Michael Guest · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Hector Roos in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Ethics

2026-09-01

“I want this resolution to pass. Roos defied our subpoenas. Our committee agreed that he delayed our work. I want the House to punish him. He didn't talk to us.”

“I want to talk. I already said why I like this resolution. I want it to pass. I'm done talking now.”

“I want all politicians to have five days to add more talk about this resolution. They can put in whatever extra stuff they want.”

“I want the House to pass this resolution right away. It will find Hector Roos in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas. The Ethics Committee duly issued these subpoenas.”

House of Representatives

Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Michael Joseph in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Ethics

2026-09-01

“I want this resolution to pass. I yield back my time.”

“I want these people punished. They didn't do what our committee told them to. Our committee has the power to make them. They didn't have a good reason not to. I say they should be held in contempt.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Committee on Ethics, I rise in support of the resolutions which call for Michael Joseph and Hector Roos to be held in contempt of Congress for their failure to comply with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on September 11, 2025, and August 12, 2026, respectively. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House may punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. The House has charged the Committee on Ethics with the duty of implementing this provision on its behalf. The committee recommends and enforces ethical standards that ensure Members and staff act in a manner befitting the public trust. Pursuant to that authority, the House has authorized the committee and its subcommittees to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and their production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary to carry out its investigative functions. House rules do not specify that personal service is the only method of effecting service of its subpoenas. An individual has a legal obligation to comply with a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena, unless a valid privilege or other legal justification excuses compliance. An individual who fails to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. In this case, the committee impaneled an investigative subcommittee to inquire into certain allegations regarding former Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. In order to conduct a thorough investigation, the investigative subcommittee authorized, and the committee issued, subpoenas for documents and testimonies to Mr. Joseph and Mr. Roos. Mr. Roos was a senior campaign staffer who filed inaccurate reports with the Federal Election Commission and made in kind contributions to the campaign. Mr. Roos was served with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on August 12, 2025, by the United States Marshals Service. He did not appear for his deposition on September 25, 2025, nor did he produce the documents at any time. Mr. Roos did not provide a valid legal justification for his noncompliance. Mr. Joseph was the President of a company that improperly provided corporate funds for the Congresswoman's campaign and influenced her staff to submit community funding project requests for entities that he supported. Mr. Joseph was served with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on March 11, 2025. Mr. Joseph accepted service. Later, he responded he could not comply because as an attorney it would violate attorney-client privilege. Committee rules provide that the presiding member of the subcommittee may consider objections on the basis of privilege and request his objection be put in writing. Although Mr. Joseph did not do so, the investigative subcommittee nonetheless considered his objection and determined it was not a valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege. Nonetheless, Mr. Joseph did not appear for his deposition on October 7, 2025, nor did he produce documents at any time. Mr. Joseph did not provide a valid legal justification for his noncompliance. The investigative subcommittee offered both Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph a final opportunity to comply with subpoenas, but neither did so. Therefore, the investigative subcommittee voted on March 18, 2026, to adopt reports recommending the committee submit a resolution recommending the House cite Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph for contempt of Congress pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 194 and 192. On May 13, 2026, the committee adopted its own reports incorporating by reference the reports of the investigative subcommittee and concurring with this recommendation. The reports were transmitted to the Clerk of the House and made public on June 22, 2026, and have been made available to Members of the House and the public on the committee's website since Friday. The committee cannot fulfill its obligations to safeguard the integrity of the House when witnesses ignore its subpoenas, and the House cannot accept such willful disregard of its authority. Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph willfully failed to comply with multiple subpoenas issued by the committee. They impeded the investigative subcommittee's investigations into the allegations concerning former Representative Cherfilus-McCormick. Those allegations were serious and included violations of Federal law to which Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph were party. Their conduct warrants referrals to the United States Department of Justice for contempt of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't have enough context to translate this procedural motion meaningfully. It's just asking for more time to talk about a resolution with no substance given.”

“I don't have enough context to translate this procedural motion meaningfully. It's just moving a resolution with no substance given.”

House of Representatives

In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chuck Edwards

2026-09-01

“I am Michael Guest. I am a Republican. I want you to know that the Ethics Committee report has some facts that agree with what Chuck Edwards said. I want you to think our report is fair. We did not say he had a romantic relationship. We did not say he tried to start one with his employees. We said it was sexual harassment. I want you to think we did a good job.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize my next speaker, I would point out that the arguments made by Mr. Edwards are facts that are contained in the report. They are part of the opening statement that I gave, the statement as to which the committee found no evidence that he was involved in a romantic relationship and found that he did not directly proposition any individuals who were in his employment. And so there has been an attempt by this committee to put forth evidence that we believe supports sexual harassment but also to show evidence in the light that is being portrayed by Mr. Edwards, that some of the innuendos that were circulating at one time were not true and correct. This committee worked very diligently, Mr. Speaker, to try to gather evidence and to try and present that in a fair format--evidence that both supports the findings of the committee and then at times evidence that supports the findings of those people who are charged or who are under investigation by the Ethics Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the ranking member of the House Committee on Ethics.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to say that Edwards is bad. His actions made young female staffers uncomfortable. He gave them gifts and attention. This created a hostile work environment. The Ethics Committee investigated. They say Edwards should be punished. I agree.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, the allegations in this matter do not implicate a quid pro quo sexual harassment but, rather, that Edwards' conduct and behavior create a hostile work environment. Under Federal law, a hostile work environment must be objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and one that the victim, in fact, did perceive to be so. Determining whether an employee was subject to such an environment depends on a totality of the circumstances test. That test includes the frequency, severity, and offensiveness of the conduct at issue. Mr. Speaker, in this case, the committee reviewed Representative Edwards' conduct and determined that he engaged in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct toward two young female staffers. While Representative Edwards denies that his conduct was intended to be sexual or romantic, his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable person to interpret it as such. The behavior includes: providing the young women with lavish and recurrent gifts, making comments regarding their appearance and dress, inviting them to intimate dinners and vacations, sending notes regarding his affection, and inviting them to other activities as a way to spend time together. Representative Edwards was aware that his excessive attention toward these young ladies led to rumors and innuendos that he was engaged in a romantic relationship with one or both staffers. Representative Edwards was also aware that the women were uncomfortable with his behavior. The women communicated their feeling of discomfort to senior staff who then spoke with Representative Edwards on their behalf. Representative Edwards did not appreciate the action of senior staff expressing the discomfort felt by the two women and continued his behavior. The committee found that Representative Edwards was, at a minimum, blind to the reality and, at worst, dismissive of the impact his conduct had on the careers and well-being of the women on his staff. Representative Edwards' conduct was singling out certain staffers and isolating them from other members of the staff, making frequent comments regarding a person's appearance and weight, sending messages in the middle of the night, texting staff deeply personal and seemingly romantic thoughts, intruding on personal occasions without invitation, paying for personal vacations, and spending thousands of dollars on gifts for staffers. When taken individually, this conduct is, at a minimum, inappropriate, but these actions, when taken in combination with each other and when viewed under a totality of the circumstances test, led the committee to find that Representative Edwards engaged in unprofessional conduct toward two young female staffers. Said conduct created a hostile work environment that resulted in both staffers leaving the employment of Mr. Edwards' office. Furthermore, the Committee on Ethics recommends a floor sanction should be imposed, and Representative Edwards should be censured for his conduct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to talk about the investigation into Chuck Edwards. The Ethics Committee found no evidence of sexual activity or propositions. However, Edwards' conduct toward two female staffers was inappropriate and violated rules against sexual harassment.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Ethics conducted a monthslong investigation into the activity of Mr. Edwards, and the committee released a report on August 3 and made the following findings. First, the committee found no--and I do repeat the word ``no''-- evidence that Mr. Edwards engaged in sexual activity or that he explicitly propositioned any individuals under his employment. The committee did find that Mr. Edwards' conduct toward two young female staffers was inappropriate and violated rules prohibiting sexual harassment. Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment can be shown generally in one of two ways. The first is unwelcome sexual advances premised on a quid pro quo exchange; i.e., there is a tangible job benefit that is conditioned on the employee engaging in a relationship with his or her employer. The second way sexual harassment can be shown is an abusive work environment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House be in order.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to talk about the Chuck Edwards allegations. Let's discuss this now.”

House of Representatives

Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of H. Res. 1498, in the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chuck Edwards

2026-09-01

“I want the House to consider this resolution about Chuck Edwards. No other motions or points of order should interrupt it. The resolution should be considered as read. Only 1 hour of debate, split between myself and Representative Edwards. Let's do this now.”

House of Representatives

Remembering Lyle Keenan

2026-07-14

“A good man from my district died. He had many jobs. He was a police officer and a conservation officer. He was involved in many community groups. He was well-liked and respected. I want to honor his life and service.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the life and legacy of John Lyle Keenan of Jasper County, Mississippi. Mr. Keenan was a respected law enforcement officer and a devoted husband, father, grandfather, friend, and neighbor whose service and character left a lasting mark on his community. Born in Rose Hill, Mississippi, Mr. Keenan graduated from Heidelberg High School in 1964. He began his career at La-Z-Boy in Newton before entering public service as a deputy with the Jasper County Sheriff's Department. In 1977, he joined the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks as a conservation officer, where he served with distinction for more than three decades. While serving at the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, he rose to the rank of captain for District IV before retiring in 2010. Two years later, the Jasper County Board of Supervisors appointed him as interim sheriff, and he concluded his law enforcement career as a bailiff for the circuit court. Mr. Keenan's dedication to public service extended well beyond his official duties. He was deeply committed to the stewardship of Mississippi's natural resources, and he served as Jasper County director of the Pat Harrison Waterway District. He also held leadership roles as president of the Jasper County Farm Bureau, the Jasper County Soil and Water Commission, the Meridian Stockyard board of directors, and the Mississippi Pork Producers Association. He remained active in numerous civic and agricultural organizations, including the Jasper County Forestry Association, the Jasper County Livestock Association, and the Bay Springs Lions Club. Mr. Keenan was widely regarded as a man of honor and integrity, and many sought his counsel on both personal and professional matters, a testament to the trust he earned throughout his life. He was a faithful member of Wesley Independent Methodist Church, where he lived out the values that guided his service. Mr. Keenan will be deeply missed, not only by his family, but by the entire Jasper County community. It is a privilege to recognize his life, his service, and his enduring commitment to the people of Mississippi.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗