Ethics Panel Finds Cherfilus-McCormick Violated Over Two Dozen House Rules

After a nearly seven-hour-long public hearing and late-night private deliberations, a House Ethics panel found Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick guilty of multiple House rules violations.

Cherfilus-McCormick was charged by a congressional investigative committee with 27 ethics violations related to allegations that she funneled millions of dollars in federal funds to her 2021 congressional campaign. An Ethics adjudicatory subcommittee announced Friday morning that she had been found guilty of 25 of those counts, including money laundering, making false statements, campaign-finance violations and misusing official funds. The panel asserted they “had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

The full House Ethics Committee is slated to hold a hearing in April, after the House returns from its two-week recess, to determine which sanctions to recommend. Republicans have been pushing for Cherfilus-McCormick’s expulsion.

As Cherfilus-McCormick’s lawyer attempted to stall Thursday’s proceedings and accuse the committee of not giving his client enough time to dispute the allegations, the committee’s nonpartisan staff walked through evidence, including text messages, where Cherfilus-McCormick appeared to be directing people on how to donate the funds to her campaign. The ethics investigation into the congresswoman began in 2023.

The Justice Department indicted Cherfilus-McCormick in November of last year for funneling $5 million in COVID-19 relief funds to her campaign — similar to the charges brought by the House Ethics Committee. If convicted, she faces up to 53 years in prison.

The committee released its bipartisan findings in January and announced there would be a public trial conducted by an adjudicatory subcommittee to consider the charges — the first such public hearing since the 2010 investigation into then-Rep. Charlie Rangel. Cherfilus-McCormick has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

William Barzee, Cherfilus-McCormick’s attorney, argued that her family, which ran a business that was a recipient of the COVID-era money, distributed the $5 million among other family members, who then legally donated money to the congresswoman’s campaign.

“There is, legally speaking, no basis to conclude that she had a right to that money,” said Brittney Pescatore, House Ethics investigations director.

“The record establishes that there was a scheme to impermissibly funnel Trinity’s money to respondent’s special election campaign via both direct transactions and using various conduits,” Jennifer Seeba, House Ethics counsel, said in closing arguments. “In doing so, respondent violated numerous campaign finance laws.”

The adjudicatory committee ultimately disagreed with Barzee. The only two counts the committee did not find Cherfilus-McCormick guilty of were one charge of money laundering from a Haitian oil company, which some Democrats on the panel appeared doubtful of in their questioning, and for “lack of candor” with the House Ethics Committee’s yearslong ethics investigation.

Toward the end of the hearing, Barzee said Cherfilus-McCormick did not respond to the committee’s requests during her investigation because she had been advised not to by previous attorneys. Barzee is the fourth attorney to represent the congresswoman in the ethics investigation.

During the hearing, Barzee urged the panel to let him call her former attorneys as witnesses “and have them explain why they didn’t turn over the documents.”

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a member of the adjudicatory committee, reminded Barzee that he could have brought witnesses to the hearing, but Barzee said he had only been overseeing the case for a short time: “I’m doing the best with the amount of time that I have, but we’re not prepared to call witnesses at this time.”

Barzee attempted, unsuccessfully, to convince the committee to delay the proceedings until the criminal case was over, arguing that the televised hearing would be swayed by it.

“Going forward with an adjudicatory hearing when a member has a pending criminal case is a very risky endeavor,” Barzee said. “When I say risky, the risk is to a violation of her constitutional rights to a fair trial.”

Rep. Brad Knott, a member of the adjudicatory committee and formerly a federal prosecutor, took issue with Barzee’s accusations that the committee could be violating Cherfilus-McCormick’s rights.

“That’s a fairly broad statement, in numerous respects. Would you not agree?,” Knott asked.

“If we proceed with this and we deny your motion, that is not at all a denial of her constitutional rights? That’s your opinion,” Knott continued. “That’s not at all established in precedent by any means. I mean, we’re not in a court of law. We’re not dealing in a criminal matter. We are a body that’s unique unto itself. We’re dealing with rules. We’re not dealing with any type of criminal adjudication.”

As Knott’s questions continued, Barzee even referenced Knott’s legal background: “I know that the member is a lawyer. I know that the member worked in the prosecutor’s office. I get it.”

Barzee then argued that reporters’ coverage of the ethics trial would confuse jurors in Cherfilus-McCormick’s criminal case to believe that the congresswoman has broken the law, rather than the rules of the House of Representatives.

The press, Barzee said, raising his voice, “is going to say, ‘Congresswoman guilty.’”

“Candidly, that’s the job of the defense counsel, to ensure that standards are met,” Knott said in return.

“I agree with you, sir,” Barzee responded. “I’m doing my best.”

Ultimately, the committee rejected Barzee’s motion to delay the ethics trial.

Cherfilus-McCormick lost her initial counsel in March, and Barzee, who had been handling the criminal case, took over the ethics case just under three weeks ago. He argued that his client had not been given enough time to dispute the investigation while he had been overseeing the case.

The committee’s chair, Rep. Michael Guest, however, said that was not true.

“The committee has worked to get her documents for two years. We’ve tried to get documents from your client. Not only have we requested documents but we have subpoenaed those documents — those documents were not provided for two years,” Guest said. “For you to allege that all of this information is new, that we’ve not tried to gather this information for the last two years, I find that offensive.”

“I just wanted to make the record clear that we, as a committee, for two years have looked into this matter, the investigative subcommittee has, that we’ve been held their fourth attorney, that every time we talked to attorneys and every time we tried to get documents, every time we tried to allow them to present us anything that would tend to contradict the facts,” Guest continued, “we’ve not received that.”