December 23, 2024: President Biden Commutes 37 of 40 Federal Death Sentences and House Ethics Committee Releases Gaetz Report. Here's What You Need to Know.
15:54 Share

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name-year price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis.

Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Monday, December 23rd, and this is your unexpected daily news rundown. I know I told you Thursday it was going to be the last episode of season three, and I thought it was, but it turns out today was kind of a big day in the news, and I had some free time on the plane, so let's do it. Today's episode is going to be a quick one, just two stories, but without further ado, let's get into today's stories.

President Biden has commuted the sentences of all but three federal death row inmates. Let's talk about what this means. If you listened to my 12-12 episode, so my December 12th episode about Biden granting clemency to roughly 1,500 people, then you know there's a difference between commutations and pardons. But let's go over it again just in case some of you weren't able to catch that episode.

When we talk about clemency, we're talking about the president or sometimes a state governor granting leniency to a certain person. But there are varying types or different types of leniencies, mainly pardons and commutations. There are a few different types of pardons, too. So full pardons wipe away a conviction entirely. And if you're serving a sentence, you get to go home.

A full pardon will also restore any rights that might have been stripped due to the conviction, maybe the right to vote, maybe the right to hold public office, etc. The rights that are taken away upon conviction really depend on whether it's a federal conviction or a state conviction. And then you have partial pardons and conditional pardons. So partial pardons offer limited relief, conditional pardons come with some sort of condition or conditions.

Now, a commutation is much different than a pardon in that it doesn't wipe away your conviction and it doesn't mean you get to stop serving your sentence and go home. It can in certain instances, but it's not typical. Usually, commutations just offer a lesser sentence and the conviction remains.

A commutation is what Biden just granted to the death row inmates. So Biden granted commutations to 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates. And if you're like me, one of your first questions was, hmm, I wonder who the three are that were not granted a commutation. And I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you a little something about federal death row.

A federal death penalty sentence is rare, much more rare than a state death penalty sentence. The federal death penalty applies in all 50 states, unlike the state death penalty, right? Some states don't have the death penalty, but the federal death penalty can apply in any of the 50 states. It's just rarely ever sought. There are about 60 eligible federal offenses, and if someone is charged with one of those eligible offenses,

eligible offenses, the federal government has to decide whether they are going to seek the death penalty. But not only are federal death penalty sentences rare, so are the actual executions. To show you just how rare federal executions are, let's go through the last five to six decades.

Between 1963 and 2001, there were no federal executions, and this is in large part because the federal death penalty was actually deemed unconstitutional in 1972, and it was overturned in 1988. But between 1972 and 1988, the federal death penalty was unconstitutional, and there could be no federal executions.

After 1988, when the death penalty was reinstated on a federal level, the next execution that took place was in 2001, and there were two federal executions that year. Then there was one execution in 2003. No executions, though, between 2003 and 2020.

When Trump took office, he resumed executions. 13 federal executions were carried out between July 2020 and January 2021 in a seven-month span. Then Biden took office, executions stopped again. In fact, President Biden announced a pause on federal capital punishment to study the protocols that were being used.

So since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988, there have only been 16 executions and 13 of those took place in a seven month span. Now, I'll tell you this, Biden commuting the sentences of all but three people on death row means that, yes, 37 inmates will now serve life without parole sentences and will not be put to death.

But those three that were left out have a much higher likelihood of being executed much quicker than they otherwise would have been. Executions typically take place in the order in which inmates were put on death row, and the three that didn't get

their sentences commuted today are the three most recent death penalty sentences. So with 40 inmates on death row prior to today's commutations and at the rate at which the government was carrying out these executions, it would have been a very, very long time until

these three were executed. We're talking decades. But now that those three are the only three in line, and with Trump taking office in January, there's a chance that those three are executed in the next one to two years. I mean,

They still have to have their appeals play out because every defendant is entitled to certain post-conviction appeals. But still, it'll happen at a much quicker rate than it otherwise would have. So who are the three? The Boston Marathon bomber, a man who killed nine people at a church in South Carolina in 2015, and a man who killed 11 people at a synagogue in 2018. Those are the three that remain on death row.

In a statement announcing the commutations, President Biden said, quote, I have dedicated my career to reducing violent crime and ensuring a fair and effective justice system. Today, I'm commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals on federal death row to life sentences without the possibility of parole. These commutations are consistent with the moratorium my administration has imposed on federal executions in cases other than terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder."

Make no mistake, I condemn these murders, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss. But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vice president, and now president, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level."

End quote.

So that is what you need to know there. Now let's talk about the Gates Ethics Report. The House Ethics Committee's findings in their investigation into former Representative Matt Gates were leaked today and then subsequently released by the committee. And Gates, between the time that the report was leaked and the time it was released, Gates filed a lawsuit

seeking to block the actual release of the report by the committee. We'll briefly talk about the role of the Ethics Committee, then we'll go over some of the findings, six findings to be exact. We'll talk about the dissenting views and the lawsuit that Gaetz filed this morning. And like I said, this discussion is going to be fairly brief, but I do have the full report from the House Ethics Committee and Gaetz's lawsuit linked for you in the sources section of this episode.

Before we get into the allegations, I just want to make a quick note about the House Ethics Committee because I'm sure some of you are wondering what this committee does. It essentially oversees anything ethics related in the House. So it's a bipartisan group of lawmakers, five Republicans, five Democrats, and they administer disclosures, they issue advisory opinions, they advise members and staff, and they investigate any potential ethics violations. Now as far as this

particular investigation into Matt Gaetz, I'm not really going to do a lengthy history because I have talked about it many times in past episodes. So what I'll say is that Gaetz was being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for illicit drug use, misusing campaign funds, and having sex with a minor back in 2017. The committee was conflicted as to whether it was going to release its findings after Gaetz stepped down from his lawmaker position a few weeks back, but then just last week, the committee said that it would release the report.

So let's talk about some of the findings now that we have that report. I'm just going to kind of bullet point it.

Number one, the committee found substantial evidence that Gates paid 12 women between 2017 and 2020 for sex. Gates has actually admitted to paying various women for things over the years. He hasn't specifically said that he paid them for sex, but he has admitted to paying them for various things. One of the women interviewed by the committee reportedly said, quote, Matt Gates paid me for sex. That was the extent of our interaction, end quote.

Two, the report found substantial evidence that Gates had sex with a 17-year-old in 2017, but that she never told Gates she was underage. She was unaware that she was under 18.

Three, the report found substantial evidence that he used cocaine and ecstasy on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2019. Four, the report alleges that Gates accepted improper gifts, misused official resources, lied to the State Department to help a sexual partner obtain a passport, and obstructed the committee's investigation.

Five, the report found no substantial evidence that Gates violated federal sex trafficking laws, but accuses Gates of violating other federal laws like laws prohibiting obstruction and making false statements to Congress. The reason the committee did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that he violated federal sex trafficking laws is

is because although he transported women across state lines, there was no evidence that the women were underage at the time that they were transported and no sufficient evidence to conclude that those sex acts were induced by force, fraud, or coercion. In other words, all of the sexual acts which required the transport of women across state lines seemed to be consensual.

As far as the obstruction goes, the committee said that Gates provided minimal documentation to the committee during this investigation, did not agree to the voluntary interview, and did not appear to testify after the committee had issued a subpoena for him to do so.

And then six, the report did allege violations of state laws, specifically state laws which prohibit prostitution and sex with a minor. So Florida's statutory rape law says that is a felony for a person 24 years or older to have sex with a 16 or 17 year old.

And under that law, a person cannot claim ignorance or misrepresentation of the minor's age as a defense. Now, this doesn't mean that he'll be charged with violating this law. It just means that the committee found sufficient evidence to support a charge. Remember, this House Ethics Committee is completely different than a...

prosecutor's office, whether it's a federal prosecutor or a state prosecutor. So although the House committee can say, you know, we found sufficient evidence to support a charge, it doesn't mean that a charge will be brought. It's an entirely different body that would bring a charge. The last page of the report includes the views of the dissenting committee members, those that did not want the report released. And they wrote in part, quote,

We believe and remain steadfast in the position that the House Committee on Ethics lost jurisdiction to release to the public any substantive work product regarding Mr. Gates after his resignation from the House on November 14, 2024. While we do not challenge the committee's findings, we take...

Great exception that the majority deviated from the committee's well-established standards and voted to release a report on an individual no longer under the committee's jurisdiction, an action the committee has not taken since 2006.

Representative Gates resigned from Congress, withdrew from consideration to serve in the next administration, and declared that he would not seek to be seated in the 119th Congress. The decision to publish a report after his resignation breaks from the committee's longstanding practice, opens the committee to undue criticism, and will be viewed by some as an attempt to weaponize the committee's process.

End quote.

Gates himself has denied any wrongdoing. He released a statement last week, which you can hear in last Wednesday's episode. I read that full statement. It's also worth noting he was previously also investigated by the DOJ. So the DOJ is separate from the House Ethics Committee. He faced an investigation by the DOJ for paying women for sex, and the DOJ declined to bring charges against him.

As for Gates' lawsuit against the House Ethics Committee, he's essentially alleging that the release of the report would violate the Constitution, violate the Privacy Act, and constitute defamation. The complaint reads in part, quote, The anticipated statements and release of information by defendants is expected to include reference and make conclusions that plaintiff engaged in conduct amounting to misconduct or was otherwise unethical. The anticipated statements and information is false.

factually incorrect and untrue because plaintiff did not violate any criminal code or other standard of ethics within the jurisdiction of defendants, end quote. So the alleged constitutional violation stems from the idea that the dissenting members wrote about, which is that the House Ethics Committee no longer has jurisdiction over the matter,

Once Gates stepped down from Congress, the Ethics Committee no longer had jurisdiction to investigate, and at that point is when it voted whether it would release this report. But Gates argues that that lack of jurisdiction means not only can they no longer investigate, but they also no longer have jurisdiction to release the report. He says doing so would exceed their constitutional authority and violate his Fifth Amendment rights to due process.

The Privacy Act claim is a little different in that it's based on federal law, not the Constitution. The Privacy Act prohibits federal agencies from disclosing records about people without proper authorization and notice. Gates says that they did not get proper authorization and notice, and therefore, releasing the report would violate federal law.

And then finally, defamation. Defamation is the third claim in the lawsuit. As we all know, defamation is the publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another. So Gates is basically saying that the report contains false statements that are going to hurt his reputation and therefore constitute defamation.

So that is the quick rundown and the sort of need to know information. But like I said, I do have the report and Gates's lawsuit that he filed in the sources section. So if you are interested in reading or learning more, definitely head there.

That is what I have for you today. I can confidently say that this will be the last episode until the new year. Thank you for being here for this quick, unexpected last minute episode. Have a very happy holiday and I will talk to you in the new year.