Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) is calling on a fellow Democrat to resign, or face removal from Congress after a adjudicatory subcommittee found that 25 of 27 ethics charges against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence."
Perez wrote Friday morning on X:
"You can't crime your way into legitimate power. Since she was found guilty, she should resign or be removed."
According to Breitbart, Axios congressional reporter Andrew Solender later confirmed on X that Gluesenkamp Perez told him she would support expelling Cherfilus-McCormick from the House. It is a rare move for any member to publicly back the expulsion of someone in their own caucus, and it signals how damning the evidence has become.
The findings emerged from a public House Ethics Committee hearing, the first involving a sitting member since 2010. Deliberations lasted until after midnight. The subcommittee concluded that Cherfilus-McCormick committed numerous ethics violations involving campaign finance laws, inaccurate disclosure forms, improper campaign contributions, and using her office to benefit allies.
The investigation behind those findings was not a quick look. Committee investigators conducted a more than two-year investigation, reviewed more than 33,000 documents, held roughly a dozen meetings, and issued dozens of subpoenas. The word "substantial evidence" appeared in the committee's conclusions. Twenty-five of the twenty-seven charges survived that scrutiny.
Among the central allegations: Cherfilus-McCormick financed her 2022 special election campaign using proceeds from a $5 million overpayment mistakenly made in July 2021 to her family company, Trinity Healthcare Services, by a Florida agency through a FEMA-funded COVID-19 vaccination contract. Investigators also alleged she used more than $100,000 to buy a 3-carat yellow diamond ring.
A government agency accidentally sends your family business $5 million it wasn't owed, and the money ends up funding your congressional campaign and financing luxury jewelry. That's not a bookkeeping error. That's a pipeline.
During closing arguments at Thursday's hearing, Rep. Brad Knott (R-NC) rejected the defense claim that Cherfilus-McCormick lacked knowledge of the movement of money tied to her campaign and family business. He pointed to text messages that he said showed the congresswoman was "integrally involved."
Knott cited one message laying out the straw-donor mechanics plainly:
"The max is two checks of $2,900. That is why sister had to give money to Nadege for her to make another donation."
Another message outlined the fundraising ambition:
"The goal is 2 million, at least 1.5 million."
Knott also quoted an exchange involving Hector Roos, an individual involved in Cherfilus-McCormick's congressional campaign, who urged moving funds into the campaign account quickly:
"I suggest you move funds into the campaign account sooner rather than waiting towards the end of the month. This is the one chance to post a big number."
Cherfilus-McCormick's alleged response:
"I am not planning on using that amount, just leveraging. I think that's a good idea."
And when the subject of keeping the arrangement quiet came up, the response attributed to someone in the exchange was blunt: "Indeed, but no one has to know that."
Knott drove the point home:
"But when you add up all the things that she did not know, it absolutely flies in the face of common sense."
He told the committee there "was knowledge on her behalf far beyond what you have represented to this committee" and added that he did not believe there were "material issues" with the case against her. His assessment was direct:
"You and I both know that sometimes evidence speaks for itself."
Cherfilus-McCormick has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in a parallel federal criminal case. The federal indictment exists alongside the ethics findings, meaning the congresswoman faces scrutiny on two separate legal tracks simultaneously.
She maintains her innocence. The text messages, the subcommittee's 25 sustained charges, and the two-year document trail tell a different story.
Gluesenkamp Perez is not new to bucking her party. She previously broke with members of her own caucus in November when she led a bipartisan rebuke of Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-IL) over what she said was an effort that undermined voters' ability to choose their representatives.
That history gives her call for expulsion some credibility. She isn't grandstanding on a single headline. She has demonstrated a willingness to hold her own side accountable when the facts demand it.
The question now is whether anyone else in the Democratic caucus will join her, or whether party loyalty will quietly smother 25 proven ethics charges, 33,000 documents, and a trail of text messages that read like a how-to guide for campaign finance fraud.
Washington loves to talk about ethics. It loves the committees, the investigations, the solemn press conferences. What it rarely loves is the part where consequences follow findings.
The Ethics Committee did its job. The evidence was reviewed. The charges were sustained at a standard of clear and convincing evidence. A sitting congresswoman stands credibly accused of laundering a government overpayment into a congressional campaign, routing illegal contributions through family members, and filing inaccurate disclosures to cover the tracks.
One Democrat has said plainly that this warrants removal. The rest of the caucus now faces a simple question: do 25 of 27 proven charges matter, or don't they?
Silence will be its own answer.
