Josh Hawley files counter-complaint against Senate Democrats for ‘quashing’ it

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says Senate Democrats are engaging in a “culture of cancellation” for filing a request with the Ethics Committee to investigate its role in the Jan. 6 insurgency. Capitol. His response was to file his own complaint.

“Your baseless allegations in this sense are sadly typical of today’s left-wing cancellation culture, a culture that tramples on the democratic traditions that left and right once stood for together,” Hawley wrote to Senators as he tabled his complaint.

Seven Senate Democrats have called on the Ethics Committee to determine whether Hawley and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) instigated violence by voting against presidential certification – and whether they have coordinated with those who committed the violence.

Hawley, an ambitious Trump loyalist, has drawn criticism from Democrats and Republicans for his leadership role in efforts to block certification of Biden’s electoral college victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania. He was the first senator to announce that he would vote to reject the election results. On the day of the insurgency, Hawley raised his fist to show his support for the pro-Trump crowd gathered outside Capitol Hill as they walked to work, just hours before the situation turned deadly.

In a letter to the Senate Ethics Committee on Thursday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tina Smith (D- MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) called for an investigation of Hawley and Cruz’s conduct for potential lack of “loyalty to the highest moral principles” and engagement in “conduct inappropriate reflecting the Senate. ”

Any complaint filed by a senator is automatically reviewed by the Ethics Committee, which is made up of three members from each party. Senate Democrats specifically ask the committee to launch an investigation into how Hawley and Cruz’s denial of the election inspired insurgents, whether there was any coordination between senators and those who stormed Capitol Hill , and whether their continued efforts to oppose voter certification after the attack increased the likelihood of future violence.

In particular, Democrats asked the committee to examine Hawley and Cruz’s emails and fundraising history for potential evidence of coordination and recommended that the committee take “severe disciplinary action, including up to deportation or censorship ”, if evidence is found.

To be clear, this outcome is unlikely to happen. The committee could recommend censorship or expulsion, but it’s been 30 and 159 years since they approved either of those sanctions, respectively.

It didn’t stop Hawley to call quickly for a investigation of its own, claiming the actions of Democratic senators were unethical because of potential coordination with Democratic leaders or donors. He also used his counter-complaint to blame Senate Democrats for theoretically abusing their positions by using the Senate Ethics Committee as a means to enforce “the culture of cancellation” – from its perch as US senator who actively exercises his right to demand investigations of political opponents.

“The idea that a senator who does not agree with another senator can therefore have this senator punished, sanctioned, censored or dismissed is totally contrary to our democracy and to the very idea of ​​an open debate and legal, ”Hawley wrote. “This line of thinking is, however, unfortunately consistent with the Waking Crowd mentality that you should cancel anyone who disagrees with your views.”

Hawley’s complaint is part of a crusade he has launched since the insurgency against cancellation culture, including an op-ed he published in the New York Post on Sunday against America’s “muzzling” . His views were widely covered by the media, and he published a book in May by a conservative editor after Simon & Schuster dropped him.

What Can an Ethics Investigation Really Do?

The Senate Ethics Committee has the power to recommend censorship or expulsion of a member of the body – but it is a power that is rarely used.

Chaired by Democrat Chris Coons and Republican James Lankford – who himself agreed to vote against electoral certification – the ethics committee has a reputation for being inactive. Chris Marquette of Roll Call reports that the body dismissed almost every one of the 251 complaints it received in 2019. The last disciplinary action taken was in 2018, when the committee issued a warning letter against Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) for accept inappropriate gifts.

Committee rules require that a complaint be followed by a preliminary investigation. After that, its members can vote to lay charges and possibly issue a sanction. The two most serious actions possible are censorship – a formal conviction of a senator – or expulsion. The first requires a majority vote in the chamber, and the second requires the approval of the two-thirds supermajority.

Expulsion is extremely rare. Only 15 members were expelled – 14 for supporting the Confederacy during the Civil War and one in 1797 for committing treason.

Censorship is also infrequent. Only nine senators were censored, with the most recent case occurring in 1990 for inappropriate spending.

Sometimes lawmakers under investigation resign preventively. For example, Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned in 1995 after the ethics committee discovered that Packwood had used his power as a senator to sexually abuse women. The committee – including then-chairman Mitch McConnell – unanimously recommended that the Senate expel Packwood.

But considering he reiterated his allegations of voter fraud, a Hawley resignation is unlikely despite calls from Democrats and a majority of Missourians, according to a Data for Progress poll the week after the insurgency.

He has been condemned by some Republicans, but the idea of ​​all 50 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting to expel him when no expulsion votes have been taken in nearly 80 years and succeeded over 150 seems impossible. . Instead, as Vox’s Li Zhou explains, censorship would likely be the only disapproval Hawley’s colleagues could give him:

Given the narrow majorities Democrats have in both chambers, censorship is possibly the most aggressive punishment Republican lawmakers involved in election objections could face from Congress, even though many Democrats don’t see it as a tough enough response to their attempts to undermine democracy.

The most significant consequence Hawley faces could come from businesses rather than politicians or even voters – dozens of companies have pledged to stop donating to him and the other Republicans who voted against. electoral certification.