Bipartisan members of the House Ethics Panel heard arguments for and against charging Representative Sheila Cherfilas-McCormick with violating House rules. Now they must decide whether he is guilty – an outcome that could result in his removal from office.
Following Thursday afternoon’s proceedings, which constituted the first House Ethics Committee “trial” in more than a decade, a Judiciary subcommittee adjourned late Thursday evening after more than six hours to deliberate in a closed-door session on the fate of the Florida Democrat. Following those deliberations, members will announce in a joint statement whether they believe Cherfilas-McCormick is guilty of, among other things, illegally raising money for her campaign – charges are also being filed against her at the federal level in her home state.
Full Committee Chairman, Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), said he could not predict when such a decision would come.
If members of the subcommittee find him guilty, they will likely meet again in the coming weeks and recommend punishment, which will then be voted on by the entire House, which could be as mild as a reprimand or censure or as severe as expulsion. The last House member to be expelled in 2023 was former New York Republican Representative George Santos; He was ultimately sentenced to prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, which was later pardoned by President Donald Trump.
“The allegations before us are extremely serious,” the representative said. mark desaulnier the top Democrat on California’s ethics panel said in opening statements. “They concern not only the conduct of an individual member, but also affect public confidence in the integrity of the House as an institution.”
Cherfilas-McCormick, who has maintained his innocence, asked to delay Thursday’s hearing to give his new legal team time to prepare; Due to the loss of her representation, her ethics trial had already been postponed once earlier this month.
His new lawyer, William Barzee, said he needed time until at least June to review relevant materials and prepare. He also argued that congressional hearings would taint federal criminal trials, where potential jurors could be influenced by House ethics proceedings.
But the panel, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, was unconvinced and allowed the public hearing to proceed. Guest said the years-long investigation of the three-term Democrat has been “a very slow, very deliberate process.” He also mentioned the Santos case, in which the House voted to expel the former lawmaker while he was under a federal indictment.
The last time the House Ethics Committee held a public hearing for allegations of impropriety against a fellow lawmaker, it was for the late-Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) in 2010. Rangel was accused of several charges, including improperly soliciting money. Similar to Cherfilas-McCormick, he argued at the time that the panel deprived him of due process by allowing the hearing to begin without giving him time to find a lawyer.
Guest said in an interview earlier this week that the panel had studied the Rangel hearing in preparation for the case before them.
During Thursday’s trial, ethics panel staff argued that Cherfilas-McCormick portrayed herself as “independently wealthy” and yet she illegally funneled millions of dollars into her campaign, either directly or through intermediaries like the health care company Trinity, which is Cherfilas-McCormick’s family business. When she ran for the seat during a special election, she transferred funds to her campaign around the application deadline, “misleading voters about the strength of her campaign,” the staff said.
Committee staffers also argued Thursday that Cherfilas-McCormick has used her position to serve her colleagues, including an instance where she submitted a funding request for an entity tied to an individual whose company provided services to the legislator’s campaign and official office.
Barzee, Cherfilas-McCormick’s attorney, largely did not provide physical evidence to dispute the allegations and said he did not have time to question witnesses. He again said that his client was disputing the allegations made by the committee and urged the panel to allow him to call people who could testify to the fact that Cherfilas-McCormick was entitled to the money transferred to him from Trinity.
“Will this committee really decide that he knowingly violated campaign finance law?” he asked. “At the very least, it’s time to stop.”
At one point Guest appeared frustrated with Barzee, saying that his panel had worked diligently on the case for two years, while Cherfilas-McCormick was now his fourth attorney.
He said, “Now your allegation that all this information is new, that we have not tried to gather this information for the last two years, I find it offensive, and I am personally hurtful, because I know the work this committee does to protect all members.”
By his own admission, Barzee appeared unprepared for the day’s historic proceedings, and repeatedly interrupted Cherfilas-McCormick on questions related to the facts of the case. There were also instances where members of Cherfilas-McCormick’s own party sought to come to the aid of their colleague, concerned that Barzee was not acting in their client’s best interests.
Cherfilas-McCormick, who sat quietly during the hearing, made a point of preparing to contest some of the matters under discussion by the panel before the representative. glen ivy (D-Md.) interjected, “Please don’t, please don’t.”
Then, when Cherfilas-McCormick’s discussion with her attorney became somewhat audible, Ivey requested that the attorney “put his hand on the microphone.” Later, Rep. Suhas Subramaniam (D-Va.) again recommended Barzee remove himself from the microphone during conversations with his client.
These moments offered a glimpse of the extremely uncomfortable position in which Ethics Committee members find themselves as they are forced to police the conduct of a fellow MLA. Although it was not immediately clear Thursday whether other House Democrats were attending Cherfilas-McCormick’s trial as allies or simply as interested parties, Rep. Jasmine Crockett Despite the fact that she is not on the panel, the Texas official joined committee members on the stage to begin the hearing. And representative. Shomari figures (D-Ala.) watched from the back of the committee room at the beginning of the proceedings.
Also in Washington for the hearing, sitting in the front row, was Cherfilas-McCormick’s primary challenger Elijah Manley, who has positioned himself as the antidote to the corruption saga that has consumed the incumbent.
Manley said in an interview, “Once this process is over… or she is found guilty, I think people should call on her to resign – that’s absolutely fair.” “That’s the standard we held George Santos to a few years ago, and I think we need to hold the congresswoman to the same standard.”
