« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Is Ensign Walking Back Extortion Claim?
Did John Ensign's camp try to spin the announcement of his affair by smearing his girlfriend's husband? And is it now trying to walk that back?
Let us explain:
Numerous outlets have now reported that Ensign chose to go public because the woman's husband was demanding money in exchange for his silence.
Here's Politico from Tuesday evening, just as Ensign was flagellating himself before the cameras:
Political insiders in Nevada and in the Senate said that Ensign decided to acknowledge the affair publicly after the husband of the woman he had been seeing asked him for a substantial sum of money.
And here's the Las Vegas Review-Journal around the same time:
A Washington source said Ensign decided to announce the affair after he was approached by the husband of the woman involved. The man asked Ensign for a "substantial" amount of money with the implication it would buy the couple's continued silence, according to the source.It was not immediately known how much money might have been involved, or whether Ensign reported the incident to authorities. Neither Ensign nor his spokesman would comment on the matter.
The use of the word "substantial" by both outlets -- the Review-Journal puts it in quotes -- suggests this was a coordinated leak from the same source.
Also Tuesday night, Fox News reported:
Two Senate Republican sources close to Sen. John Ensign of Nevada told FOX News that a former employee had asked Ensign for money in what both sources described as a case of "extortion."
Meanwhile, NBC News reported that Ensign himself was a source of the information:
Ensign told other senators earlier today that the reason he decided to go public about the affair is that his ex-mistress was indeed trying to extort money out of him.
Roll Call, in a piece posted last night, suggested (sub. req.) the same thing:
According to several Republicans, Ensign told colleagues and others close to him that he was the subject of a blackmail scheme because of the affair.
And also last night, the New York Times seemed to have its own sources for the claim:
Mr. Albregts and the Hamptons did not respond to detailed messages asking about statements by people close to Mr. Ensign in Nevada and Washington that Mr. Hampton was seeking a large sum of money and that upon refusing him, Mr. Ensign decided to go public with the affair.
So it seems pretty clear that the Ensign camp made a conscious decision to put out the word that Ensign was being extorted by Doug Hampton -- and that Ensign himself was part of that effort.
But today, the Review-Journal has new information on what triggered Ensign's dramatic mea culpa:
According to Ensign's aides, Doug Hampton had approached a television news network about the affair, prompting Ensign to go public. This could not immediately be confirmed.
That doesn't necessarily contradict the earlier line that Doug Hampton was demanding money, but it's certainly a different spin. And it's coming directly from Ensign's aides.
Now here's the thing: Extortion can be considered a felony. So alleging that Doug Hampton was trying to extort Ensign is a serious charge. It would probably raise questions as to whether Ensign went to the police. And both the FBI and the Las Vegas police have now said they're not investigating any such claim.
There's copious evidence, of course, that Ensign was particularly helpful to the Hamptons in the months after the affair ended. As we just reported, both Doug and the Hamptons' son Brandon have since landed jobs with a company run by a major Ensign backer. But the extortion claim seemed to go far further.
So is the leak about the threat to go to a TV news network -- a far less serious charge against Doug Hampton, obviously -- an effort by the Ensign camp to walk back the extortion claim, out of fear that they overplayed their hand?
With attention beginning to turn to the question of what prompted Ensign's disclosure, we could soon be finding out...
Late Update: Team Ensign is doubling down on the new line about Hampton threatening to go to a TV news station. The senator's spokesman tells the Las Vegas Sun"
Mr. Hampton first approached the media. He approached a major television news channel before Tuesday. We learned of this fact before the press conference.
The paper adds:
Ensign's office declined to say today whether the Hamptons sought funds to keep quiet.
In other words: nevermind about that whole extortion thing.
Josh
Zachary
Not to quibble, but I think this would have been blackmail, not extortion -- the latter of which usually means extracting money by threatening to do things that are independently criminal.
June 18, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not quite. Go here and scroll down to the essay on extortion from the Law Encyclopedia, which includes this in the preliminary section:
It goes on, in the section entitled "Elements of Offense", to make clear that the threat can be simply the threat of exposure, which is not in itself illegal.
The precise legal difference, if any, would depend on the jurisdiction, but for the most part, it would seem that "extortion" and "blackmail" could be considered synonymous.
June 18, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Applying Occam's Razor to this story, it seems reasonable that Ensign went public because the story was out and he wanted to be ahead of it.
Ensign never said he was the victim of extortion -- he used his minions for that to discredit the Hamptons.
My guess would be that the cash strapped Hamptons were trying to sell their story to the TV or print tabloids for some serious money forcing Ensign to go public. The extortion line was some not very thought out pay-back to the Hamptons for going public which ended upon receipt of a letter from the Hamptons' attorneys threatening a defamation suit. Accusing someone of felonious activity is slander per se.
June 18, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly how I read the developing story – the substantial money demanded was not from Ensign but from TV and/or tabloid for the tell all story. When Ensign got hint of that, he made the announcement to control the story and have his lackeys do whatever they could to discredit them. Not to say that there is not more there – I think that there is, including the amount and source of any “severance” payments. Did Ensign use Senate or NRSCC funds as hush money when they left his employment?
June 18, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really get how this helps Ensign's cause. So what if he discredits the Hampton family? Does it make him look any better if they're shown to be miscreants or scoundrels? He still cheated. I understand the Bush technique of trying to undercut someone telling insider stories by attacking their credibility. But this is different -- he's admitting that the story is true, then attacking the Hamptons out of spite. Or, perhaps, to offer an explanation for "why now" -- when the truth is something else.
June 18, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't help him at all. My guess is that it is out of spite over a perceived betrayal because he set them up with new jobs with the expectation that they would keep their mouths shut. But, who knows, maybe he is just a mean-spirited jerk.
June 18, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would go with the "mean-spirited jerk" apothegm. It has a nice unholy un-Christian ring to it.
I am sure the FBI would like to have their hands all over this. Questioning here, questioning there. And after a long drawn-out super thorough investigation, the feverishly anticipated "FBI Ensign Report"!
June 18, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skippy, the story made Ensign a victim. The best thing about being a victim is you are not to blame. So, in Ensigns eyes, while he may have committed adultery, blackmail or extortion is worse. We did this when we were kids. Oh, you got a C on the test? But Susy got a D.
The thing that continues to amaze me is how these politicians think they can get away with running around. Over and over and over again they have been exposed and another one comes along.
June 18, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The labels are flowing too freely. Adultery, philandering, cheat... Don't forget that is has been reported that Ensign was separated from his wife at the time of the affair, so at least two of those three don't really apply.
The woman involved committed adultery unless her husband approved of the affair (open marriage). And this strikes me as quite likely, that hubby knew about it and made use of it at the time and later.
'philander' could apply weakly, but it implies generally a pattern of affairs without the possibility of marriage. Since people do get divorced and he was separated, this is pretty thin too.
Now, if there was other cheating going on (2002?) that's another matter.
June 18, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, it's okay if you are a Republican, and especially so if you are a fundamentalist. All you have to do is go before the cameras and proclaim you have made a mistake, and are SO sorry for it, and in the fundamentalist's reasoning, then God forgives you (and so should we all, because after all, we are only human) and that makes it all okay. It's okay in God's eyes because you asked for forgiveness, and it's okay in the eyes of your fellow Promise Keepers or whatever group, because you admitted your sinfulness blah, blah, blah. It's a perfect set-up--you sin, you confess, and you have no shame...so you can go do it again!! It really does work very well IF you are a Republican. IF you are a Democrat--NOT SO MUCH. (Then the fundies think you should go to hell!)
June 18, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One would presume that Ensign has access to decent lawyers and that he would have consulted them before moving forward on this. But apparently not. If he's now asking for a do-over on the blackmail charge, he's opened himself to all manner of unpleasantness. I would think a libel suit would be the least of it. The senate ethics committee - does one still exist? - would certainly have to get itself involved if a member is tossing around accusations of serious criminal activity in order to create a smokescreen around his own infidelity.
June 18, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
this little reader smells blood in the water - get 'em TPM !
June 18, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hampton was to sue him for slander, would all the media outlets quoted above have to disclose their sources for the "he's being blackmailed!" claims? If none of them will say who fed them this extortion story, would the lawsuit have any chance to succeed?
June 18, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes perfect sense to me. Once you've shit your own drawers, what does it really hurt to pee in your pants, too?
June 18, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If David Vitter won't resign I guess this cretin won't either. But he should.
June 18, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, considering their overall record the past two decades in such messy matters, if one could conclude any one thing about the Republicans and their God Squad friends -- that is, besides their painfully obvious personal hypocrisy -- it's this:
While they might be embarrassed and sorry for getting caught with their pants down, it's almost always never their own fault in all or part, but rather that of conniving she-whores, wanton boy-sluts, Satan incarnate, intoxicating substances (legal and otherwise), or any random combination of the previous four thereof.
June 18, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop! My synapses are on overload! It's just too many sordid and tawdry details, and in so little time! Someone, please, get me my smelling salts! I feel so faint! Oh, I should have known better than to laugh so uproariously on an empty stomach ...
June 18, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is, they sure got Ensign out of that Republican leadership position PDQ. I'm guessing there is something illegal going on, and it may have something to do with any money that changed hands...like maybe Ensign got it from We the Taxpayers and not his own accounts?
June 18, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link to a Great explanation as to why Ensign's affair is more scandalous than other Washington affairs.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=1826
June 18, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was PRICELESS! Thank you, atticus1104!
I particularly liked this paragrpah:
"One of the major benefits to being a “Promise Keeper” is that you get to pound your morality drum at all of the “heathens” that don’t live up to your fictitious standards. But last time I checked, you don’t need to be a member of the “Promise Keepers” to know that you shouldn’t be a douche bag and cheat on your wife."
Since Ensign and Hamptons are all from Nevada, my guess is that the senator was hoping that what happened in Vegas would stay in Vegas...
June 18, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm lost. How does Ensign's obvious moral hypocrisy rate this sleazy affair more scandalous than other previous instances of obvious moral hypocrisy by other wayward congressional colleagues?
As far as sex scandals go, this one is second-tier, unless (or until) we discover that there's collateral fiscal malfeasance involved.
For my money, the absolute worst was the former GOP House leadership's tacit facilitation and cover-up of that deeply closeted, boy-hungry former Florida congressman, Mark "Do I make you a little horny?" Foley, at the ultimate expense of those teenaged male pages entrusted to their care.
June 18, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
For MY money, Newt screwing his secretary during the recesses, then going back on the floor directing Clinton's impeachment trial, takes the cake. He da man!
June 19, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best guess: Ensign started boinking Cindy, someone finds out, a decision to part company. Out of guilt Ensign helps Doug & Cindy financially; it goes on & on. Ensign stops feeling guilty, won't let Doug put the touch on him anymore. Doug, pissed and maybe broke, goes to news outlet to sell the story. Ensign finds out, jumps out ahead of story, taking time to ding Doug
Mileage may vary - maybe we're talking threesomes or foursomes, who knows how they all get their kink on? No matter, that's just the degree of juiciness blended with distilled hypocrisy.
The real question is - what was the source of money to pay not only his f**kbuddy's salary, but also to 'help out' Doug & Cindy? That's Ensign's Achilles Heel.
June 18, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What began as a rather tawdry affair of sex with major dollops of political hypocracy is now moving into the criminal justice area where state and Federal law enforcement will have to investigate.
As several commenters have correctly noted above, blackmail/extortion is a crime and usually a state, rather than Federal, crime. If communications in this "scheme" (assume for the moment that there was a blackmail/extortion attempt) either by mail or electronically crossed a state line (as was probabley the case, then this brings it into Federal violations of mail and/or wire fraud. It is also probable from the desriptions thus far that communications were received on Federal property using Fedreal facilities--i.e., Ensign's US Senate offices. This brings it further into the jurisdiction of the US DOJ.
According to the narative above, neither state nor Federal authorities are investigating. If I read the narrative above correctly, Ensign has not reported this it state or Federal law enforcement. A failure to report the commission of a crime for which you have particularized knowledge is a crime--called Misprision of a Felony in the US Code, and most, if not all, states have similar provisions. If there was an attempt at extortion/blackmail, Ensign's failure to report it puts him into the soup. This may be why there was today's effort to "walk back" the extortion/blackmail allegations.
If there was no extorsion/blackmail attempt, then, as one commenter above suggested, there may be civil liability for libel/slander because the accusation of the commission of a crime is almost always libelous/slanderous. The allegations must be read very carefully and those who published them will have to show they did not show wreckless disregard in publishing the allegations which they probably can do. Their sources, however, may have "actual malice" issues and must now worry that they will have to come up with $100,000 in legal fees to pay for their defence in court in a civil action.
In the story immediately prior to this one, several commenters raised issues about the airplane company and its obtaining of governmental contracts shortly after Mr. Hampton went to work for them which may raise more criminal justice issues if the allegations are true. At the least, they raise, if accurate, grounds for investigation.
Ensign has now enmeshed himself into criminal justice questions which, given the high profile this tawdry affair is receiving, will probably be investigated. If that indeed happens, there is no telling where it will lead. What I find also interesting is that Mr. Hampton has retained a "plaintiff's lawyer" which probably means that he is getting ready to sue someone. [There are some very good ones in NV.]
This tawdry affair should keep TPM busy for some time.
This will be going on for some time.
June 18, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, suppose what Doug was going public with was his affair with John. Then, John had to do something and chose to "plead to the lesser offence" of an affair with Doug's wife. Repubs don't give two hoots about a man having an affair with a woman, but they get antsy about a man having an affair with another man. Just look at John's photo - now isn't that a photo of a man that other men would go gaga over?
Gee, do I have to spell it all out for you?
June 18, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if it isn't as much about sex as about money? Mrs. Hampton was connected in some way to the dude who was embezzling from the NSCC last year. I have the feeling that whatever is going on, they decided that the sex was the least of it and if they confessed that it would bury other problems.
Any good investigative reporters in Nevada?
June 18, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just checked out the slideshow on the Hampton's mansion. Having been an accountant for 40 years with some forensic accounting experience, I'd sure like to get my hands on their financial records! They are either financial "wizzards" or something "fishy" is going on. I'd bet on fishy!
This story is a long way from being over!
June 18, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink