Capitol Scandal Claims – Boebert Fights Back

Woman speaking on stage with arms outstretched — Photo: lev radin / Shutterstock

A sworn House ethics complaint alleges Rep. Lauren Boebert had sexual relationships with three supervised staffers, and she forcefully denies it.

Story Highlights

A sworn complaint names three staffers and cites House rules that ban such relationships.
Boebert rejects the claims as false and calls the story a political hit, on camera and in statements.
One named aide also denies the allegations as defamatory and untrue.
The House Ethics Committee has not announced an investigation in public reports.

What The Sworn Complaint Claims And Why It Matters

Reporting says David B. Wheeler of American Muckrakers filed a sworn complaint on September 17, 2026. It alleges Rep. Lauren Boebert had sexual relationships with three staffers under her supervision: Clarice Navarro Ratzlaff, Raven Finegan, and Jeffrey Small. It cites House rules that bar members from sexual relationships with supervised staff, a standard adopted after the #MeToo era to prevent abuse of power. These rules place the duty on the member, regardless of stated consent.

The complaint claims a long relationship with Navarro Ratzlaff from 2021 through January 2025 while she worked in Boebert’s office. It also alleges encounters in a district office, in a vehicle tied to mileage reimbursements, and in campaign-funded hotel rooms. It further claims a payment of about $200,000 in March 2025 after a threat to file a complaint. Public reporting describes these details but does not surface the full exhibits for independent review.

What Boebert And A Named Aide Say In Response

Rep. Boebert flatly denies every allegation. She says she is not lesbian or bisexual and has never been sexually involved with any staff. She calls the filing a political stunt meant to game the ethics process and smear her name. Her office states the claims are utterly false and have no truth at all. She repeated that message in a video, attacking “filthy garbage” reporting and urging media to learn the committee rules before running with a story.

One of the named aides, Clarice Navarro Ratzlaff, also denies the claim in clear terms. She calls the allegation false, defamatory, and beyond ridiculous. That direct contradiction leaves a standoff between a sworn complaint on one side and categorical denials on the other. As of the latest reports, no public confirmation from the other two named staffers appears in the record, and no committee action has been announced.

House Rules, Process Gaps, And What Comes Next

House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a) bars members from sexual relationships with any House employee they supervise, with an exception only for spouses. Congress adopted that rule to protect staff and set a clear line against conflicts and coercion. The House Committee on Ethics has emphasized a safe workplace and urged reporting when misconduct is alleged. That framework explains why any proven violation would be serious and could bring sanctions.

Tonight I fact-check my own scandal on air. Then I do the same for the Lauren Boebert story everyone shared without reading. Hint: the author of the ethics complaint has quite the record. I go toe to toe with a claim about Sharia Law, and Patrick Clancy spoke for the first time…

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) September 22, 2026

Public reports note missing pieces that outside readers want to see. The full redacted complaint and any exhibits, such as texts or bank records, are not widely available. The reported $200,000 payment lacks a publicly identified source in those accounts. Without documents or sworn testimony in public, the claim remains untested for now. If the committee moves forward, records, interviews, and financial trails would answer key questions and either confirm or clear the congresswoman.

Why Conservative Readers Should Care

Serious accusations deserve a fair process, not trial by headline. Powerful groups often use scandal to drown conservative voices and distract from real issues like border security, energy costs, and runaway spending. The proper standard is evidence, not labels or clickbait. If hard proof exists, the committee should show it. If not, the smear should stop. Either way, the rules must apply evenly, and due process should win over partisan noise.