The House Ethics Committee should release its report on Matt Gaetz.

And the Senate should ponder what the Gaetz nomination portends.

Speaker Johnson said yesterday that the House Ethics Committee report on misconduct by Matt Gaetz should not be released, now that Johnson is no longer a member of the House. He stated:

I’m going to strongly request the Ethics Committee not issue the report because that is not the way we do things in the House, and I think that would be a terrible precedent.

Previously, Johnson had said it’s not the Speaker’s role to get involved with Ethics Committee business. There are “lots of important reasons for that,” he added.

Johnson was right the first time. One good reason for him not to get involved is because the Speaker is always a partisan political actor. The Ethics Committee is supposed to be free from political influence, as well as its appearance, to the extent possible.

Let’s take Gaetz’s case as an example. It’s difficult not to suspect that Johnson’s reversal is an attempt to please president-elect Trump. As Speaker, Johnson will work with the new president, so I can’t blame him for trying to stay on Trump’s good side. But pleasing Trump and staying on his good side should be no part of the Ethics Committee’s work.

Releasing the Ethics Committee’s report is consistent with congressional precedent and with sound policy. Johnson’s case for not releasing it rests on the fact that Gaetz resigned for the House (one step ahead of the law, so to speak). Because of his resignation, the House no longer has jurisdiction over Gaetz.

But lack of jurisdiction is no basis for withholding a report:

In 2006, despite the immediate resignation of a Florida congressman caught up in a scandal, the House Ethics Committee went ahead with an investigation into the ex-lawmaker’s relationship with House pages and released a detailed report two months later.

In 2011, after a Republican from Nevada resigned rather than sit for an interview, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to release its 75-page report and forwarded its materials to the Justice Department, asking for a criminal investigation.

In Gaetz’s case, the argument for releasing the report is especially strong. Americans have an obvious interest in finding out whether the nominee for our top law enforcement job has violated laws against sex trafficking with minors. The findings of a bipartisan congressional ethics committee are certainly relevant to that inquiry.

Gaetz’s defenders may point out that the Justice Department investigated the allegations against Gaetz and did not bring a criminal case. That’s relevant information, too.

But the standard that must be met to bring criminal charges is extremely high. A preponderance of the evidence isn’t enough. On the other hand, Senators might believe, as I do, that if a preponderance of the evidence shows Gaetz to have committed the crimes investigated by the DOJ, he should not be confirmed.

I have argued that Gaetz should not be confirmed regardless of whether the criminal allegations against him have substance. But for some Senators who disagree with me, evidence of sexual misconduct might well be a deal breaker.

Even if the Ethics Committee does not release its report, any relevant information it contains is likely to be leaked. And even in the absence of leaks, the media will bring evidence of misconduct to the fore. The Ethics Committee questioned one woman who, reportedly, testified that she had sex with Gaetz when she was17. Her recollections are likely to become public if the nomination isn’t withdrawn.

There’s a good chance that the Gaetz nomination will fall by the wayside before it gets to the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the nomination proceeds, I think there’s virtually no chance of confirmation.

Why, then, did Trump nominate Gaetz? A simple explanation is that he wants a loyalist in charge of the DOJ and believes Gaetz can be confirmed. Another is that Trump expects Gaetz’s nomination to fail but thinks that if GOP Senators reject him, they will be extremely reluctant to reject other nominees who might otherwise face an uphill battle.

Another theory is this one put forth in Politico:

It’s a test for every Republican member in the Senate to see how they respond to Trump’s wishes. . .Think of it as Senate Republicans’ version of the Kobayashi Maru — the famous exam in “Star Trek” that presents trainees with a no-win situation. It isn’t meant to be passed; it’s intended to reveal something about the people who take it.

If so, Trump should be mindful of what one of my Literature professors used to say: “You don’t just read the book, the book reads you.”

Trump’s nominations are not just a test for the Senate, they are a test of him. “Reading” these nominations, enables both the Senate and Americans at-large to reach conclusions about what kind of a presidency we’re likely to get from Trump. So even if Republican Senators swallow some of Trump’s borderline nominees (as I think they will and arguably should) they will be on notice that this presidency might become a train wreck rather quickly (as many second-term presidencies have). If prudent, they will behave accordingly and not tie themselves too closely to Trump. .

Moreover, Senators aren’t just “readers” of presidential conduct. They are “authors” in their own right. This week, Republican Senators wrote a page when they selected John Thune to be majority leader, rejecting Rick Scott, the Trumpiest choice for the job.

They are likely to write a full chapter by rejecting some of Trump’s least palatable nominees, including Gaetz. This provide a test for Trump. Does he go to war with Senate Republicans in the early days of his presidency or does he take his lumps and stop testing the GOP caucus so much?

I’m hoping for the latter outcome, but wouldn’t put my money on it.