Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Votes to Release Ethics Report on Matt Gaetz; Interview With Rep. James Comer (R-KY). Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired December 18, 2024 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: "No chance to ever confront any accusers. I have never been charged. I have never been sued. Instead, House Ethics will reportedly post a report online that I have no opportunity to debate or rebut as a former member of the body."

And he goes on to say this. "In my single days," Matt Gaetz says, "I often sent funds to women I dated, even some I never dated, but who I asked. I dated several of these women for years. I never had sexual contact," he says, "with someone under the age of 18. Any claim that I have would be destroyed in court," he goes on to say, "which is why no such claim was ever made in court."

"My 30s," he says, "were an era working very hard and playing hard too. It's embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized," he goes on to say, "drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I have a different life now," Matt Gaetz says, "but at least I didn't vote for C.R.s that effed over the country."

That's all for this hour of CNN NEWSROOM, that very frank and candid response from Matt Gaetz there.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Wow.

ACOSTA: Let's bring in Pamela Brown.

Pam, Matt Gaetz is not backing off of all of these denials that he's made over the years, but it doesn't wipe away what is going to be a very damning report, it sounds like, from the House Ethics Committee looming in the next couple of days or so, it sounds like.

BROWN: Yes, coming from this exclusive CNN reporting that they -- it looks like Republicans were on board, now voting to release this report, voting in secret, Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes.

BROWN: And it is notable, you saw in that very lengthy statement Matt Gaetz saying that, look, this was embarrassing behavior, but it's not criminal. It's certainly though, putting some members of Congress in an awkward position.

You just had Tim Burchett on. He said, look, if they're going to release that report, they should release every report that they have on members of Congress. I'm about to interview the chairman of the Oversight Committee, James Comer, to get his view.

As you know, Jim, Matt Gaetz didn't have a lot of friends in the GOP on the House side.

ACOSTA: That's right.

BROWN: So it will be interesting to see what the reaction's going to be.

ACOSTA: Yes, Burchett says that this is all part of the -- he was insinuating it was part of the Kevin McCarthy revenge tour after they overthrew him as speaker of the House. He and his allies essentially plotted to do this to Matt Gaetz.

That's the allegation that they're making, but the soap opera continues in terms of what's been swirling around Matt Gaetz, Pam.

BROWN: It certainly does.

ACOSTA: Yes.

BROWN: All right, Jim, I will take it for here as we gear up for this interview with Chairman Comer.

Good morning, everyone. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Pamela Brown in Washington.

We are following breaking news on Capitol Hill this morning. CNN, as we were just talking about, exclusively learned that the House Ethics Committee has secretly voted to release its report on former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, and it's expected to be made public.

The bombshell reversal follows the committee's decision last month not to release the report.

CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju joins us live.

And, Manu, you and your colleagues broke this story.

So, a reversal here, now that Matt Gaetz is out of Congress and now Gaetz is responding to this decision.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is a significant reversal.

Remember, at the time, Matt Gaetz -- that the committee voted to shelve this report, Gaetz, of course, was the -- Donald Trump's pick to be attorney general, and the speaker of the House and others that said he's a former member of Congress and we should not release reports for former members of Congress. That was the initial decision, one big reason why they decided to hold off.

But things have changed over the past month. Matt Gaetz, of course, withdrew from consideration of this -- from this position amid these allegations and concerns from Senate Republicans about what may ultimately come out. Some Republican senators want to see this. It was clear that he did not have the votes.

And, also, the report had not been finalized yet. They had met behind closed doors earlier this month after Gaetz withdrew from the attorney general position, and now we are told from our sources that, yes, indeed, this committee voted to release this report.

It could come out potentially as soon as today or even tomorrow or Friday after the final House votes of this year. That is one thing we will be watching for. Now, Gaetz, indeed, is responding, really providing more information than he has in the past.

Typically, he says that this is completely wrong, that these allegations are totally false. He has called this a witch-hunt and the like. But he provides what appears to be some context to some of the allegations that have been out there and what is expected to be in this report.

A couple of things just to direct you to in this response from Gaetz. He said: "In my single days, I often send funds to women I dated, even some I never dated, but who asked. I dated several of these women for years. I never had sexual contact with someone under 18. Any claim that I would have -- that I have would be destroyed in court, which is why no such claim was ever made in court."

He goes on to say: "My 30s weren't an era of working very hard and playing very hard too. It's embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have ever earlier in life. I live a different life now."

[11:05:09]

Now, Gaetz, of course, is 42. He served in Congress for about eight years. So the question will be, where are these allegations that they actually probe here, did they occur while he was a member of Congress? When they're not members of Congress, the committee can't really do much about it, because it's outside the jurisdiction of the committee to investigate out things that someone did perhaps before Congress.

So how much does this overlap with his time while serving as a member? So that's something to watch as this investigation, this ultimately plays out. But, Pamela, of course, Gaetz is not -- even though he's not a member of Congress, he abruptly resigned in the aftermath of being named as attorney general.

A lot of people thought that he did so to try to bury this report. He still has a future, though, in Republican politics. How does this impact his future? That's going to be something to watch as this bombshell report is ultimately released.

BROWN: Yes, it's relevant. It's a relevant question. Manu Raju, thank you so much.

And joining us now is Republican Congressman James Comer of Kentucky. He serves as the chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for coming on. So, you just heard Manu's report. It appears this Matt Gaetz report

will be made public, Gaetz admitting in a social media post moments ago that he was a womanizer and partier, which he said is embarrassing, though not criminal.

Do you support the release of this report? If not, do you know of any efforts to stop it?

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I don't have any -- I don't -- thankfully, I'm not on the Ethics Committee. I don't know what's in the report. It's not entirely unprecedented for them to release a report on a former member.

The last time that happened was Bill Boner, who represented Nashville. I knew Bill Boner because, when he left Congress, he ended up in my hometown of Tompkinsville, Kentucky, managing a business there.

But Gaetz is going to have an opportunity to defend this. And I'm sure he will be given plenty of TV time on CNN and other networks to defend himself against any allegations in the report that may or may not be true. I have no idea, but I know that the Ethics Committee voted to release it, so it's going to be released and America will be able to see what's in there. And, hopefully, Gaetz will be able to defend himself once the report's released.

BROWN: Are you surprised, though? Because clearly Republicans got on board for this to be released? Are you surprised at all or not, given Gaetz's standing with the -- with many members of the GOP?

COMER: Yes, honestly, Pam, I like Matt. He and I came in together, along with Mike Johnson and Liz Cheney. And we had a pretty big class that started in 2017, was my first full session.

But, at the end of the day, there were a lot of people, Republicans, that didn't approve of the way that Gaetz worked with the 211 Democrats to have the motion to vacate succeed and get rid of McCarthy.And that led to three-and-a-half weeks of pretty tough living conditions here in the Capitol trying to find a replacement.

So I'm not surprised. I think it's unfortunate. But, at the end of the day, I think that the American people probably want to see this Ethics report. I think the Ethics Committee knew that. Now, hopefully, Gaetz will be given plenty of opportunity to defend anything in there that he feels is -- isn't true.

BROWN: I want to talk about the spending bill.

Members of Congress are now set to get a cost of living pay raise in this 1,500-page bill, the first time in 15 years. Do you agree with this?

COMER: Well, it's -- I was surprised to see it in there. No one had told me it was going to be in there. I know that, as you said, Pam, there hasn't been a cost of living increase. It's been suspended for the last 15 years. So it's one of those things that I think a lot of members of Congress were advocating for a pay increase. I was not one of them. But it's -- if the pay had been increased with the cost of living adjustment, if they hadn't been suspending that, congressional salary, I believe, would have been $243,000. This year, it's $174,000.

That's a lot of money in Kentucky, so I'm not complaining about the about the pay. But I was surprised to see it in there. When the bill was being explained, that was never mentioned. So it was it was kind of a surprise. And I'm still trying to develop an answer because I know there are going to be a lot of questions about it, not just from the media, but when I get home.

BROWN: Yes.

I mean, I think some Republicans are upset that stuff like this was added at the end. They didn't know about it. It's 1,500 pages, the spending bill. They're upset with Johnson. Does Johnson have the votes to be speaker in January?

COMER: Well, we're going to find out. I think he will in the end.

I think that the president's going to have a big influence in this. And every time I see President Trump at a big event, like the Army- Navy Game, he has Mike Johnson with him. So it leads me to believe that Mike Johnson's who Donald Trump wants to be speaker. I think the only way Mike Johnson does not get reelected speaker is if Donald Trump came out and said he preferred someone else.

[11:10:01]

Then we'd have to go through the process again. It's very difficult to get practically every member to agree, because I think we could lose two votes on the speaker's race. If two Republicans vote against whoever the speaker nominee is, then it can still pass. If three vote against him, then it fails to get the minimum number.

So we have been through that before. I don't think many of us want to go through that again. So we will see what happens. But, right now, I think, because of President Trump's strong support, I think Mike Johnson will be reelected speaker.

BROWN: I want to turn to the fact that you led the impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

This week, an FBI informant that Republicans relied upon pleaded guilty to lying about...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Well, I will let you talk -- pleaded guilty to lying about the Biden family.

He admitted -- for our viewers who haven't been following this closely, he admitted to lying to the FBI when he said a Ukrainian energy company was illicitly paying off Joe Biden and his son Hunter. What is your response to this, that he pleaded guilty to lying now?

COMER: The FBI said this guy was the -- Christopher Wray said it, and Jamie Raskin came out and repeated it. This guy was an honest, trustworthy source.

We did not rely on Smirnov in the investigation. The final report, his name was never in there. This was Chuck Grassley's witness. He wanted us to question him. We questioned a lot of people. I think it says more about the FBI having paid Smirnov over $200,000 and used him as a reliable witness than it does about us wanting to ask the FBI's witness about the investigation.

At the end of the day, Hunter Biden took over $5 million from Burisma. Joe Biden fired the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for corruption. Then Joe Biden pardoned Hunter for a broad, blanket pardon that would include anything that might come up in the future about Burisma.

I think the American people are pretty convinced that the Bidens were up to no good with respect to this Ukrainian energy company that paid his son, who was a drug addict and wasn't -- had no energy experience, $5 million.

BROWN: Well, the...

COMER: Pam, he got more money for -- wait. Let me add this.He got more money being a director of Burisma than the directors of Exxon or Chevron or Mobil got paid. I mean, that says a lot.

BROWN: Right, the son, the son of President Biden, Hunter.

And it is true that this FBI informant pleading guilty was used by the FBI, paid as an informant for many years. But -- and I understand you're now trying to distance yourself, saying he wasn't a big part of the investigation.

COMER: I always distanced myself.

BROWN: But I do want to play what we said at the time. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): Even a trusted FBI informant has alleged a bribe to the Biden family.

COMER: Speaker McCarthy had a phone call with Director Wray. He demanded that they turn over this document. This is a very crucial piece of our investigation.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): The most corroborating evidence we have is that 1023 form from this highly credible confidential human source.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: And even your colleague Jason Smith, we should point out, tweeted that the informant's phony testimony, now phony, we know, to the FBI was a smoking gun.

Do you regret playing this FBI informant up at the time at all, even if you say you didn't ultimately rely on him?

COMER: I didn't play it up. And we asked everyone. Bob Woodward gave...

BROWN: But you said it was a crucial part of the investigation.

COMER: Well, it was. Everything was a crucial part of the investigation.

I think the bank records are the most crucial part that show the Bidens took in $27 million from our adversaries around the world. They took in $8 million in loans that they never repaid back. That's $35 million. And according to the IRS whistle-blowers, they never paid a penny of taxes on it.

That's the crucial part of the investigation. We asked -- we would interview anyone that claimed they had information. Christopher Wray said this guy was credible. Chuck Grassley wanted us to interview the guy. That's why McCarthy said that. That's why Jim Jordan said that.

I never said he was a crucial part of the investigation.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: ... on FOX.

COMER: No, I said I want to know what this guy told the FBI. If this guy -- the FBI had a record that said this guy said they took a bribe.

Well, we have got $5 million deposited from Burisma into Hunter Biden's account. We know he didn't pay taxes on it because that's what Weiss charged him on. And we know Joe Biden fired the prosecutor who was investigating this company that paid his son $5 million.

So, obviously, we're going to interview everyone. So, if the FBI was paying a -- yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

COMER: And most of what he was charged for, Pam, was tax evasion. Tax evasion is what he was charged for.

BROWN: And I know we're going through...

COMER: So I think the FBI is trying to save face on the way out, but that's the reality of it. The Bidens took a lot of money from bad people around the world, and that's why Joe Biden had to pardon his son.

BROWN: OK, so just -- you threw a lot out there.

On the prosecutor, Biden at the time argued he wasn't doing enough to investigate corruption. That's why he wanted him fired.

(CROSSTALK)

COMER: I mean, Pam...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: But -- OK, but hold on. But let me just ask -- this is a simple question. You threw a lot out there. Of course, the White House says President Biden never benefited from any of his son's business dealings.

[11:15:06]

If you did have the proof, if you did have enough evidence, why didn't you have enough support from your Republican colleagues to move forward with the impeachment inquiry?

COMER: They did. We voted unanimously to move forward with the inquiry.

BROWN: Why was it a failed effort?

COMER: It wasn't a failed effort. That's what CNN's trying to say. It was a very successful effort. The...

BROWN: I'm not trying to say that. It's just a fact you didn't have enough Republicans on board, because they didn't feel -- to see the proof that was necessary.

COMER: No, every Republican -- that's not true. That's not true.

Every Republican in our conference voted to proceed with the impeachment inquiry. Now, Trump got impeached twice by Jamie Raskin and the Democrats. He's fixed to be sworn in as president of the United States.

The Democrats have devalued impeachment. We did impeachment inquiry to be able to get more information, to be able to have a standing in court, because, if we were just investigating Joe Biden in a regular investigation, when we went to court to get like the pseudonym e-mails and all the stuff that they failed to turn over, then the White House was going to argue, this is political.

But if all the Republicans vote, which they did 100 percent, to move forward with an impeachment inquiry, then we have better standing in court. That's why we did the impeachment inquiry, and it was a success. And I think, when Joe Biden issued the pardon to his son, a blanket pardon, I think that validated what we did.

And I'm going to predict he's not finished pardoning family members. BROWN: They did move forward, but not...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: ... vote. OK.

COMER: The what now?

BROWN: I want to ask you. They did, but not to the point of the vote, to move forward with the point of the vote.

But, really quick, I want to ask you. This is important because you are chairman of the Oversight Committee.

So far, president-elect Trump has not vowed to divest from his business interests, like he did the first time around. Do you think he should?

COMER: Well, I think that he's been transparent. The problem that we had with the Biden thing, they never were transparent with where their money came from.

We know Joe -- that Donald Trump owns properties in foreign countries. We know what he owns in the United States. I think the American people knew that when they voted to reelect. So as long as I think the president's honest with the American people, I think the American people will be satisfied with it.

If we come find out that he's got a secret offshore account and he's doing business with the Chinese on something no one knew about, then I think there will be a problem up here.

But, right now, it seems like everything that's come out business- related with Trump is a transparent process.

BROWN: Just to note though, I just have to be factual here. President Biden does share his tax returns every year. We do know we do see that.

COMER: Yes.

BROWN: But, just quickly, I mean, do you have any concern if he doesn't divest about President -- future President Trump using public office to enrich himself and his family? I mean, if he doesn't divest, would that concern you?

COMER: I think the most important thing is transparency.

And with respect to tax records, I come from a bank in background. Tax records don't mean anything. If you want to know whether someone's doing something corrupt or not, get their bank records, because bank records don't lie. Tax -- people cheat on their taxes all the time.

Most important thing is bank records. And I think, as long as President Trump is transparent, I think the American people will give him a pass on his business activity. But if it ever comes out that they have got secret deals or whatever, then that could potentially be a problem, obviously, moving down.

BROWN: OK, so I just want to be clear. So what I hear you saying is, he doesn't need to divest as long as he's transparent from all these different business ventures, real estate, Bible selling, NFTs, so forth?

COMER: I think transparency is the best answer for that question.

BROWN: OK.

COMER: So, hopefully, he will be transparent with his business dealings.

BROWN: All right, Chairman James Comer, thank you for your time. A lot of news going on today. We appreciate you coming on to respond to it.

COMER: All right. Thank you, Pam.

BROWN: And just ahead: how the GOP is already making good on Trump's promise to go after his enemies, this time targeting a frequent critic of Trump, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:23:27]

BROWN: And let's return to this hour's top story.

CNN has learned that the House Ethics Committee has abruptly reversed itself and has held a secret vote to release its report on former Congressman Matt Gaetz. We were just talking about that.

Just last month, the Ethics Committee voted along party lines not to release its investigation into allegations of illegal drug use and sexual misconduct, allegations, I will note, that Gaetz has denied.

Joining us now is CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor.

So, Elie, you saw Gaetz's response to this, right? Does he have any legal recourse to block this report?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Short answer, Pam, is no.

There's really nothing that he can do to go to court to get a judge to say, Congress, you are not to release this. This is fully within the purview and the discretion of Congress. However they vote is however this report's going to go. There's really nothing Gaetz can do to stop it.

BROWN: So what could the release of the report mean for Gaetz, though? Does it have any legal weight? We know that DOJ had investigated him before and didn't press charges. Could this change anything?

HONIG: Well, obviously, politically, I know he's not running for office anymore, but, politically and reputationally, it could be enormously damaging.

If we think about what the legal repercussions could be, of course, prosecutors can look at this kind of report, can say, hey, is there something new in there that we didn't have during our investigation? Is there something in there worth following up?

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: But very important to keep in mind, DOJ -- oh, go ahead.

BROWN: Oh, go ahead. Go ahead.

HONIG: DOJ investigated Matt Gaetz. They decided last year not to charge him. Maybe there's something new in there that piques their interest, but I don't think that's particularly likely, especially under a Trump administration.

[11:25:00]

BROWN: And we're just getting this news in, Elie, just so you're on, that the Supreme Court will hear a case over an upcoming ban of TikTok.

This is a huge case, deciding if that ban violates the First Amendment. I mean, this is a -- this could have far-reaching implications.

HONIG: Right.

So I just saw this news really quickly. I haven't had a chance to fully scrutinize the Supreme Court's order. But what this is, is a law that was passed by Congress earlier in this year that said, if TikTok is not sold to an American buyer by January 19 of 2025, so a month from now, then it will be banned.

Now, TikTok had challenged that ban. They had not succeeded. They lost in the district court. They lost in the Court of Appeals, which said that the ban is lawful and can go into effect. And so TikTok, the other day, went to the Supreme Court and said, we would like you to intervene.

And so it sounds like now, the Supreme Court has agreed, we're going to hear this case. We're going to hear it on an expedited, on a rushed basis, a hurried basis, because that date is looming, that January 19, 2025, date. So this is a win for TikTok, to be sure.

It at least gives them a fighting chance to challenge this law and either to have it put on hold or to have it blocked. The alternative, if the Supreme Court said, we're not hearing this or we're not going to hold it, then that ban would have gone into effect a month from now, and TikTok could well have been pulled off of American phones.

BROWN: All right, Elie Honig, thanks so much.

Still to come on this busy day, more of our breaking news from Capitol Hill, how now former Congressman Matt Gaetz is responding to the decision to release a long-running Ethics investigation into allegations against him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)