If it’s a news story, it must quote or describe the actual contents of the report, or a draft of the report, not “according to sources familiar with the report.”
If they publish the report (even if only other House or Senate members can read it) resolves YES.
Note for interested bettors I have high trust in the vetting process used by "mainstream media" reporters and their attorneys, if something appears in print in e.g. the New York Times I am going to assume it is true and not that the reporters are just making something up.
1,000
3.00🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,412 | |
| 2 | Ṁ761 | |
| 3 | Ṁ257 | |
| 4 | Ṁ247 | |
| 5 | Ṁ208 |
“according to a final draft of the panel’s report on the Florida Republican, obtained by CNN.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/23/politics/matt-gaetz-house-ethics-report/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/18/politics/matt-gaetz-ethics-report-committee/index.html
Should be released after last session this year
This is not evidence to resolve YES - it's the contents of the testimony, not the contents of the report, and no evidence the reporters have seen it, vs. heard it described https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/us/politics/matt-gaetz-hack-testimony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bE4.f2SX.A-EoaFu8nQma&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Throw as many crazy nominees to the wall and see what sticks.