Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSenator, the questions are not going away
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.
“I know there are questions regarding my affair with Cindy Hampton that people want to know the answers to. It was reported, however, that CREW was planning to file complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Election Commission, so I have been advised not to publicly comment further at this time. If any inquiries are undertaken, then I am confident they will be resolved in my favor and those questions will be answered. I am very sorry this issue has caused a great deal of embarrassment and pain for my family, the Hamptons, and many of my supporters. I remain committed to working hard for the people of Nevada on the important matters before the Senate.”
— Statement by Sen. John Ensign, 7/24/09
Well, that settles it. No more questions because … the senator says no more questions. End of story.
Is this man serious? Can he actually believe that releasing this unsolicited statement, which contains not a scintilla of new information, absolves him of any responsibility to answer basic questions about a scandal of his own making?
I know what the blinded partisans are saying: Leave him alone. He made a mistake. Let him get on with doing his job. (Besides, he votes right.)
But that argument fails to consider this is not merely about an affair, even an especially repugnant one with a staffer whose husband worked in Ensign’s office and was his best friend. This is not simply about that “mistake” but about a U.S. senator who believes he can stiff-arm the public about what appear to be payoffs to cover up his transgressions.
That $96,000, which Ensign’s lawyer says came from his parents, may be morally repellent to most people. But I am less concerned whether this was a dad helping out a son in distress by sending his lover and cuckolded husband home with a nearly six-figure “gift” than I am with the details of how this money was paid and whether Ensign has told the truth about its purpose.
Remember, too, this is not information that was uncovered by the media. This payoff was revealed by Ensign, through his lawyer, only after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington raised the issue of criminal penalties because Doug Hampton said on “Face to Face” that his wife, Cindy Hampton, received “well over” $25,000 in severance. A U.S. senator should not be allowed to put out information to try to cover himself, but then avoid questions about what he has just disclosed.
(Before the Ensign loyalists start bleating, it should not be lost that the Democrats would much rather the senator continue to rebuff any questions and stay the course; it is the Republicans who would rather he self-immolate and get out of their way before Campaign 2010.)
It could not have been a coincidence that Ensign’s lawyer released that “gifts” information within a few hours of the CREW complaint; it was simply a device to try to establish Ensign had done nothing illegal. But how do we know?
So, I ask the stonewalling senator yet again:
Prove that the $96,000 was intended as a gift and explain why only two of the three Hampton children were included. This just doesn’t sound right, lending credence to skeptics who think the “gifts” explanation is a ruse.
Was the money given directly to the Hamptons by the senator, explaining why Doug Hampton repeatedly called it “severance,” or was the $96,000 given directly by Mike and Sharon Ensign, which would help make the case that they were indeed “gifts,” albeit well-timed ones?
Please elaborate on what your lawyer called “a pattern of generosity” by the Ensign family to the Hamptons. What other payments were made to the Hamptons and why?
Of course there are plenty of other questions, too — and Ensign might have avoided this predicament if he had fielded them after his news conference when he disclosed the affair or when he had his lawyer disclose the existence of the payoff. Some of the answers could cause the senator real legal jeopardy, especially if the Hamptons can prove that, as an Ensign confidant told The New York Times, the senator gave the money to the Hamptons. That sounds like Ensign the Elder gave Ensign the Younger money to pass on to his lover and his former best friend — and that sounds like severance/hush money, doesn’t it?
If Ensign really is worried about creating legal quicksand by answering legitimate questions, he should simply resign and deal with it. But if not, he should call a news conference and answer the outstanding questions.
Or he could simply come on “Face to Face.”
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Scott Disick celebrates his 29th birthday at 1 OAK in the Mirage
- HOA scandal cuts wide swath across Las Vegas Valley
- Man suffers bullet wound when stopping burglary attempt
- Photos: Surrender’s 2nd anniversary with Skrillex, ‘Le Reve,’ Paris and Floyd
- Nearly 40,000 have voted early in Clark County
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Back during the campaigns for the 2000 presidential election, The Southland Corporation (7-11 stores) ran their own poll as to which candidate 7-11 customers preferred.
More than 50% didn't want either one (neither Bush nor Gore). That means that if the Democrats and Republicans joined forces to run against a legitimate 3rd party contender -- they'd lose.
However, Clinton had just been put into office (twice) without a majority vote because of Ross Perot's 3rd party. Bush got in on the "A vote for Perot is a vote for Gore -- Don't throw your vote away" campaign platform. This country has been held hostage by the "Lesser of 2 Evils" strategy for several decades now.
Republicans are standing behind Cipriani/Ensign because of the " " he may be a liar, cheat, and moral degenerate. But at least he's OUR liar, cheat, and moral degenerate."
I agree (somewhat) with the philosophy that a politician can vote in the best interests of his/her constituency regardless of his/her moral behavior. However, those instances are the exception and NOT the rule! And, even in the cases of the exceptions, it is never consistent conduct.
Now it comes to Satan's most effective tool in shaping America's moral code. "Judge not lest ye be judged", and "Let he without sin cast the first stone". Those two little misused verses have neutered today's church (by church, I don't mean buildings and/or religious denominations, and 501c(3)s) (by Church I mean the "Body of Christ").
Cipriani/Ensign is not sorry "for his transgressions". He is sorry for the price he is paying "for his transgressions".
To his Las Vegas 4-Square brethren (as opposed to his C-Street "if it feels good -- do it " because you're God's favorite") "Expel the immoral brother from amongst you".
There's a new phenomenon in today's Christian churches. It is the "Non-practicing Homosexual". The bible says that " " homosexuals/sodomites " will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven".
However, in today's heavily homosexual-laden America, churches are in PR mode. In order to recruit more people into their pews, their pushing the "God loves the Homosexual -- So should you! Judge not lest ye be judged!".
In 2009 it's still not acceptable for one Christian man to place his male member into another Christian man. But, as long as they (the homosexuals) are "Non-Practicing", they are welcomed with open arms.
I use this example to give a better definition to the absolute transparent hypocrisy of U.S. Senator John Ensign's "I'm a better man than Clinton. I DID have sex with that woman. And I'm not just saying this publicly at this time because it's going to come out in the news tomorrow! And, my PR staffers have said this is the proven way to handle this!"
It takes two to tango. Isn't it is interesting that all of the negative focus is on Ensign when Ms. Hampton said "yes" to his advances, and took a payoff to boot? Shouldn't she too be roasted, at least a little bit, for her part in the affair? Ensign is a schmuck for what he did, but let's not let the feminist role in all this go unheralded. Whatever happended to "Just Say No!"?
Quite a hypocritical article from the man formerly known as D.U.I. Glass houses......
Along with anwering money questions, Ensign needs to answer questions about how much inluence the C St gang, The Family, has over him, the bills he submits, and the votes he casts in the Senate. Even more disturbing information has come out about his relationship with that cultish group, including paid for by them foreign travel to spread their message. I don't think Ensign should resign because he had an affair. Now, with the inappropriate use of money to pay the Hamptons off and his membership in The Family, I think he should step down.
Again Jon is failing to do the hard work = his job.
Do not ask Ensign Jon.
Go out and independently find the answers,
Do your job Jon.
"Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation". Ah yes, the very words spoken in 2004 on the floor of the Senate by none other than our very own Promise Keeping Senator John Ensign. This guy wasn't satisfied messing up his own marriage he felt compelled to do the same to his "best friend's" marriage as well. I really doubt his campaign for re-election will be pushing any kind of "Friends Of John" angle. But then again, contrary to the Senator's stated intention to run again in 2012, the actual likelihood of this happening is as remote as his understanding of the word "sanctity."
mywallet700, what a moron, Ralston is not an elected public official. When you get done swallowing Ensign's seeman, you will figure it out.