Senator, the questions are not going away

By Jon Ralston

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.”