The Matt Gaetz ethics report.

Plus, a reader question about Charlie Kirk.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 14 minutes.

We're winners.

As many of you know, Tangle was recently named a finalist for the Shorty Impact Awards in the “News and Media” category. The Shorty Awards are one of the most prestigious awards in digital media, and we won. We didn’t just win the award for News & Media, but we also won the “Audience” award — which means we were selected both by the Shorty committee and that all of you out-voted our competition. It’s a clean sweep; and we can officially call ourselves an “award-winning media organization.” Thank you to everyone who took the time to vote for us!

Tomorrow.

One of the most common questions we get in our inbox is about money in politics. How do Super PACs work? How much of an impact do they have? How can we get money out of the system? Tomorrow, we’re releasing a members-only edition covering that topic. Isaac sat down with David O’Brien, the policy director at RepresentUs, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for reforms to address corruption and ineffectiveness in government. David is an expert on Super PACs and money in politics, and we’re excited to share his insights.

Quick hits.

1. Doctors Without Borders said it would halt operations in Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, in response to escalating violence and threats against its workers. The organization is one of the primary healthcare providers in Haiti. (The announcement)
2. Jose Ibarra, an unauthorized migrant from Venezuela who entered the U.S. in 2022, was found guilty of murdering Laken Riley, a Georgia student, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (The sentence)
3. The United States Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, closed and ordered its employees to shelter in place after receiving intelligence that a major Russian aerial attack could be imminent. The embassy has since resumed operations. (The warning)
4. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced a rule for the Capitol that individuals must use bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex. The policy will also apply to bathrooms in House office buildings, changing rooms, and locker rooms. (The policy)
5. President-elect Donald Trump chose former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker to serve as U.S. ambassador to NATO. (The selection)

Today's topic.

Breaking: Matt Gaetz announced he was withdrawing his nomination for attorney general at 12:24pm ET, shortly after this newsletter was published. You can read his announcement here.

The Matt Gaetz ethics report. On Wednesday, a bipartisan House ethics panel investigating sexual misconduct claims against former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) voted not to release its report. The panel was scheduled to meet last week to discuss making the report public but changed course after Gaetz resigned from Congress following President-elect Trump announcing him as his pick for attorney general. The Ethics Committee customarily does not release a report if a member leaves office (with some exceptions). Gaetz has denied all wrongdoing. 

Reminder: High-level presidential appointments need at least 50 votes in the Senate to be confirmed (with the vice president’s vote to break a tie if the chamber is deadlocked). Republicans are set to have a 53-47 majority in the chamber in 2025. 

The Ethics Committee voted on three different proposals in their closed-door meeting about the report: to release it in its current form, to release only the exhibits associated with the report, and to “complete” the report and vote on releasing it at a later date. The first two measures failed, but the third passed with bipartisan support. Rep. Susan Wild (D-PA), the top Democrat on the committee, said the group will meet on December 5 to take up the matter again. 

In response to the Ethics Committee’s decision, Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) announced a privileged resolution to compel a full House vote on forcing the panel to immediately release its report. A privileged resolution bypasses committee consideration and brings a vote to the House floor without leadership’s approval. The House goes on Thanksgiving recess today, so Casten’s resolution won’t get a vote until they return.

In 2021, the Department of Justice began investigating Gaetz for his potential role in the sex trafficking of a 17-year-old girl, but concluded its investigation in 2023 by declining to bring charges. During the investigation, a Florida businessman pleaded guilty to wire fraud after attempting to extort Gaetz’s father in return for a presidential pardon on the potential charges facing the younger Gaetz. 

On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other committee Democrats wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray to request the full evidentiary file in that case as they consider Gaetz’s nomination. Wray has yet to respond to the request. 

Also on Wednesday, The New York Times reported that federal investigators had established a trail of payments from Gaetz, usually through an intermediary, to women who testified that they had been paid for sex. The Times reporting was based on a leaked document that shows a series of Venmo payments totaling thousands of dollars between Gaetz and a wide network of friends and associates, including the women who testified against him. Additionally, an unauthorized person gained access to a file containing confidential testimony from women who have made allegations against Gaetz in a civil case. The file reportedly contains unredacted depositions from a woman who alleged Gaetz had sex with her when she was 17, and a second woman who says she witnessed the encounter.

Many Republican senators have declined to say whether they’ll support Gaetz’s nomination, while President-elect Trump and his allies have stood firm behind the pick. On Wednesday, Vice President-elect JD Vance accompanied Gaetz to the Capitol to rally support among GOP senators. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have indicated that they will uniformly oppose the nomination. 

Today, we’ll share arguments from the left and right about the Ethics Committee’s decision and Gaetz’s nomination, followed by my take. 

What the left is saying.

• The left criticizes the committee’s decision while noting that the group has released reports about former members before. 
• Some frame the nomination fight as a test of Trump’s influence. 
• Others suggest the main reasons to oppose Gaetz are not the sexual misconduct allegations. 

The Washington Post editorial board argued the ethics report “shouldn’t be” a secret.

“The committee, which meets again next month, needs to release the material well before the Senate considers Mr. Gaetz’s nomination for attorney general… In fact, suppressing the report would conflict with the committee’s tradition of releasing findings even after lawmakers resign, when doing so is in the public interest. This is clearly one of those times,” the board wrote. “Consider Rep. Donald ‘Buz’ Lukens (R-Ohio), who had sex with a 16-year-old on Nov. 6, 1988 — two nights before he won reelection. He resigned three months before the end of his term. Committee members voted to release their findings anyway.”

“When lawmakers resign amid an ethics scandal, they often slink out of public life. In this case, Mr. Gaetz wants to become the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and potentially run for governor of Florida in 2026,” the board said. “The committee should at least allow senators of both parties to review the report behind closed doors. If senators are denied even this degree of access, they should invite the witnesses who spoke to the Ethics Committee investigators to testify publicly during Mr. Gaetz’s confirmation hearings.”

In CNN, Stephen Collinson called Gaetz’s nomination “a test of strength” for Trump.

“Trump is creating a show of force that will help define his new term as he tries to leverage Matt Gaetz into the attorney general’s office. The president-elect has been calling senators to press them to confirm his pick early next year, CNN reported Monday — even as counter pressure grows from GOP senators who want to see a House Ethics Committee report into Gaetz’s past conduct, including over an alleged sexual liaison with a minor that he has denied,” Collinson wrote. “The escalating drama is posing a critical question: How far will Trump go in trying to force Republican senators to back his choice — even though some have deep reservations about Gaetz’s character and qualifications for the job?”

“If Trump sticks with his pick, Republican senators feeling the MAGA movement’s pressure could be forced to defend Gaetz for weeks. That could land them in a tricky spot. Despite the threat that senators could face primaries if they break with the president-elect, votes for a compromised nominee could also haunt those seeking reelection in statewide races in 2026,” Collinson said. “The president-elect’s unorthodox pick… means that Trump may soon approach the point where it will cost him more political capital to fold on Gaetz than to keep trying to get him installed – whatever it takes.”

In Slate, Frank Bowman wrote about “the danger of making the Matt Gaetz nomination about sexual misconduct.”

“I understand the attraction of the sex angle. It’s simple. It’s salacious. Everybody loves a sex story. Also, so the theory in some Democratic circles presumably goes, it would give Senate Republicans terrified of defying Trump an easy excuse to vote against Gaetz: ‘He’s a pervert, a sexual predator, and maybe a criminal. And we certainly can’t have somebody like that as attorney general,’” Bowman said. “Nonetheless, I think the obsessive focus on Gaetz’s alleged sexual misconduct is a mistake, both for the media and, in due course, for senatorial opponents of the nomination.”

“A confirmation fight focused on sex and the contestable memories of vulnerable young women would too easily be distorted by Trump, Gaetz, and the right-wing media into just another example of the detestable liberals trying to smear a patriot,” Bowman wrote. “More importantly, Gaetz as attorney general would be a disaster not because he (allegedly) had sex with a 17-year-old. The real issue is that, regardless of his alleged sexual misconduct, he is stupefyingly unqualified for the job and his confirmation would present an immediate danger both to the rule of law and, though they may not yet see it, to Republicans themselves.”

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed on the committee’s decision, but many say the Senate is entitled to see the report. 
• Some say Gaetz must be defended against efforts to derail his nomination.
• Others suggest it is in the public interest to release the full report. 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said the Senate has “every right” to demand the ethics report. 

“For understandable reasons, the norm is that such ethics inquiries are closed quietly if lawmakers step down. But Mr. Gaetz abruptly quit Congress last week mere hours after Mr. Trump announced his nomination for AG. The committee was reportedly days from releasing its investigation. It’s one thing to keep sordid details private when a lawmaker accused of misbehavior is chastened enough to resign and go back to private life. This looks more like an effort to dodge accountability by getting a promotion.”

“Mr. Gaetz has denied wrongdoing, and he deserves due process like everyone else. The Justice Department investigated but didn’t bring criminal charges,” the board wrote. “The Attorney General is the nation’s highest law-enforcement official, responsible for making tough calls on federal cases, and ideally while looking credible doing it. The President is free to nominate whoever has his trust, but then the Senate’s constitutional role in confirmation is to ensure that the AG’s office is ultimately filled by someone who deserves the country’s trust.”

In The Federalist, Margot Cleveland argued “Republicans must defend Matt Gaetz to end the use of salacious lies as a political weapon.”

“Before marrying in 2021, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., was known to be a braggadocious libertine. No conservative wants to defend such behavior, and so many on the Right are remaining silent as Gaetz is accused of also engaging in criminal conduct, paying prostitutes, and having sex with a minor,” Cleveland said. “The claims against Gaetz are but another information operation, however, mirroring the ones that previously targeted Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh. And this pattern will continue unabated unless Americans unflinchingly condemn the tactic — no matter the target.”

“Why then is anyone giving credence to the accusations against Gaetz, especially given the FBI — after thoroughly investigating the matter for two years — decided not to charge Gaetz,” Cleveland wrote. “Now, the media and some senators are pressuring the House Ethics Committee to release their report on the investigation into Gaetz. Whether that happens or not, though, there will surely be leaks designed to doom Gaetz’s nomination as attorney general. While some on the Right may prefer not to defend the former playboy, the only way to end the growing use of salacious lies as a political weapon is to condemn the information operation, prosecute those responsible, and ostracize the members of the media responsible for advancing the hoax.”

In MSNBC, former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) wrote “I’ve served on the House Ethics Committee — here’s why it should release its report.”

“While the Ethics Committee technically loses jurisdiction over members after their service has ended, there is nothing in the House rules that prohibits the committee from disclosing investigative information and reports about departed members,” Dent said. “Having served on the House Ethics Committee for eight years and as chairman for two, I’m very familiar with the mentality of committee members, who are serious and fair-minded about their duties… No one enjoys serving in this capacity to cast judgment on one’s colleagues. It’s the congressional equivalent of serving in the internal affairs division within the police department. But this is a job that must be done.”

“In life there are rules and there are exceptions to rules. In this case there are compelling reasons to release the Gaetz report. Precedent is well-established, and the American people should know and understand how it would affect Gaetz’s ability to carry out the duties as the country’s top law enforcement officer,” Dent wrote. “If the Ethics Committee declines to release the report, a member of Congress is likely to go to the House floor and move for its immediate release, forcing a vote by the entire House. Given Gaetz’s unpopularity among his former colleagues, expect the motion to pass overwhelmingly.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Gaetz retains the presumption of innocence, but the evidence against him is concerning. 
• I’m fine with the Ethics Committee’s decision, but I hope they vote to release the report when they meet again.
• The Gaetz nomination is on shaky ground, and Trump should think about cutting bait.

Let me start by reiterating what we said in the intro: Gaetz hasn’t been proven guilty of anything. Biden’s DOJ investigated him for 18 months before declining to bring charges due to concerns about witness credibility; the key witness in the government’s case, Joel Greenberg, is currently serving an 11-year sentence after taking a plea deal to cooperate on the DOJ’s investigation into Gaetz. If you want to know how unreliable Greenberg is, consider that he has already been accused of taking bribes and smearing other Republicans in Florida.

But there’s an ocean of difference between “not bringing charges” and “no reason to be concerned.”

For starters, remember that the DOJ not pressing charges is also not proof of innocence — it just means they don’t think they’d be able to land a conviction. Just like conservatives didn’t accept that line of thinking when it was applied to President Biden, the Senate shouldn’t accept that line of thinking now. 

Second, while Greenberg might not be credible enough to give indictable testimony in court, the paper trail still paints an ugly picture. Gaetz sent $10,000 in Venmo payments to two women who claimed the money was for sex, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.  And in 2017, Greenberg, who was known to have sex and drug parties with underage girls present, sent Venmo transactions totalling nearly $5,000 to a woman who worked as a D.C. intern in 2018 and said she dated Gaetz during her senior year in college. 

Even if the Justice Department decided it wasn’t going to bring charges, this is all the kind of stuff that invites questions that an ethics report could help answer — and is exactly why I hope the Ethics Committee eventually chooses to release their report. I’m mostly glad that the committee voted not to release its incomplete findings on Wednesday, instead opting to formally complete the report, pushing their decision to release it until their next meeting on December 5. Still, the report should come out before Gaetz is put before the Senate for confirmation.

While the Ethics Committee doesn’t typically release its findings into members after they leave Congress, this case is anything but typical. In fact, deciding to do so would be in line with exceptions they’ve made in the past about. In 2006, the committee released its findings on an investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) for allegedly sending sexually suggestive messages to House pages after he resigned. In 1987, it released its report on former Rep. Bill Boner (D-TN) after he resigned. And in 1990, it released its report on former Rep. Donald E. “Buz” Lukens (R-OH) on the day he resigned. And also like Boner, who retired to become the mayor of Nashville, Gaetz isn’t retiring into obscurity — he’s being nominated to run the Department of Justice. 

Remember, the point of the Ethics Committee isn’t to prosecute our elected representatives. The point is to hold members of Congress responsible for their actions in front of their peers. That’s not the same as calling on the FBI to publicly release their findings. It’s just to say that I want to see the output of two years of investigation. So do the alleged victims in this case, who probably won’t have to be dragged through the mud of a public confirmation hearing if this report comes out. 

One way or another, I believe this information is going to see the light of day. We’ve already gotten reports that a hacker has gained access to unredacted witness testimony. As a journalist, I’m typically supportive of leaks — I want to get all the information I can get my hands on. In this case, though, I’d prefer that information came out in a responsible and orderly manner (from this committee), rather than through an unscrupulous hacker who may dox innocent people or mishandle the information. 

All of this, obviously, puts Gaetz’s nomination in jeopardy. If Republicans lose four votes in the Senate, the nomination is sunk. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) is, at best, a maybe, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) called Gaetz “not a serious nomination,” and Susan Collins (R-ME) said she was “shocked” at the nomination. Add in the Republican senators Gaetz has publicly insulted before like James Lankford (OK), Thom Tillis (NC) and Mitch McConnell (KY), and it’s easy to understand why the senators themselves are skeptical he’ll get through — even before the ethics report comes out. That all invites reasonable scrutiny into why President-elect Trump is continuing to push Gaetz forward.

But as I said last week, I don’t think Trump is playing 4D-chess. He’s going to push the boundaries and try to get whatever he wants, including Gaetz for attorney general. I think Trump is clearly looking for a loyalist at the top of the Justice Department (which makes sense, given his relationship with that department over the last eight years). But that person doesn’t have to be Gaetz. There are plenty of other people willing and capable of carrying out the GOP agenda for the DOJ who are more qualified, and have less baggage, than he does.

So, the Ethics Committee releasing their report benefits the public, as we get more information about someone who could be the country’s top law enforcement official. It benefits the Senate, who would have to vote on whether to confirm him. And it benefits Republicans, who could use the report to decide whether they should focus on less problematic appointments. I hope the Ethics Committee will see it the same way.

Take the survey: Do you think the Ethics Committee should release its report? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

Q: What do you think of Charlie Kirk? Most of the things I have seen from him are YouTube shorts titled “Charlie Kirk owns woke college kid” or “Charlie Kirk gets owned.” So many clips I see of him are either him posting up at a college campus or taking massive Q&A from an audience. He definitely has his biases and disrespectful moments, but most of the videos I see are him trying to calmly respectfully articulate his point of view and giving kudos to others that do the same. I gotta respect anyone who just opens a mic to the masses not knowing what he’s going to get. 

— Eric from Holly Springs, NC

Tangle: I have two overarching feelings: One, like you, I very much respect the hustle. And two, personally, I just find his brand of entertainment pretty annoying.

Kirk is a smart guy who I think is far more influential than a lot of people understand. If I could point to a single person who is turning young, college-aged Americans onto Trumpism that isn't named Donald Trump, it’d probably be Charlie Kirk. I think his campus visits and the "Charlie Kirk owns a college student" genre of videos are effective because they prove how little a lot of people know about politics, despite being very confident they are well educated on the topic. That, and he is genuinely good at defending Trump’s politics and making the case in a way younger votes might find appealing.

At the same time, Kirk is part of this brand of "political debate" I personally find grating that people like Ben Shapiro popularized on the right: Go to a heavily liberal place, find people who don't know as much as you, challenge them to a debate, then embarrass them. On the left, you see this in the form of man-on-the-street bits from The Daily Show or TikTokers like Dean Withers. I just don't really like this style, mostly because it sets up unfair fights between partially informed enthusiasts and fast-talking media professionals, saying half-truths and looking to score points on camera, who then move on before anyone really learns anything.

That’s to say: Do I like Kirk? Not really. As with a lot of YouTubers on the left and right, I find his shtick a little off-putting. But do I think he is a smart, influential person, doing the right thing to get the outcome he wants (turning more college kids red)? Yes, definitely. 

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found that Iran has significantly increased its store of uranium enriched up to 60% since the group’s last report in August. The country’s overall enriched uranium stockpile is 6,604.4 kilograms, an increase of 852.6 kilograms from August. IAEA Director Rafael Mariano Grossi, who visited Iran in October to survey its nuclear program, said Iran’s stockpile gives it the capacity to make “several” nuclear bombs. While Iran maintains that its nuclear program is intended only for peaceful purposes, the rapid growth of its uranium stockpiles has heightened concerns about the program in the international community amid ongoing war in the Middle East. The Associated Press has the story.

Numbers.

• 1967. The year the House Committee on Ethics was created. 
• 72. The number of fact-gathering investigations started or continued by the committee during the 117th Congress.
• 6. The number of investigative matters resolved by the committee during the 117th Congress. 
• 3. The number of investigative subcommittees impaneled by the committee during the 117th Congress, which involved Delegate Michael San Nicolas (D-Guam), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC).
• 50. The number of fact-gathering investigations started or continued by the committee during the 116th Congress (2019-2021). 
• 25. The number of investigative matters resolved by the committee during the 116th Congress. 
• 6. The number of investigative subcommittees impaneled by the committee during the 116th Congress, which involved Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Delegate Michael San Nicolas (D-Guam), Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), and Rep. Steve Watkins (R-KS).
• 29%. The percentage of U.S. adults with a favorable view of former Rep. Matt Gaetz, according to a Yahoo! News/YouGov survey released last week. 
• 37%. The percentage of U.S. adults with an unfavorable view of Gaetz. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we published a short piece on inflation hitting Tangle.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the bomb cyclone in the Northwest.
• Nothing to do with politics: Don’t know how the college football playoff works and at this point you’re too embarrassed to ask? Here’s a quick explainer. 
• Yesterday’s survey: 1,575 readers responded to our survey asking about the Pennsylvania Senate race with 48% opposing both the actions of county officials and Casey’s court challenges. “I disagree about misdated votes not being counted but the courts ruled. If we are still a country following laws then that needs to be the end of it,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

More than 21,700 cases of measles were reported in Brazil in 2019. Reacting to this, Brazil’s Ministry of Health worked with state and local health professionals to create a detailed vaccination plan and train rapid response teams. By 2022, the last case of endemic measles had been recorded in Brazil and by 2023, the nation’s measles vaccination rate stood at 87%. Earlier this month, Dr. Jarbas Barbosa, the Director of the Pan American Health Organization, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil, announced that the country was officially free of measles. The Pan American Health Organization has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 270,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!