« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Fox: We Didn't Tip Off Ensign About That Crazy Letter To Kelly
Fox News has denied tipping off Sen. John Ensign after receiving that bizarre letter from Doug Hampton, in which Hampton asked for Fox anchor Megyn Kelly's help in exposing Ensign's affair with Hampton's wife Cynthia.
Tom Lowell, the senior producer of Kelly's show, has told the Huffington Post that a booker for the show did get Hampton's letter, via email, the day before Ensign went public about the affair. Lowell said a producer followed up with Hampton, but he seemed "evasive and not credible," so Fox didn't pursue it -- which, frankly, sounds reasonable.
But more importantly, Lowell said no one at Fox had let Ensign's camp know about the letter. "I categorically deny that we ever reached out to the senator in any way shape or form prior to him making his announcement," Lowell said.
So that still leaves a big mystery: Ensign has now said clearly that it was the threat to go to a TV news show that prompted him to go public. So how did Ensign know about that?
Josh
Zachary
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
That ever-timely observation aside, I think I've figured out the Republican version of 'traditional family values' - at least as regards sex. While abstinence prior to marriage will ensure that you'll survive the Rapture, abstinence while married - at least when it involves other than your wife - is apparently not required?
June 19, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm fairly certain that the number of Republicans who abstained from having sex prior to being married is probably no more than the number of Republicans who have been faithful to their wives.
June 19, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps there were other people they did let know?
Perhaps the senator reached out to you?
June 19, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the Huffington Post, the America's Newsroom people say that they did NOT receive the letter from Mr. Hampton. They talked to Mr. Hampton after receiving an email from him the day before Ensign went public.
Tom Lowell says that the show did not pursue the matter with Hampton, because he sounded evasive and they thought that they had more time, but he also says the show DID make "inquires".
Perhaps the news of this got back to Sen. Ensign via the people (the witnesses mentioned by Hampton)who were inquired of...
June 19, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer the question:
"So that still leaves a big mystery: Ensign has now said clearly that it was the threat to go to a TV news show that prompted him to go public. So how did Ensign know about that?"
Hampton, himself must have told him, either that or one of Hampton's associates might have overheard some of his ramblings about Fox or going to news organizations. It's hard to believe that the only person aware of this threat was Fox news.
Z
June 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I have a few misunderstandings I need to clear up with the FatBoyHooker community over on Facebook - so I can't spend a lot of time on this, but... if you had some stuff in your life that needed exposing, wouldn't you call Megyn Fox, too?
June 19, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do they make productive inquiriers within that short time period?
June 19, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
By protecting one party and smearing the other; then there's no need to look into it because the other has been smeared.
June 19, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Fernando Curt, if the latest conclusion jumping on the web is any indication, the only people in the world who were not utterly convinced that Fox News would bury a story disadvantageous to a Republican senator, were Mr. Hampton AND said Republican senator...
June 19, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
davcbr, the point isn't whether the inquiry was productive or not. The point is that ANY inquiry from FNC personnel could have hit the DC grapevine and gotten back to Sen. Ensign within hours.
The term "going viral" may have originated on the web. The lightning fast spread of juicy news did not.
June 19, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Don Surber completely deleted his “Fox News made Ensign come clean” blog post.
The title is still up on “Memorandum”
I’ve never seen any blogger do this.
Google, “Fox News made Ensign come clean”
That how Republicans and Fox News deal with embarrassments to Republicans… OMISSION.
June 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't buyin' the Fox denials any more than I bought those single anonymous source blackmail allegations. I called BS on that on the 16th here: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/sex/140718/republican_sen._john_ensign_had_extramarital_affair/?comments=
If that booker found Mr. Hampton so unpersuasive, there wouldn't have been any follow up, nor would Ensign have known where the allegations of the affair were coming from. Might have been from one of the many others who apparently knew about it.
Ensign knew that Hampton had approached a news outlet. That news outlet was Fox. Fox lies - habitually.
June 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I categorically deny that we ever reached out to the senator in any way shape or form prior to him making his announcement,"
It is quite possible that someone at Fox leaked the letter unofficially, to someone.
Anomaly notice:
"the show did get Hampton's letter, via email, the day before Ensign went public about the affair."
The letter came to Fox via email. So why did it take 3 days to get there if it was "sent" 5 days before Ensign went public? Did Hampton mail it on paper, and then send an email copy too, and Fox didn't get the paper one? Or what?
June 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ensign has been very successful at putting his "confession" of an affair on a merry-go-round of he said/she said (and now FOX said/Hampton said), all the while portraying himself as the repentent, yet injured, party.
Why do I feel very strongly that he's saying "look at these shiny objects" just so we will not look at some other thing he REALLY doesn't want us to see? The minute we heard the word "treasurer," which is what Mrs. Hampton was -- for Ensign's campaign, as well as his PAC -- we should have known this is a story not about sex but about money.
It's not bad enough that money -- taxpayer money? campaign contributions? -- was flowing out to Mr. Hampton, Mrs. Hampton, Kid Hampton, and heaven knows who else, with no accounting to Ensign's constituents. There's even more intrigue to this tale of Senatorial woe when we look back at how Mrs. Hampton came to her treasurer duties. Ensign's previous treasurer, I believe his name was Christopher Ward, disappeared from those jobs amid speculation of impropriety. And the good Mrs. Hampton, trusted confident that she was, was handed those jobs along with a 100% increase in pay (after all, her duties as mistress WERE expanded).
Why were no audits of the campaign and the PAC made public if Mr. Ward was not to be trusted and Ensign was in CYA mode? Why no paper trail on the severance paid to Mr. AND Mrs. Hampton? (Ensign says hers came out of his pocket, but why should contributors to his campaign believe that?) And what about the cuckold's severance, which I would think should be even bigger?
Why would you contact FOX News, of all possible choices, if you wanted to tell tales about a nefarious REPUBLICAN senator? Why is the Hampton Family still employed by a friend of Ensign's if they are not-to-be-trusted? Why did Ensign suggest a blackmail plot, yet fail to notify any authorities if he was being victimized?
This story stinks to high heaven but the only shiny object America seems to have its collective eye on is the sex/hypocrisy angle. I guess that's one thing a senator can learn living in Las Vegas. The important business gets taken care of in the cashier's office, but the audience only cares about the naughty sex.
Does what happens in Vegas HAVE to stay in Vegas? Voters deserve to know.
June 19, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two obvious explanations (one or both could be true):
1) How can Lowell "categorically deny" that anyone from Fox "reached out to the senator"? Is he tapping phones, intercepting email, ... (No, not tinfoil-hat territory, just pointing out the absurdity of his claiming to know with certainty what Fox staff might or might not have done.)
2) Maybe Doug Hampton sent a copy of his Fox letter to Ensign as a threat?
--Kibitzer
June 19, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No mystery. FOX contacted Ensign in order to warn him, and smeared Hampton.
June 19, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be my guess, too, which begs the question: why on earth would Hampton think he would have an ally in FOX -- as if they WOULDN'T protect future Republic prez material.
June 20, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hampton doesn't strike me as especially rational -- (and) he is a Republican. And I sense he was for it before he was against it.
June 22, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that it takes at least two to tango. Cynthia was in for the penny & the pound. HaHA! Ensign just has more to lose & is more publicly known. All three are guilty I think. They had their cake & were eating it too, right up until they got caught. The getting caught part is always what ends the sex &/or money scandals. Then the rats jump ship & see who will swim & who will die.
It's actually better for them to make it about sex & infidelity. That's not illegal for the most part. Filtering party funds to your pals & receiving those funds is a much bigger & more criminal deal. Plus it should get an investigation going, then all the other dirty secrets would come out.
I'm not holding my breath though.
June 25, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink