Former Rep. Matt Gaetz was frantically attempting to pre-empt the release of a House Ethics report on Monday, which stated the committee found substantial evidence Gaetz regularly paid women to engage in sexual activity from 2017 to 2020, used illegal drugs including cocaine and ecstasy on multiple occasions, and engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl in 2017.
What is in the Matt Gaetz ethics report?
The bombshell report follows a lengthy Department of Justice sex trafficking investigation that concluded without charges. Separately, the Ethics panel opened a probe of its own into allegations of misconduct.
The report, however, notes that the committee did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Gaetz partook in sex trafficking.
While the report stated that Gaetz did indeed facilitate women coming across state lines for 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.”
Gaetz has written off the committee’s investigation as politically motivated, led by people who “hated” him.
But that didn’t stop him from trying to get out in front of the report.
Last week, a number of Gaetz’s critics came to the conclusion that the report “must be really bad” after the ex-congressman offered a number of preemptive defenses.
“In my single days, I often sent funds to women I dated – even some I never dated but who asked,” he said in one such post. “I dated several of these women for years. I NEVER had sexual contact with someone under 18. Any claim that I have would be destroyed in court – which is why no such claim was ever made in court.”
And moments before the report’s release, Gaetz was making several similar preemptive posts—while also seeking a restraining order to block its release.
On Monday, in addition to submitting the restraining order request, Gaetz shared screenshots of testimony he thinks will not be included in the final report.
“Giving funds to someone you are dating – that they didn’t ask for – and that isn’t ‘charged’ for sex is now prostitution?!?” Gaetz remarked on Monday, attaching a screenshot of testimony of one witness stating she “never charged anyone anything.”
Gaetz continued: “There is a reason they did this to me in a Christmas Eve-Eve report and not in a courtroom of any kind where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses. This is testimony from one of the alleged ‘prostitutes’ that you won’t see in the report!”
“This won’t be in the ‘ethics’ report because of course,” Gaetz said of another excerpt in which the witness denied partaking in sex work.
“This is the trafficking ‘victim’ claiming under oath that this characterization is false,” Gaetz also wrote.
Gaetz’s posts, however, did little to quell his critics.
“You’re literally suing to stop the report from being released. Why would you do that if you’re not guilty?” replied one poster.
Another noted that in the same testimony shared by Gaetz, the witness stated she “thought a lot of these people were [her] friends” and that “there was a lot of times where [she] did not get paid for being there.”
“What about the times she was paid for being there?” questioned the commenter.
And the report itself addressed at least one of Gaetz’s concerns: that gifting a sexual partner funds should not automatically mean the payment was for sex.
The report includes a chart detailing thousands of dollars he paid using peer-to-peer payment systems like Venmo or checks to 12 women and Joel Greenberg, a former associate of Gaetz’s who was sentenced on underage sex trafficking charges in 2022.
According to the chart, the vast majority of the payments—$63,836.58—went to “Woman 1,” who was his long-term girlfriend. Another $27,432 was paid to the other 11 women, while Greenberg was paid $3,950.
The committee noted that since Gaetz was in a long-term relationship with “Woman 1,” “some of the payments may have been of a legitimate nature.”
But the report went on to state that that woman asserted her Fifth Amendment right when asked if the payments were for sexual activity and/or drugs.
“Based on that assertion combined with evidence received from other sources, the Committee found substantial reason to believe that most of these payments were for such activity,” it concluded.
The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here to get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.
