For the short-form version of Daniel Patterson's reply to the ethics investigation against him, here goes:
He found every claim against him to be "not subsantiated."
In fact, he used that phrase, "not substantiated" 50 times, with one instance of "claims" (96 times) against him being "unsubstantiated."
Also, he wants to "discuss" (62 times) the claims made by his "accuser(s)" (45 times, once in an op-ed to the Arizona Republic) with said accuser(s) and the Committee.
And, of course, he wants many of these unsubstantiated "allegations" (30 times, in combination with its root word, "alleged") to be "dismissed" (14 times).
One more note: Patterson erroneously claimed to have been re-elected in November of 2012, even after his wife alleged domestic violence during their marriage.
Of course, even if he were running this year, I've got a feeling that he wouldn't have much of a chance, given recent, uh, "events" (three times, if you count the singular).