[House Report 117-387]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                House Calendar No. 85
117th Congress     }                                     {     Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                     {    117-387
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                      IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS

                          RELATING TO DELEGATE

                        MICHAEL F.Q. SAN NICOLAS

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS














[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]













      June 24, 2022.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered 
                             to be printed    
                             
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
29-006                   WASHINGTON : 2022
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida,         JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana,
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
MONDAIRE JONES, New York             KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota

                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
             Brittney Pescatore, Director of Investigations
                 David Arrojo, Counsel to the Chairman
            Kelle Strickland, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                    Janet M. Foster, Senior Counsel
                    C. Ezekiel Ross, Senior Counsel
                     Caroline Taylor, Investigator
                   Peyton Wilmer, Investigative Clerk 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                     Washington, DC, June 24, 2022.
Hon. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Johnson: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we 
herewith transmit the attached report, ``In the Matter of 
Allegations Relating to Delegate Michael F.Q. San Nicolas.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Theodore E. Deutch,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Jackie Walorski,
                                           Ranking Member. 
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                           C O N T E N T S 

                                                                    Page 
  I. INTRODUCTION................................................      1
 II. FINDINGS....................................................      3
III. CONCLUSIONS.................................................      4
 IV. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c)................      6
APPENDIX A: REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE.............      8 










                                                House Calendar No. 85
117th Congress     }                                     {     Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                     {    117-387

======================================================================



 
  IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO DELEGATE MICHAEL F.Q. SAN 
                                NICOLAS

                                _______
                                

   June 24, 2022.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

               Mr. Deutch, from the Committee on Ethics, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

    In accordance with House rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), 
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the 
following Report to the House of Representatives:

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    On October 24, 2019, the Committee announced an 
investigation, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), into 
allegations that Delegate San Nicolas may have converted 
campaign funds to personal use, accepted improper or excessive 
campaign contributions, and/or engaged in a sexual relationship 
with a congressional employee who works under his supervision. 
On February 10, 2020, OCE sent a Referral to the Committee 
recommending further review of similar campaign finance 
allegations involving Delegate San Nicolas. On June 12, 2020, 
the Committee announced that it had impaneled an investigative 
subcommittee (ISC) with jurisdiction to investigate allegations 
that Delegate San Nicolas violated campaign finance and 
campaign reporting laws, made false statements to government 
investigators or agencies, engaged in witness interference, and 
had a sexual relationship with an individual on his 
congressional staff. On May 20, 2022, the Committee announced 
it had reauthorized the ISC. The ISC conducted a thorough 
investigation over the course of two years, in which it 
interviewed 11 witnesses and reviewed over 5,000 pages of 
documents.
    During its investigation, the ISC was presented with 
substantial evidence that Delegate San Nicolas may have 
knowingly solicited and accepted excessive and improper 
campaign donations, orchestrated a conspiracy to mask those 
unlawful donations by attributing them to unrelated 
fundraisers, and engaged in witness interference by directing 
congressional staffers to contact a key witness in a blatant 
attempt to dissuade them from providing testimony that would 
incriminate Delegate San Nicolas in connection with ongoing 
congressional investigations.\1\ Delegate San Nicolas did not 
meaningfully address the allegations against him, and chose to 
ignore a duly authorized subpoena rather than account for his 
conduct.\2\ The ISC referred Delegate San Nicolas to the full 
Committee for consideration of contempt due to his failure to 
appear for his subpoenaed deposition. Over a month later, on 
the eve of the Committee's consideration of this matter, the 
Delegate's counsel reiterated numerous technical challenges to 
the ISC's subpoena and stated the Delegate would ``welcome'' 
the opportunity to provide testimony ``subject to any 
objections he may assert.'' The Committee recognizes this as 
yet another delay tactic and notes that this matter has been 
pending for over two years, during which time Delegate San 
Nicolas has never substantively responded to most of the 
allegations raised against him. The Committee concurred with 
the ISC's determination that the Delegate's behavior was 
contemptuous.\3\ Moreover, despite his counsel's assurance of 
the Delegate's ``steadfast commitment to the Committee's 
crucial constitutional function,'' the Delegate has treated the 
ethics process with disdain. The Delegate's counsel, without 
citation, disputes the ISC's assertion that his refusal to 
provide voluntary testimony is uncommon, stating that ``there 
are numerous examples of Members who assert their legal right 
not to provide voluntary testimony.'' That statement 
demonstrates that the Delegate does not appreciate the unique 
role of this Committee. The Committee is not aware of a single 
other Member in recent history who refused to provide voluntary 
testimony to the Ethics Committee.\4\ When a Member is the 
subject of an investigation by the Ethics Committee, they have 
a duty of candor and diligence; the Delegate did not meet that 
duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See generally ISC Report.
    \2\ISC Report at 14-16.
    \3\Delegate San Nicolas was informed that the ISC referred him to 
the Committee for consideration of contempt, pursuant to Committee Rule 
19(b)(3), and was provided an opportunity to submit a written statement 
following that notice but did not do so.
    \4\Although the Committee has previously issued a subpoena for a 
Member's testimony in a 2004 matter, the Committee did not ask that 
Member to testify voluntarily. See Comm. on Standards of Official 
Conduct, Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, 
H. Rept. 108-722, 108th Cong. 2d Sess. 13 (2004) (``No Member of the 
House that was asked to provide voluntary testimony declined to do so; 
indeed, no Member who testified voluntarily offered any resistance to 
testifying or any objection to questions posed to them.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ISC considered recommending the Committee seek a House-
level sanction of Delegate San Nicolas for violations of 
federal laws and regulations, as well as the Code of Official 
Conduct. The ISC determined, however, that would not be the 
most effective action in light of the Delegate's impending 
retirement from the House, as well as the potential expiration 
of applicable statutes of limitations as soon as next year for 
some of the conduct at issue.\5\ Given those time constraints, 
as well as the extraordinary nature of the allegations, the ISC 
unanimously voted to recommend that this matter be referred to 
the Department of Justice.\6\ The Committee agrees with the 
ISC's findings and recommendations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ISC Report at 2, 16.
    \6\Id. at 16
    \7\The Committee thanks the Members of the ISC for their attention 
and dedication to this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, on June 23, 2022, the Committee unanimously 
voted to adopt this Report, refer the matter to the Department 
of Justice, and release the ISC's Report, which is transmitted 
as an appendix to this Report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8 \See Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              II. FINDINGS

    The Committee received substantial evidence that Delegate 
San Nicolas may have accepted improper and/or excessive 
campaign contributions in connection with his solicitation and 
acceptance of cash contributions totaling at least $9,000 from 
a single donor during the 2018 election cycle.\ 9\ The ISC 
collected substantial evidence that Delegate San Nicolas knew 
that acceptance of the cash contributions violated applicable 
campaign finance laws but nevertheless solicited and accepted 
the contributions to advantage his campaign as the general 
election approached.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ISC Report at 6-9
    \10\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also received substantial evidence that 
Delegate San Nicolas may have engaged in a conspiracy to hide 
the proceeds of those illicit campaign contributions and 
knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false or 
incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission. 
Specifically, the Committee received substantial evidence that 
Delegate San Nicolas sought the improper donation in cash so 
that his campaign could avoid disclosing the specific 
contributions, including by falsely reporting a portion of the 
illicit donation as proceeds of a small dollar fundraiser held 
on or around September 28, 2018.\11\ Delegate San Nicolas' 
campaign failed to properly report the contributions for 
approximately two years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Id.
    \12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also received substantial evidence that 
Delegate San Nicolas improperly interfered, or attempted to 
interfere, with the Committee's investigation. As discussed in 
the ISC's Report, there is substantial evidence that Delegate 
San Nicolas dispatched one of his congressional staffers to 
``deliver a message'' to the donor of the $9,000 cash campaign 
donation that the contribution ``never happened.''\13\ The 
Committee also received substantial evidence that Delegate San 
Nicolas, through his campaign committee, asked the donor to 
sign a prepared letter containing false statements about the 
campaign donation and the Delegate's knowledge thereof.\14\ 
Both attempts to contact the campaign donor about his donation 
occurred after the Committee had initiated its review and after 
OCE initiated a second-phase review, thus requiring a Referral 
to the Committee.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Id. at 10-11.
    \14\Id.
    \15\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate San Nicolas' conduct may have violated several 
campaign finance laws, federal conspiracy law, and laws against 
witness tampering and obstruction of Congress.
    The ISC also investigated several additional allegations, 
including whether Delegate San Nicolas had a sexual 
relationship with a staffer in his congressional office, 
whether Delegate San Nicolas misappropriated campaign funds for 
personal use, and whether Delegate San Nicolas used a campaign 
vendor to inflate campaign invoices and receive kickbacks for 
the purchase of campaign materials.\16\ The Committee agrees 
with the ISC that the evidence it has collected regarding some 
of these additional allegations is concerning and Delegate San 
Nicolas' decision not to meaningfully address the allegations 
is alarming. The Committee also agrees, however, that ``the 
interests of justice would best be served by prioritizing the 
substantial evidence'' the Committee has received relating to 
the Delegate's acceptance of illicit campaign contributions, 
his conspiracy to hide those proceeds, and witness 
interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            III. CONCLUSIONS

    House rule XI, clause 3(a)(3) states that ``[t]he Committee 
may report to appropriate Federal or State authorities by an 
affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the committee, 
any substantial evidence of a violation by a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, of a 
law applicable to the performance of the duties or the 
discharge of the responsibilities of such individual that may 
have been disclosed in a committee investigation.''\17\ The 
evidence collected by the ISC supports a criminal referral in 
the instant matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(3); see also Committee Rule 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has previously uncovered evidence during its 
investigations of potential federal criminal violations by non-
House individuals and referred such conduct to the Department 
of Justice.\18\ The Committee has also regularly deferred its 
investigations in order to permit the Department of Justice to 
complete its prosecution of criminal matters. Nonetheless, the 
Committee recognizes it is an extraordinary step to refer a 
sitting Delegate of the House to another federal authority. 
However, Delegate San Nicolas has engaged in extraordinary 
conduct, not only with respect to the excessive cash campaign 
contribution and his efforts to influence witness testimony, 
but also with respect to his failure to meaningfully address 
the allegations before the Committee and by contemptuously 
ignoring a duly authorized subpoena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Officially-Connected 
Travel by House Members to Azerbaijan in 2013, H. Rept. 114-239, 114th 
Cong. 1st Sess. 26 (2015) (referring ``evidence of concerted, possibly 
criminal efforts by various non-House individuals and entities to 
mislead the House travelers and the Committee about the Trips' true 
sponsors and the funding sources used to pay for Member and House 
employee travel to Azerbaijan.''); See House Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, Investigation into Officially Connected Travel of 
House Members to Attend the Carib News Foundation Multi-National 
Business Conferences in 2007 and 2008, H. Rept. 111-422, 111th Cong. 2d 
Sess. 5 (2010) (referring the conduct of ``officers and employees'' of 
private trip sponsors after finding they ``submitted false or 
misleading information to the Committee during its pre-travel review . 
. . and again when providing sworn testimony to the Investigative 
Subcommittee.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2019, during OCE's investigation, Delegate San Nicolas 
advised, on the eve of his OCE interview, that he would not 
appear. In explaining his decision not to appear before OCE, 
Delegate San Nicolas asserted that he would ``happily engage 
and cooperate fully with an official Investigative Subcommittee 
of the Ethics Committee that is capable of initiating my 
desired closure in this matter.''\19\ Delegate San Nicolas did 
not cooperate fully with the ISC or the Committee, and the ISC 
took the rare step of issuing a subpoena for Delegate San 
Nicolas' testimony, with which the Delegate did not comply.\20 
\ The Delegate raised a number of objections to his subpoenaed 
testimony that were overruled by the ISC. The ISC informed the 
Delegate of that decision and noted that it would not allow its 
investigation to continue to be hindered by delay tactics, and 
it was prepared to conclude its inquiry without the Delegate's 
testimony. As noted above, on the eve of the Committee's 
deliberation on this matter, the Delegate's counsel stated that 
he would ``welcome the opportunity'' to schedule a deposition 
``subject to any objections he may assert at the time.'' The 
ISC also advised the Delegate of the option to provide a 
written statement in response to the allegations, under oath or 
affirmation. The Delegate never submitted a statement 
responding to the allegations. In short, Delegate San Nicolas 
appears to have treated the House ethics process with the same 
indifference that he treated federal campaign finance laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ISC Report at 15.
    \20\See id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has previously explained:

          Public office is a public trust, and as part of that 
        public trust, public officials should take seriously 
        allegations that threaten the integrity of the 
        institution and seek to be forthright and cooperative 
        with the body designed to review such allegations. . . 
        . It is the nature of a self-regulatory body to strive 
        to collegially review allegations of misconduct and, 
        accordingly, the Committee's longstanding practice is 
        to seek voluntary cooperation from respondents. When 
        that cooperation is less than fulsome, that threatens 
        to undermine the foundations of that self-
        regulation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative David Schweikert, H. Rept. 116-465, 116th Cong., 2d 
Sess. 108 (2020) (hereinafter, Schweikert). See also Comm. on Ethics, 
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Laura 
Richardson, H. Rept. 112-642, 112th Cong., 2d Sess. (2012).

The House has a mandate pursuant to Article I, Section 5, 
clause 2 of the Constitution to police the behavior of its own 
Members. The House has charged the Committee on Ethics with the 
duty of investigating Member conduct in service of that 
constitutional mission. As the only standing committee of the 
House with membership divided evenly by party, the Committee on 
Ethics is unique, and operates under rules and processes that 
are intended to provide a fair procedural framework for the 
conduct of the Committee's activities. All Members have a duty 
to respect the rules of the Committee on Ethics and the House's 
self-disciplinary process by demonstrating candor and diligence 
in an investigation of their conduct by the Committee on 
Ethics. A Member's failure to meet their duty of candor and 
diligence in an investigation of the Committee on Ethics can, 
in itself, be a violation of House Rules and lead to 
sanctions.\22\ When a Respondent acts in a manner that 
obstructs or undermines the work of the Committee on Ethics, 
they bring discredit to the House. The Committee takes this 
opportunity to note to the House community that it will use 
appropriate disciplinary tools at its disposal to address such 
conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Schweikert at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate San Nicolas failed to fulfill his duty of candor; 
rather than fully cooperate with the ISC's investigation, he 
has repeatedly sought to evade and obstruct review of his 
conduct. While the Delegate engages in delay tactics, the 
statute of limitations for the potential criminal conduct at 
issue continues to tick away and may expire next year for some 
of the allegations and in 2024 for others. The Committee joins 
the ISC in noting that ``it would not be in the interests of 
justice to allow [Delegate San Nicolas] to continue to evade 
accountability for his actions by delaying this review while 
the statute of limitations continues to run.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee, accordingly, voted unanimously to refer this 
matter to the Department of Justice. The Committee also agrees 
that the Delegate's conduct merits public condemnation, and 
will publicly release this Report attaching the ISC's Report.
    Following the publication of this Report, the Committee 
will consider this matter closed.

            IV. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c)

    The Committee made no special oversight findings in this 
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this Report.




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                            [all]