Must-See TV? House Ethics to Televise Cherfilus-McCormick Misconduct Hearing

The House Ethics Committee wants to send a clear message to Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. And that message is straight from The Amityville Horror: GET. OUT.

How else to explain their decision, reported yesterday by Axios, to hold their first televised investigatory hearing in fifteen years? The Florida Democrat already faces federal charges of money laundering and theft related to emergency COVID relief funds, which she used in part to fund her first congressional campaign. In case anyone has forgotten the details of the case, WPLG offered a fairly comprehensive review:

Needless to say, the House Ethics Committee is hardly the most pressing problem for Cherfilus-McCormick. A conviction in federal court could put her in prison for decades, although as a first-time offender, a single-digit stay in Club Fed is more likely. 

At the time, as WPLG also notes, the Ethics Committee authorized the Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) investigation into the charges. Last week, the ISC released a 59-page report that concluded “substantial” evidence exists for the federal prosecution:

The ISC’s investigation has revealed substantial evidence of conduct consistent with the allegations in the indictment, as well as more extensive misconduct as laid out in the following Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations related to violations of federal laws and regulations, as well as ethical standards. Therefore, the ISC is bringing the charges described herein against Respondent, including those related to:

o Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations: excessive contributions from multiple individuals and entities, corporate contributions, illegal conduit contributions, and systemic reporting violations.

o Criminal Laws Implicated by Campaign Finance Misconduct: money laundering of government funds improperly retained by Trinity Health Care Services, LLC, and of illegal campaign contributions originating from Petrogaz-Haiti S.A., LLC, and false statements on reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

And this, Axios notes, is where the ISC and Ethics Committee have chosen an unusual path to proceed:

In a press release accompanying the report, the panel said it took the unusual step of convening a separate “adjudicatory subcommittee” to “determine whether any counts in the [report] have been proved by clear and convincing evidence.”

• That panel, made up of four Republicans and four Democrats who didn’t serve on the investigative subcommittee, has scheduled a hearing of March 5, 2026, the press release said.
• Unlike typical Ethics Committee meetings, adjudicatory hearings are subject to House rules requiring that panels meet in open session unless they specifically vote otherwise.
• The Ethics Committee rarely convenes adjudicatory subcommittees, only having done so in a handful of major cases.

The last time the Ethics Committee exposed a member to a public hearing was in 2012, when they investigated the grandson and chief of staff of Maxine Waters (D-CA) for financial conflicts of interest. The last member directly targeted by such a public hearing was Charlie Rangel (D-NY) over tax-evasion allegations. Notably, Axios points out, neither George Santos nor Matt Gaetz had to face a public session for their ethics probes, although Gaetz cut his investigation short by resigning. And, notably, neither faced allegations of stealing relief funds passed by Congress as an emergency measure during a pandemic or natural disaster, either. This alleged crime is a direct affront to the legislative branch. 

Both Waters and Rangel were part of party leadership with life-long tenure in the House, so the adjudicatory hearings probably didn’t raise stakes for their career. With Cherfilus-McCormick only serving her second term in office, however, the bipartisan conclusions about her case and the decision to hold a public hearing on the evidence in early March looks much more like a message that her career is over, one way or the other. She can choose to endure the public humiliation of what would amount to a televised trial in which she can’t risk much of a response – anything she would say could end up in her actual trial – or quit ahead of the hearing to make it moot. 

In other words, get out while the getting is still good.

Will she leave? Cherfilus-McCormick hasn’t exactly impressed anyone with her intellect thus far, but her attorneys will likely press her to do delayed damage control at this point. 

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Hot Air, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. Sometimes, however, we just point and laugh, and let the radical Left embarrass itself. This is one of those times.

Help us continue to point, laugh, and expose the idiocy of progressive elites. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!