Ethics complaint filed against Cruz and Hawley

Likely to have little to no effect, but one has to express one’s disapproval in as many appropriate manners as one can.

Not Ted Cruz

Seven Democrats in the U.S. Senate have filed an ethics complaint against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for his role lending “legitimacy” to false claims of election fraud ahead of the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection in the U.S. Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump.

In a letter addressed to the Senate Committee on Ethics, the Democratic Senators argue that Cruz and U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, “made future violence more likely.” The Democrats called for the committee to conduct an investigation into the two Republican senators and possibly consider “disciplinary action,” which could include the rare move of expulsion from the Senate. The Constitution also grants Congress the ability to censure its members, which is essentially just a strong condemnation from the chamber.

Leading up to the destructive Capitol riot, Cruz, Hawley and other Congressional Republicans vowed to object to the 2020 election results based on former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims that the election was stolen from him. There is no evidence of widespread fraud on a level that would have affected the result. Even after a mob of Trump supporters desecrated the U.S. Capitol, Cruz objected to certifying Arizona’s electoral results and he’s been in political hot water ever since.


The Senate’s ethics manual lays out various rules for U.S. Senators on campaign activity, conflicts of interest, gifts and what’s considered “improper conduct.” Once an ethics complaint is filed, the manual states that a preliminary inquiry is to be carried out “to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has occurred.” The process includes allowing the accused to officially respond to the complaints.

At any point in the investigation, the Senate ethics committee can hold a public or executive hearing to cross-examine documents and hear testimonies.

Expelling a sitting Senator requires a two-thirds vote in the chamber while a censuring only requires a majority vote. But not many federal lawmakers have faced such discipline. According to, only 15 senators have been expelled since the 18th century — all for their allegiance to the Confederacy — and only nine have been censured between 1811 and 1990 for a variety of “transgressions” like fighting in the chamber.

Expulsion has a snowball’s chance in hell, but a censure is possible, and may even attract a couple of Republican votes. It may not seem like much, but I think it’s correct and appropriate to put an official stamp of public disapproval on what Cruz and Hawley did. This wasn’t politics, it really was fanning the flames of insurrection, and the fact that these two seditious losers went ahead with their fantasy-based objections to the 2020 Electoral College results just shows the depth of their depravity. I’m going to get more and more angry if I keep going with this post, so let me end by saying that while this falls well short of what they deserve, it’s necessary. Even small consequences still count as consequences. NPR has more.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in National news and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Ethics complaint filed against Cruz and Hawley

  1. Bill Daniels says:

    In a bit of irony, Amazon, the same pro-left juggernaut that shut down Parler and went to the mattresses for Democrats, is fighting unionization of their facilities in Alabama, particularly fighting against mail in union balloting because, wait for it…..mail in balloting is ripe for fraud!

    Unchecked and unqualified mail in balloting is perfectly fine to elect a president and this nation’s leaders, but not safe enough to decide the outcome of a local unionization effort! LOL! You get what you deserve, Jeff Bezos!

  2. brad says:

    Bill is right.

    The Trump/Proud Boys/GOP/Qanon faithful/Chicken Littles of the GOP should be allowed back on Parler to promote all their conspiratorial theories and mass hysteria.

  3. Bill Daniels says:


    Any thoughts on mail in voting? Bezos was for it, before now, that he seems to be against it. First it was perfectly safe and not ripe for fraud and abuse, but now it is.

    Bezos benefited from having his competition shut down by executive fiat, especially in the Democrat run states, and he will benefit from mass importation and legalization of unskilled people to work in his warehouses, but unionization of those same unwashed masses? He won’t benefit from THAT.

  4. Bill Daniels says:

    Off topic, but I wonder if Jules is offended that Kuff consistently parodies Ted Cruz, a middle aged person of color, with a picture of an unpleasant, shrieking white girl from the Willie Wonka movie. Thoughts, Jules? Is this just good natured ribbing, or is this sexist and misogynist behavior?

  5. Manny says:

    Cruz is a white male with a Spanish surname, his mother was white and his father was a white Spaniard via Cuba.

    Bill, you are a union person now, so why are you against $15 minimum wage, to quote you;

    “The problem is one of trying to teach people who do not understand basic economics, basic economics. The fast food workers who march to “fight for $ 15,” also march to fight for unfettered illegal immigration, and for those illegals already here to be legalized. They are literally marching to increase the competition for their jobs, leading to downward pressure on wages. Why should the guy who owns a Jack in the Box franchise pay more than minimum wage for a new hire he has to take the time to train, when there are people stacked 100 deep waiting to apply for the same job? ”

    I don’t think you have ever worked at a fast food place Bill, the starting jobs don’t take much training if any.

    But Bill if they have to pay $15 there is no need to hire someone that is not here legally and take advantage of their lack of documentation.

    Aren’t you glad that we finally have a President that is Pro-Union, Bill?

  6. Jules says:

    I do not think it is good natured ribbing, I think Charles’s intent is to show contempt for traitor ted, while also sparing us from seeing ted’s face.

    I don’t think Charles is pretending that this is a charming compliment to either ted or Veruca Salt. I think the intent is to belittle ted, just as the intent is to belittle Judge Hidalgo by calling her Dora the Explorer.

    I do think it can be misogynistic to compare grown men to little girls – you throw like a girl, for example.

    I actually thought it was a picture of little orphan Annie for a long time, and I thought that was messed up, but I’m a little more meh about Veruca Salt.

    Does the picture offend me? No.

  7. Lobo says:


    instance of quadruple first-person womansplaining our fine host of the “Thinking is Good” venue (the above).

  8. Jules says:

    Wow, Lobo, I was wrong. It’s not the length of your comments that make you incomprehensible.

  9. Bill Daniels says:


    I read that just fine. You’re admitting that using the little angry white girl as a stand in for the non white, straight male Cruz is hateful, but OK, because, well, because we hate Ted Cruz. It’s not OK, on the other hand, to mock Lina in the same way, because she’s a woman. Different rules for different genders. So much for equality, I guess.

  10. Bill Daniels says:

    For what it’s worth, I get a chuckle each time Kuff posts up that picture in a Ted Cruz post, and I like Ted Cruz. Still funny.

  11. Jules says:

    My interpretation is that Lobo doesn’t know what womansplaining is (although he does it in many of his posts), and he can’t count. But dunno.

  12. Manny says:

    As to the girl in the red dress – watch the video

  13. Glen Tomkins says:

    Why fool around with censure, or even expulsion, when there’s indictment out there?

    What the 12 senators and half the R House caucus did was not some breach of amity and comity. It wasn’t a protest vote. It was part of a wider scheme to steal the election. There need to be consequences, and that need is far greater for the leaders than for the foot soldiers who broke into the Capitol on January 6. The leaders were already inside.

  14. Lobo says:


    Re: “It’s not OK, on the other hand, to mock Lina in the same way, because she’s a woman. Different rules for different genders. So much for equality, I guess.”

    On this, Bill hits the hammer on the nail’s head (Note that it’s no longer a patriarchal metaphor since the other half of humanity is free to hammer likewise, not to mention the availability of nail guns to compensate for any muscular deficiencies, though that modern invention –alas– also threatens to render the metaphor obsolete).

    Before we were blessed with the advent of the anything-but feminine -ism, it used to be the goose-gander thing. As in: What’s good for thee is good for me and vice versa. Or should.


    Affective (hate-based) sexism has too complementary form: misogyny and misandry. According to a key tenet of latter-day feminism, however, the word misandry is prohibited (an “unword” in the Newspeak Dictionary, latest ed.) because its usage would lend legitimacy to the totally incorrect, pernicious and subversive, proposition that unfair treatment of the males of the species might be a thing.

    Unthinkable, ergo unmentionable.

  15. Jules says:

    Lobo, you wrote appox 50,000 words on why Judge Hidalgo can’t be called “strong” simply because she’s a woman, please quit lecturing about misogyny. It’s obvious a concept you are unable to grasp.

  16. Lobo says:


    The internet has it that Linda Eviva Hidalgo clocks in at 52 kg. Equivalent to a sack of cimento where she is from, más dos for the packaging. That’s not even lightweight in the UFC scheme with a bracket of 146 to 155 lb (66 to 70 kg) for that class.

    Does it matter? – No. We don’t have wrestling matches in Commissioners Court.

    No Lucha Libre either.

    But that doesn’t mean that diminutive physical stature is irrelevant to public and on-court perceptions, especially in terms of first impressions. For one, it triggers stereotypes.

    For further reading for all fellow humans able and willing to brace for a substantial volume of words on the Harris County phenom, go here:

    On real-life implications of physicality, see Tilley, A. R. Henry Dreyfuss Associates, 2002. The Measure of Man and Woman: Human Factors in Design. Whitney Library of Design, New York.

    PS or shall we call it BS (Besteffort ‘splaining): Colombia y México both use the metric system, much like of the rest of el mundo. The Portland polvo is bagged at 94 lb. bag (42.6 kg) in the USA, by way of nonessential info for the white (collar) segment of the esteemed readership. Jules: This may not be for you for other reasons.

  17. Jules says:

    Thanks, Lobo, great article about a strong leader!

  18. Lobo says:

    Jules: Good to find common ground on the utility of sundry external links to additional readings of topic at hand. Please reciprocate.

    Kudos also to Sr. Manny for the link to the ATLANTIK article on Israel’s implementation of COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and the critical role of a pre-existing health care delivery infrastructure. Great article that Mr. Hochman might also find worth having a look at (though I can’t speak for him).

Comments are closed.