A bipartisan House Ethics subcommittee found Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick guilty on 25 of 27 counts Thursday night, capping a rare public hearing that stretched past six hours and now opens the door to possible expulsion from Congress. The Florida Democrat, already indicted on federal charges alleging she stole $5 million in FEMA funds, sat through the proceeding but did not speak.

It was only the second completed adjudicatory hearing in the Ethics Committee's modern history. The last one, in 2010, targeted then-Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York. Since 1991, only four cases have even reached this stage. Cherfilus-McCormick's case got there in a matter of months, and the verdict landed before her criminal trial has begun.

The findings now move to the full Ethics Committee, which will decide whether to recommend censure, reprimand, removal from committees, or expulsion from the House. Expulsion would require a two-thirds vote of the full chamber. As NBC News reported, committee chair Michael Guest said the panel would announce its findings in a formal statement.

The money trail: $5 million in FEMA funds, a family company, and a congressional campaign

The case against Cherfilus-McCormick centers on Trinity Healthcare Services, her family's health care company. Trinity had been working with FEMA through a Covid-19 vaccination contract and received a $5 million overpayment. Federal prosecutors allege the congresswoman stole and laundered that money, funneling it into her successful 2022 special election campaign.

Senior counsel for the Ethics panel, Sydney Bellwoar, laid out the alleged scheme during Thursday's hearing:

"Respondent and her siblings funneled more than $500,000 originating from Trinity into various outside organizations that made expenditures on behalf of the campaign."

Bellwoar described what she called "the most egregious example", a June 23, 2021, transfer in which Trinity moved $2 million directly to Cherfilus-McCormick. The next day, counsel said, she moved the money to her campaign. By July 2, she had "returned the money to herself nearly in full."

The New York Post reported that House investigators concluded approximately $3.6 million in federal funds paid to Trinity eventually reached Cherfilus-McCormick's campaign through personal loans and donations. Federal prosecutors had previously indicted her on 15 counts alleging she stole about $5 million in FEMA or other federal Covid-related funds to support her congressional bid.

Breitbart detailed additional allegations that the money was laundered through multiple bank accounts and used not only for her campaign but also for luxury purchases, with straw donor and false tax return schemes allegedly involved.

The Ethics investigative subcommittee reviewed over 33,000 documents totaling hundreds of thousands of pages and conducted 28 witness interviews before adopting a Statement of Alleged Violations in December. That document detailed 27 counts in which the subcommittee determined there was "substantial reason to believe" Cherfilus-McCormick violated House rules, regulations, or the law. In January, the Ethics panel formed a separate adjudicatory subcommittee to evaluate those findings.

The defense: due process complaints and a plea for delay

Cherfilus-McCormick's attorney, William Barzee, fought to delay the hearing. He told the committee he had signed onto the case only a few weeks earlier and needed more time to prepare. He also asked that the proceedings continue behind closed doors until after the criminal trial, which is set to begin in April, though Barzee acknowledged it could slip to summer or fall.

His core argument was blunt:

"How can she possibly go into court and have a fair trial if her jurors have already heard that she was found guilty by the House of Representatives? It's an impossibility."

Barzee also pushed for the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, rather than have the subcommittee decide the case on paper alone:

"You have to allow me to call witnesses on her defense. You have to let me cross examine witnesses that staff put up. You can't just decide this on the paper."

The lawmakers denied the delay request after a closed-door session. Ray Rhatican, counsel for the Ethics panel, told members there was no guarantee the criminal trial would happen this year or anytime soon. The committee moved forward.

Cherfilus-McCormick, for her part, issued a statement expressing deep disappointment:

"I am deeply disappointed the Committee chose to move forward with this trial while denying my legal team reasonable time to prepare. That raises serious concerns about due process and the fundamental rights every American is entitled to under our Constitution."

She added: "Make no mistake: I am innocent and I am a fighter. My district is made up of fighters. I will continue to fight for the people I was elected to serve."

She pleaded not guilty in her criminal case and has consistently denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics had earlier recommended the committee probe the matter, which it has been doing since 2023.

Democrats caught between loyalty and liability

The political dynamics are uncomfortable for House Democrats. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Cherfilus-McCormick was "entitled to the presumption of innocence" and pushed back on expulsion talk:

"She's going through the process right now, and any effort to expel her lacks any basis, at this moment, in law, fact or the Constitution."

But not every Democrat was so protective. As the Washington Free Beacon reported, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Washington state Democrat, offered a far sharper verdict: "You can't crime your way into legitimate power. Since she was found guilty, she should resign or be removed."

Rep. Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, struck a middle tone. As Just The News noted, Lynch said: "If they give us conclusions that this actually happened, and there's no question of doubt as to the fact that laws were broken, then our colleague will have to face the consequences of that, it's plain and simple."

Speaker Mike Johnson chose his words carefully but did not hide the gravity of the situation:

"This is a very serious matter. I think even many Democrats... have publicly said that the evidence is so stark and irrefutable that it's almost presumed guilt."

He added: "But we have to process this internally and see how this goes."

A pattern of public officials and public money

The Cherfilus-McCormick case is not an isolated episode. Allegations of elected officials exploiting federal relief programs have surfaced across the country. A Georgia state lawmaker recently retired amid federal unemployment fraud charges, another case in which a Democratic officeholder faced accusations of siphoning taxpayer dollars for personal gain.

Federal investigators have also been active in other fraud probes involving Democratic-linked figures. The Justice Department sent federal prosecutors to Minnesota to investigate a sprawling fraud scheme, and a separate financial investigation has examined Rep. Ilhan Omar's finances. The common thread in all these cases is the same: public money, public trust, and officials who allegedly treated both as personal assets.

What comes next

The Ethics Committee's 25-count guilty finding now moves to the full committee for a sanctions hearing. Ethics Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier said in a joint statement that "shortly after the House returns from the April recess, the full Committee will hold a hearing to determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend."

The options range from a reprimand to expulsion. The Rangel precedent is instructive but limited. In 2010, a special Ethics subcommittee found Rangel guilty on 11 of 13 charges. The House voted to censure him, but he continued to serve until his retirement in 2017. No one was expelled.

Cherfilus-McCormick's case is arguably more severe. The dollar amounts are larger. The alleged source of the money, FEMA disaster relief funds during a pandemic, makes the optics worse. And unlike Rangel, she faces a parallel federal criminal prosecution. Republicans in January threatened expulsion, and the 25-count finding gives them fresh ammunition.

Several open questions remain. Will the criminal trial proceed in April as scheduled, or will it be delayed as Barzee suggested? Will Democrats rally behind expulsion, or will Jeffries hold the line on presumption of innocence? And will the full committee's sanctions hearing produce anything more than a censure, the same slap on the wrist Rangel received?

The Justice Department, notably, had not requested that the House defer its proceedings, according to a committee staffer. That silence speaks. Federal prosecutors apparently saw no reason to slow the Ethics Committee down.

Voters in Cherfilus-McCormick's Florida district sent her to Washington to represent them. What they got, if investigators are right, was a representative who used stolen pandemic relief money to buy the seat in the first place. The House now has to decide what that's worth.