Why Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley Won’t Be Punished for Fomenting a RiotBreaking News
tags: Ted Cruz, US Senate, Josh Hawley, Capitol Riots, January 6
In 2009, Senator John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, acknowledged that he had had an affair with a staffer. The authorities took notice when it came to light that Ensign’s parents had given the staffer and her husband $96,000 in what appeared to be hush money. The Justice Department would later suspend its investigation into the payments without taking action, but Ensign announced his intention not to seek reelection anyway. Then, oddly, he gave the Senate Ethics Committee a trove of damning emails and abruptly resigned before the committee could depose him. This weird story was the system working as planned, sort of: a wrongdoer cooperating with the investigation and quitting before the Senate had to get around to kicking him out.
In January of this year, seven Democratic senators filed a complaint demanding that the Ethics Committee investigate whether Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz had coordinated with the groups that stormed the Capitol on January 6. Since then, the committee has given no updates on its inquiry. Don’t expect any, anytime soon. In a May interview with The New Republic, one of the Democratic senators who signed the request, Sheldon Whitehouse, explained that he is as much in the dark as the rest of us as to the status of the investigation: “Whether they have gone on to a complete investigation yet is not something that I’m entitled to be told.” Cruz, meanwhile, has dismissed the complaint as “a political tool” to intimidate him; Hawley has sent a countercomplaint urging the committee to investigate the senators who filed “an unprecedently frivolous and improper ethics complaint.” (As if to make it exceedingly clear that he feels no regret about January 6, he reiterated his claims about voter fraud in Pennsylvania.)
This seems like an obvious failure of “norms,” which, like the unwritten rules of baseball, are supposed to govern the conduct of each team and keep competition civil. Over the past decade, a new class of players has discovered that they can routinely trample on those norms without facing any real consequences. Cruz and Hawley cannot be shamed into voluntarily leaving office. But has their shamelessness broken the institution of the United States Senate, or just revealed how it operated throughout most of its history?
From the earliest days of the Senate, dating back to when it was a few dozen guys making up rules as they went along, Congress has been left to police itself. When President John Adams informed Congress in 1797 that Tennessee Senator William Blount had been plotting to hand Florida and Louisiana over to the British, the House impeached him, and the Senate expelled him. The Senate was then forced to elevate its “doorkeeper” to its first sergeant at arms, in order to coerce Blount to appear for his trial. (Blount—who remained defiantly in Tennessee—was acquitted.) Later, the Senate would expel members from the slave states. But these stories—of the Senate holding its members accountable for their misbehavior and malfeasance—are exceedingly rare. For most of its history, the Senate has turned a blind eye to the misadventures of its members. After the Civil War, the chamber became an emblem of accumulation and corruption. When Kansas Senator Samuel C. Pomeroy was accused in 1873 of bribing a state legislator to vote for him, the Committee on Privileges and Elections actually found him innocent of wrongdoing, despite all of the witnesses agreeing the payment happened. As a 2011 Congressional Research Service report put it, dryly: “What might be viewed today as blatant impropriety could have been an accepted norm or simply ignored years ago.”
This tradition of senatorial shamelessness continued well into the twentieth century. Bobby Baker, the secretary for Lyndon Johnson’s Senate majority, nicknamed “the 101st Senator” and “Little Lyndon,” amassed power (and personal wealth) by doling out campaign contributions in cash. Johnson’s elevation to the vice presidency did not set Baker on the straight and narrow; he continued to take bribes and arrange sexual encounters for powerful Washington figures through the Kennedy years.
comments powered by Disqus
- What Happens When SCOTUS is This Unpopular?
- Eve Babitz's Archive Reveals the Person Behind the Persona
- Making a Uranium Ghost Town
- Choosing History—A Rejoinder to William Baude on The Use of History at SCOTUS
- Alexandria, VA Freedom House Museum Reopens, Making Key Site of Slave Trade a Center for Black History
- Primary Source: Winning World War 1 By Fighting Waste at the Grocery Counter
- The Presidential Records Act Explains How the FBI Knew What to Search For at Mar-a-Lago
- Theocracy Now! The Forgotten Influence of L. Brent Bozell on the Right
- Janice Longone, Chronicler of American Food Traditions
- Revisiting Lady Rochford and Her Alleged Betrayal of Anne Boleyn