Idaho Rep. Priscilla Giddings blames ethics hearing on ‘woke cancel culture movement’

The House ethics hearing on Monday began with applause from her supporters for Idaho Rep. Priscilla Giddings, a White Bird Republican, as she entered the room with dozens of people wearing campaign T-shirts for her run as lieutenant governor.

Giddings on Monday faced a committee over complaints of “conduct unbecoming” a House member, a result of Giddings having shared a Redoubt News article that identified the 19-year-old legislative intern who accused former Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger of rape in a police report. The hearing will continue Tuesday.

In her opening statement, Giddings blasted Republicans with personal attacks and listed off accusations other Republicans had faced over the years that she said didn’t amount to an ethics hearing. She accused the committee of participating in a “woke cancel culture movement” and blamed House Speaker Scott Bedke, an Oakley Republican also running for the lieutenant governor, for the complaint that 25 House members supported.

“I deny all the allegations made against me in their entirety,” Giddings said. “These accusations are unfounded, biased attacks driven by partisan political goals.”

The ethics complaints against Giddings alleged that she retaliated against the intern by disseminating “defamatory writings” that identified her and making “defamatory statements herself” through Facebook and a government newsletter. The complainants also said Giddings misrepresented her actions to the ethics hearing and wasn’t honest about her social media post.

Throughout her testimony, Giddings remained defiant toward the committee, at times calling the questions “ridiculous” or “absurd” and challenging the attorney. Ethics committee members were visibly frustrated when Giddings didn’t answer questions, called them irrelevant and launched questions in retort.

Rep. Brent Crane, a Nampa Republican and member of the committee, asked her to provide straightforward answers without hedging responses or playing games.

“If you’re going to accuse me of playing games, do I have the opportunity to accuse you of playing games?” Giddings responded to Crane and the chairman, Rep. Sage Dixon, a Ponderay Republican.

“I think you have, representative,” Dixon responded.

Jeff Hepworth, an employment law attorney who represented the complainants, said Giddings’ actions threatened the integrity of the investigation into allegations against von Ehlinger.

“It is inappropriate to share the identity of a person who has reported sexual assault because it endangers that person and prevents other survivors from coming forward,” Hepworth said.

Giddings said she had asked David Leroy, an attorney who first represented Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger, if he had shared von Ehlinger’s response to the complaint with the media with the accuser’s name included. Leroy later asked members of the media to destroy the unredacted version, Giddings said.

In her written response to the complaints, Giddings said they were unfounded and “a naked attempt to deprive a citizen of Idaho of her constitutional rights of speech and press.” Asserting that sharing a published article is unbecoming “is itself a disgusting betrayal of our republican form of government,” Giddings wrote.

Crane said he’s “lost more sleep” serving on this committee than any other assignment he’s had in 15 years. The committee doesn’t get to decide which complaints come forward, he said.

Giddings said in her opening statement that she did not want to participate in a hearing she believes already has a “predetermined verdict.” She represented herself and didn’t cross-examine witnesses for the committee.

The ethics hearing will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday. Whether Giddings properly addressed concerns about her previous testimony in the von Ehlinger hearing, Dixon said, was still “a question mark.”

State legislators explain why they signed ethics complaint

Rep. Greg Chaney, a Caldwell Republican, filed the first ethics complaint against Giddings in April. He told the committee that Giddings not only disseminated the Redoubt News article to a wider audience but also “legitimized it” to those who weren’t familiar with the issue.

By putting it in her newsletter, she put “the government’s stamp of approval” on it, Chaney said.

Rep. John Vander Woude, a Nampa Republican, said he was seriously concerned that the accuser, a legislative intern at the Legislature, had been outed before the ethics hearing process began. He also said Giddings was evasive during the ethics committee’s questioning.

“To me, this is conduct unbecoming any member of society,” Vander Woude said.

Vander Woude added that public officials should be cognizant that they tie themselves to the links they share on social media.

“I’m very careful of what I put out there,” Vander Woude said. “I think we all have to be, realizing the position that we hold.”

Rep. Chris Mathias, a Boise Democrat, said he believed legislators have a duty to avoid “undue harm.” In written testimony to the committee, Mathias said Giddings directly violated her oath as a legislator to promote “justice for all” and was negligent in disseminating information that identified the woman known as Jane Doe.

Mathias said sharing the article and identifying it as “news” undermined the public trust in House members. If legislators just shared any information they found on the internet, “that would make us all look like idiots,” Mathias said.

“I don’t think grace is something that can be given in lieu of accountability in this instance,” Mathias told the committee Monday.

In questions about her social media post — whether she was aware it included Jane Doe’s name or her photo — Giddings said she had “skimmed” the article she shared. She also was asked about an Idaho Constitution article that outlined the rights of crime victims, and asked whether she believed the accuser had those rights. Giddings said those questions were irrelevant because “there was no victim. There is no victim.”

Rep. Julie Yamamoto, a Caldwell Republican, told the committee that Giddings was “disingenuous at best” in her testimony when questioned about her social media posts.

Yamamoto said she believes there should be consequences for House members’ actions and doesn’t think it was prudent for Giddings to have shared the link. Had Giddings apologized for what she did, Yamamoto said she would not have signed on to the complaint.

“I would just say, ‘You know what? We all make mistakes, let’s move on.’ And I think that would be fair,” Yamamoto told the Statesman. “I think people are tired of not being able to trust us to hold ourselves accountable, so it is up to us to do exactly that.”

Under House Rule 45, the Ethics and House Policy Committee can recommend to censure or expel a House member. The House would then need to vote on the recommendation. A censure would require a simple majority vote from the House. An expulsion, under the Idaho Constitution, would require a two-thirds vote.

After an ethics hearing over von Ehlinger’s behavior, the committee decided to unanimously recommend both expulsion and a censure with conditions — which would have removed von Ehlinger from his seat for the rest of his term. Von Ehlinger resigned before the House could vote on the recommendations.

Green says she was chief complainant, not House speaker

Rep. Brooke Green, a Boise Democrat, said that she was the chief complainant in the ethics complaint supported by 25 House members, and that she was the only one who knew the full list of House members who signed on.

Green said that she and Republican Reps. Laurie Lickley, Caroline Nilsson Troy and Megan Blanksma, the Majority Caucus chair, divided up the calls among House members. Bedke’s name was listed first on the complaint because they listed the names alphabetically, but he was contacted last, Green said.

Green said she kept all House members in the dark about the full list of complainants because it was important that those who signed “did it because it was the right thing to do,” not because of the House members they wanted to be associated with.

Green said the Capitol should create a culture that allows sexual assault survivors and accusers “comfort to be able to come forward without retribution.”

Rep. Wendy Horman, an Idaho Falls Republican and member of the ethics committee, asked Green and Chaney whether they knew of any other legislator who shared the identity of Jane Doe, the 19-year-old who accused von Ehlinger. They said they didn’t.

Crane also asked witnesses whether they believe the House has a right to impose a restriction on what a legislator can post on social media. Green said that if the information endangers someone, “then yes, I think it’s appropriate for us to step in.”

Chaney said defamation is not protected speech. He said he also believes it’s appropriate for the House to respond to what legislators post.