This is what's known as the "other shoe dropping." 

Matt Gaetz had hoped to avoid public disclosure of the results of the House Ethics Committee investigation into numerous allegations of corruption and wrongdoing. His successful attack on Kevin McCarthy's Speakership came in part because McCarthy refused to quash the probe. Gaetz clearly intended to use the strange sequence this past month where Gaetz resigned his office just after winning another House term in order to force the committee to seal the results.

Instead, the Ethics Committee voted to publish its final report on Gaetz. Before they could do that, though, it leaked to a number of news outlets this morning, and ... it looks pretty bad:

Gaetz has repeatedly denied that he broke any laws. “These claims would be destroyed in court — which is why they were never made in any court against me,” he told POLITICO Friday morning.

But the committee’s 37-page report, which it decided to release in a secret vote earlier this month, alleges several instances of illegal conduct by President-elect Donald Trump’s one-time pick to serve as attorney general. Gaetz withdrew from consideration as Trump’s AG last month as the potential public release of the investigation weighed on his chances of Senate confirmation.

“The Committee concluded there was substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” the ethics panel said in its report, adding that he “knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct” the investigation.

Gaetz has repeatedly pointed out that the Department of Justice/FBI investigated these same allegations and declined to charge him. And that's true, but it's not quite on point, and it's also not the exoneration that Gaetz at least implies it to be. The language quoted here specifically refers to "substantial evidence," which is not the standard for prosecution. It's not even the "preponderance of evidence" that would meet the standard for a successful civil lawsuit. "Substantial evidence" is a phrase that really doesn't have a legal meaning as much as it does a political meaning -- which is the context in which Ethics Committees operate, in fact. 

This language strongly suggests that the House Ethics Committee would have taken some "substantial" political action, had Gaetz remained in Congress. Given the allegations here, one has to believe they would have recommended a rare expulsion from the House. George Santos got expelled by the House in a 311-114 vote the previous year over accusations of fraud and misuse of funds, allegations which almost seem quaint in comparison. The second-most recent expulsion from the House was Ohio's James Traficant two decades earlier, a Democrat who had been convicted in court of bribery and racketeering before being expelled. These allegations against Gaetz would likely have been too serious to recommend censure. Would a GOP-controlled House have expelled Gaetz over it? He must have thought so, or else he wouldn't have taken the face-saving AG appointment as a means to end the process.

Gaetz isn't done fighting the battle, though. He has filed for a restraining order to keep the committee from officially releasing the report, according to NBC and other media outlets:

The filing accuses the committee of an "unconstitutional" attempt "to exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations, in violation of the Committee’s own rules.” ...

The complaint argues the report would irreparably hurt Gaetz's reputation, saying that the threatened release "concerning matters of sexual propriety and other acts of alleged moral turpitude constitutes irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages." 

Gaetz is about to find out that the House sets its own rules. This may not even be judiciable; the courts generally can't dictate how the House operates, since the two are co-equal branches. If the House Ethics Committee votes to change its rules or to waive them, the full House would have to be the venue to challenge that decision, not a federal court. Furthermore, the issue isn't current jurisdiction but jurisdiction when the investigation began. They had jurisdiction over Gaetz for all but the final couple of weeks while writing the report.  This is also a political question, not a legal question, in other words.

As for defamation, that can be addressed in court. But does Gaetz really want to pursue that? The committee spent a lot of time finding witnesses and documentation before compiling this report. Could they have cooked it? Of course, but one has to wonder (a) how likely that would have been in a GOP-controlled House, and (b) whether Gaetz really wants to go through discovery and depositions under penalty of perjury. This sounds like public-relations bravado more than a cogent strategy to prevent the release of a report that likely won't contain any actual surprises. 

Gaetz does have a reason to put up a PR battle, though. Yesterday he told an audience at a Turning Point USA event in Arizona that he may run for the US Senate to fill Marco Rubio's seat when a special election gets called:

Gaetz, who resigned from Congress after being nominated for attorney general, said he may consider running for Senate in Florida for the vacancy left by Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been nominated as Trump’s secretary of state. He also expressed interest in being appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate insider trading in Congress.

“Many have asked which perch I will be fighting from next, and some of you throughout this conference have even given me a few suggestions. My fellow Floridians have asked me to eye the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee,” he said. “Maybe special counsel to go after the insider trading from my former colleagues in Congress.”

“It seems I may not have enough support in the United States Senate. Maybe I’ll just run for Marco Rubio’s vacant seat in the United States Senate and join some of those folks.”

Maybe, but the more that comes out about Gaetz' activities, the less likely that seems. He may need to content himself with the good gig he landed this month at OAN as one of its featured hosts. 

Update: The committee has now published the report, although the server seems to be overwhelmed at times by the traffic. It's pretty much as advertised:

In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following:

• From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him.

• In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl.

• During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions.

• Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts.

• In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent.

• Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct.

• Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House. 

The report also claims that precedent does exist for releasing such reports even after a resignation. The footnote for that claim references the cases of Daniel Flood in 1980, Donald Lukens in 1990, and William Boner in 1987. The dissent at the end of the report focuses entirely on this point, and goes out of its way to declare that dissenting members "do not challenge the Committee's findings." It also tacitly admits to the precedent, noting that the House Ethics Committee has not taken this action "since 2006," in another case entirely regarding the scandal involving House pages. On the substantive conclusions of the committee, though, there appears to be no dissent at all.