violations, including tax evasion.
Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said his panel has been reviewing the Rangel proceedings as a guide for how to approach the Cherfilus-McCormick trial, saying the committee intends to “follow the map that has been laid out in the previous hearings.”
But the Rangel episode was also a deeply emotional and uncomfortable situation for many of the beloved veteran lawmaker’s peers, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who was the chair of the Ethics Committee at that time, recalling in an interview that it was “a very depressing experience.”
Some House Democrats are now struggling with the uncomfortable task of having to potentially render career-ending judgment on a colleague.
“She’s a dear friend,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.). “I am waiting, I think, like everyone else, to see how all of this plays out in court. That’s something that we all have the benefit of getting. I think you are innocent until proven guilty.”
Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Read the full article here