Jon Ralston sees unmistakable comparisons between former President Richard Nixon and current Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons

Friday, March 16, 2007 | 6:56 a.m.

The parallels are beginning to get eerie.

On Aug. 9, 1974, a media-hating, presidential paranoiac left office after a cover-up that involved unreported campaign contributions and a secret fund controlled by his campaign manager. Richard Nixon resigned within a year of declaring to the country, "I am not a crook."

More than three decades later, a media-hating, gubernatorial paranoiac is engaged in a cover-up of what are tantamount to unreported campaign contributions (he calls them gifts) and a secret fund controlled by his inaugural ball chairwoman and his campaign treasurer. This week Jim Gibbons essentially declared to the state, "I am not a crook."

In both cases, media pressure resulted in disclosures of the funds' existence and illegal donations. With Nixon and Gibbons, the embattled chief executives tried to change the subject by attacking the media to divert attention from the stark facts.

But even Nixon might not have had the chutzpah and the horrific judgment to release the "I am not a crook" statement that Gibbons offered this week - a statement that was as transparent as it was deceitful. And as the governor tried to point fingers at unnamed media and political foes, the statement only served to raise more questions about Gibbons' honesty.

Gibbons does not get far into the statement before he lies - it is the second sentence: "That fund was created to help defray the costs of responding to allegations by Chrissy Mazzeo and Patricia Sandoval that have been shown to be untrue."

Two parts of that sentence are patently false - one is a lie of commission, the other a lie of omission.

I won't even include the fact that Mazzeo's allegations that Gibbons assaulted her were never proven false. I'll give Gibbons some leeway because the police did not find sufficient evidence to proceed, but they never declared the allegations to be untrue. That aside, Patricia Sandoval is the illegal immigrant who claimed, backed up by substantial evidence (including a labor certification document), that the Gibbons family employed her.

The glaring omission is no mention of the Warren Trepp case. The governor is being investigated by the FBI for his dealings with the millionaire donor, who hosted the Gibbons family on a fancy cruise, contributed to Dawn and Jim's campaigns and received contracts from the feds with then-Rep. Gibbons' help.

Why would the governor not mention that the Trepp case also motivated him to set up the defense fund - indeed, the case is mentioned as a reason to set up the fund in the private trust documents that erected it? Perhaps because those allegations have not been found to be untrue? Or perhaps because that shows a clear nexus to his congressional duties, and the governor has lamely and falsely claimed that he did not have to abide by federal rules to set up the fund (including reporting requirements and contribution limits)?

The fabrications continue as the statement goes on: "Because I believe that the people of Nevada have a right to know about this fund, I have reported the donations and expenses of the fund, even when it was not clear that I had to do so."

There is not a scintilla of evidence that Gibbons ever intended to disclose this fund until it was discovered. If he did, why was it not on his Jan. 16 disclosure report? The governor makes it sound as if it is not clear he had to disclose five-figure donations from people with interests before the Legislature. How can anyone take that seriously?

Then this fascinating section: "I will continue to report on that fund as bills are paid for previous legal issues surrounding the now-discredited allegations. As was the intention all along, the legal defense fund will then formally be closed down. That closing and a final report on the fund should occur in the near future."

Really? So even though the Trepp case is mentioned as a raison d'etre of the defense fund and even though Gibbons just hired a high-priced D.C. lawyer to defend him, he is shutting down the fund? So how will he pay Abbe Lowell's bills? I suppose Lowell is doing this pro bono? Or perhaps Legal Defense Fund II is already being drawn up - privately, of course.

Of the five paragraphs in the statement, four contain direct or oblique broadsides at the media or his political opponents. Nixon would be proud.

This certainly is a third-rate attempt to create a legal defense fund that is clearly illegal. But Gibbons is offering yet another parallel to Nixon, showing the governor has failed to learn what the 37th president never did: It's the cover-up, stupid.