Congress
How the Gaetz Ethics report could still come out if the panel blocks it
House Ethics Committee members are set to meet privately Wednesday as debate rages over whether the panel should release its report on its investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz. But even if they elect not to release it, that might not be the end of the road.
The committee doesn’t disclose its agenda. But Ethics members are under intense scrutiny as they figure out how to address the report, which lawmakers in both chambers have said they would like to review, particularly given Gaetz’s attorney general nomination.
The committee could vote to adopt or release a report during its closed-door meeting. If the vote is along party lines — the same number of Democrats and Republicans sit on the committee — a tie means the motion fails and defers to the majority, which is Republican. (Reminder: There is precedent for Ethics releasing reports about former members.)
It’s also possible that they postpone that vote, dragging this out further.
Here’s a breakdown of what could happen if members vote not to release the report, and other ways the investigative findings could see the light of day.
Someone leaks it to the press: Ethics Committee members and staff don’t take the prospect of a leak lightly, if the panel votes to keep the report under wraps.
Part of that is wanting to protect the credibility of the panel, but members also take an oath, pledging: “I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.”
So even if Democrats want this to come out, many don’t want to be responsible for breaking that oath — or the potential consequences, like censure or expulsion at the hands of their colleagues.
Using the House floor: Some lawmakers are privately theorizing that, should the committee block the release of the report, a lawmaker could go to the House or Senate floor and read it into the congressional record rather than leak it to the media.
That’s what happened when The New York Times and The Washington Post were waiting for a Supreme Court decision on whether they could leak the Pentagon Papers — so then-Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) read the papers on the Senate floor on June 29, 1971. He made it through 4,100 pages of the 7,000-page leaked document before submitting the rest into the record. (It resulted in a Supreme Court case, Gravel vs. USA.)
Any member who dares to take this step could face near-immediate consequences, including censure or expulsion. Republicans could quickly bring up a privileged resolution, bypassing Ethics and Rules, to punish whoever comes to the floor with the report.
“Let’s say a Democrat chose to go ahead and do that on the floor, the downside would be that it would blow up the Ethics process. Now that may not be the world’s biggest loss, because in the House it’s been pretty weak, but you would then simply be saying: ‘We’re no longer gonna abide by the rules, because we don’t believe in the rules,’” said Meredith McGehee, an independent expert in government ethics.
Sharing it with senators: Even if the Ethics panel doesn’t want to make the report public, they can vote to share it with the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of potential confirmation hearings. Some Republican senators have called to see the report, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn.
McGehee pointed to another option: Instead of handing over the report, House members could make the report available in a secure room where senators could — gulp — venture to the House to read it. That, of course, would cut down on some leak risks associated with distributing copies of the report to the entire Judiciary staff.
Sober warning: Staff-driven leaks have happened before, but typically not in a situation with so much at stake. In addition to losing a job, there are also real concerns of political violence if a staff leaker’s name became public.
Adam Hamilton raised $10.6 million in the third quarter of 2026 across his Senate campaign and his joint fundraising committees, his campaign tells Blue Light News, a significant haul for the Kansas Democrat.
The fundraising total illustrates Democrats’ newfound bullishness about flipping a Senate seat in the deep-red state for the first time since 1932.
“This grassroots support sends a clear message: with three weeks until Election Day, Adam Hamilton is building the momentum to win,” said Hamilton campaign spokesperson Tyson Brody.
Hamilton’s third-quarter figure is nearly triple his $3.66 million second-quarter total. His campaign did not provide a current cash-on-hand total.
National Democrats began pumping money into Kansas in recent days, a sign of their growing hopes that Hamilton could win. Last week, Senate Majority PAC — Senate Democrats’ top super PAC — reserved $5 million in television ads backing Hamilton. American Bridge PAC and Lower Costs Now, a new group affiliated with former Vice President Kamala Harris’ super PAC, have spent in Kansas in recent weeks.
Republicans have also flocked to Kansas to prop up Marshall: Senate Leadership Fund, the Senate GOP’s top PAC, has spent or reserved nearly $11 million backing Marshall in the past week, according to tracking firm AdImpact.
“It took us five months to raise $15 million. [Marshall] got it in a day,” Hamilton said at a campaign event in Lawrence, Kansas on Monday. “So please help us.”
Marshall’s campaign has yet to release his third-quarter fundraising totals. As of mid-July, Marshall had over $5 million in the bank to $1.73 million for Hamilton.
A bipartisan Senate duo is urging Trump national security officials to “bring its full capacities to bear” to stave off threats posed by artificial intelligence — sooner rather than later.
Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, and Republican South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, who serves on the Senate Armed Services cybersecurity subcommittee, are calling for a full government response to a growing number of cybersecurity breaches.
“Recent AI security incidents should serve as a warning,” the senators wrote in a Tuesday letter to Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and White House Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. “Advanced AI agents have escaped testing environments, bypassed safeguards, and gained unauthorized access to real-world systems owned by government agencies and private organizations.”
Spokespeople for Clayton and Kratsios did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Their letter comes as lawmakers struggle to hash out what legislation on AI safety, if any, might look like. Members are currently in recess ahead of the November elections and there’s little hope progress can be made by the year’s end.
But those lawmakers who have been engaged on the topic for years now have mapped out administrative actions the Trump administration could move on now, without waiting on Congress.
The Cantwell and Rounds priorities include: strengthening federal AI safety and security standards at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST; expanding independent testing capabilities at the Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence, Department of Energy and the national labs; and working with the tech industry to develop and deploy defensive AI tools.
Specifically, the senators wrote, new NIST standards should address the risks posed by advanced AI capabilities, including the “potential misuse by malicious actors” to conduct sophisticated cyberattacks, automate attacks at scale and agents that threaten external systems and critical infrastructure.
They also said the federal government capacity should be complemented by universities and other research organizations, as well as by private sector, third-party evaluators.
Finally, they point to ways the government could use existing programs at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to work with AI labs to help detect threats and reinforce vulnerable systems.
A bipartisan group of senators urged President Donald Trump to rescind his recent diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, amid bubbling anger on Capitol Hill about Trump’s announcement.
In a letter sent to the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the senators warned that the president’s deal with Russia will not “achieve just ends” or benefit Americans.
“Granting Moscow the ability to sell Russian diesel freely in global markets damages American security interests and is a betrayal of the people of Ukraine, who continue to defend themselves from Putin’s murderous, illegal war,” wrote the lawmakers, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “This deal is a gift to our adversary and a betrayal of our Allies; it should be rescinded.”
On Sunday, a smaller group of senators called on the president to “immediately reverse course” on the plan in a statement. Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — who signed on to both — said Sunday there may be “a legitimate case for saying the president’s not following the law.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump announced in a social media post on Friday that Russia would “immediately supply” diesel fuel to global markets — including potentially the U.S. — to help relieve high prices driven, in part, by the ongoing war with Iran. Though Trump has repeatedly defended the U.S.’s actions against Iran, on Saturday he demanded an end to Ukrainian drone strikes that have crippled Russian oil refineries that he argues have caused the record-high oil prices.
The senators on Tuesday argued that the deal with Russia will have a “negligible impact” on fuel prices while providing Putin with “more fuel to finance his war machine” as Russia continues its “brutal attacks on Ukrainian civilians.”
The deal with Russia is a sharp pivot from a sweeping sanctions package signed into law last month. That legislation — championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — was meant to deplete Moscow’s resources by targeting Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of oil tankers. It drew widespread bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress.
Senators on Tuesday referenced the package as they condemned Putin as a “tyrant.”
“For decades, America has stood as the bastion of freedom against tyranny, and American presidents have embodied our nation’s resistance to tyrants. Putin is a tyrant,” the letter reads. “Withdraw from this agreement, rescind General License No. 135, and execute the authorities provided under the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. Maintain our legacy – and the duty America holds – as leader of the free world.”
In addition to Blumenthal and Tillis, Tuesday’s letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jack Reed (R.I.), and Chris Coons (Del.) and Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), Alan Armstrong (Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and John Cornyn (Texas).
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words