Archive for the ‘Investigative’ Category

Aaron Schock’s Bad Week

Posted: February 6, 2015 in House of Representatives, Investigative, Politics
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Monday: The Washington Post reveals his congressional office’s Downton Abbey-themed makeover:

The Rayburn House Office Building is a labyrinth of beige offices.

And then, there’s . . . Rep. Aaron Schock’s new digs.

Bright red walls. A gold-colored wall sconce with black candles. A Federal-style bull’s-eye mirror with an eagle perched on top. And this is just the Illinois Republican’s outer office.

“It’s actually based off of the red room in ‘Downton Abbey,’ ” said the woman behind the front desk, comparing it to the luxurious set piece at the heart of the British period drama.

Thursday: Schock communications aide Benjamin Cole resigns after a series of racist Facebook posts he wrote were discovered by Buzzfeed and ThinkProgress:

A top adviser to Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock has resigned after controversial posts were found on his Facebook page.

Benjamin Cole, a senior adviser to Schock, told POLITICO he resigned and that Schock, a Republican, accepted his resignation.

The posts had Cole likening black people to animals and said a mosque should be built on the White House grounds for President Barack Obama.

It caps quite a strange week for Schock’s office. The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Schock had decorated his office in the manner of the British show “Downton Abbey.” Cole had interacted with the reporter and tried to tamp down the story. His back and forth with the Post reporter was detailed in the story.

Friday: Blue Nation Review reports Schock sold his Peoria, Illinois home to a wealthy donor for a nearly $797,000 profit:

Now there’s this: the month before the 2012 elections, Congressman Schock sold his house to a major Republican donor who was also one of his campaign supporters for a price that appears to far exceed the market value at the time.

If Schock had some sort of quid pro quo real estate deal with the donor, this is the exact same thing that brought down Duke Cunningham ten years ago.

Advertisement

The Tortured Past

Posted: March 20, 2014 in Bush Administration, Foreign Policy, International, Investigative, National Security, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Fascinating reads in Global Post and the Washington Post about the history and location of one of the CIA’s infamous black sites in Poland during the early years of GWOT.

Check out other reporting about black sites from the New Yorker, the Daily Beast, and the New York Review of Books.

Malaysia Airlines 370

Posted: March 16, 2014 in East Asia, International, Investigative, National Security, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

The Malaysia Airlines 370 story keeps getting stranger… The latest in the New York Times:

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The investigation into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has shifted to include anyone on board with a navigation or aircraft background in response to evidence that the plane was deliberately diverted from its route and, after communication was lost, navigated by someone with deep experience at the controls.

“In view of this latest development, the Malaysian authorities have refocused their investigation into the crew and passengers on board,” Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia said at a news conference on Saturday.

This new phase of the investigation has brought new scrutiny to the lives of two people who certainly had those skills: the pilot and first officer, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, and Fariq Abdul Hamid, 27, both Malaysian citizens — although neither has been declared a suspect in the plane’s disappearance. Investigators are also apparently searching the passenger list for anyone else with similar skills who might have rerouted the plane, willfully or under coercion.

During 9/11 and the immediate aftermath, U.S. intelligence was able to piece together fairly quickly who the hijackers were and establish their ties to al Qaeda, based on passenger manifests and phone calls from the hijacked planes. In this case, there have been no communications from the hijacked plane, so intelligence officials and presumably the media only have the passenger manifests to work with. If there is any conclusive proof that a passenger or crew member had means and motive to do something like this, it should turn up fairly quickly due to the considerable investigative resources being put into this by multiple governments and news organizations.

There is a long and infamous history of airplane hijackings around the world, with many of the most famous cases happening during the 1960s and 1970s. The tactical appeal of airplane hijackings can be summed up in two reasons: 1) mobility to go wherever the hijackers want, and 2) inaccessability and inescapability. Nobody will be able to storm a plane or try to get off it while it’s in the air – with exceptions to Steven Seagal and D.B. Cooper. The conventional wisdom of airplane hijackings – that the hijackers are taking hostages to achieve a rational political objective with an outcome that would ensure their own survival – was turned on its head by the events of 9/11.

If it was a hijacking, the deviation from the norm from hijackings of the past as of this writing is the lack of anybody claiming responsibility or making some type of political demand or other in exchange for the safety of the hostages. Assuming the Central Asia flight path theory is correct, that might help narrow the nationality or political agenda of possible suspects.

One scenario that I had considered a possibility – but has seemingly been ruled out at this point – is something akin to the Payne Stewart crash: that the aircraft lost cabin pressurization and kept flying off course until it ran out of fuel and crashed in the water somewhere.

Al Qaeda Does Conference Calls

Posted: August 7, 2013 in Foreign Policy, International, Investigative, National Security, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

The Daily Beast reporting today:

The crucial intercept that prompted the U.S. government to close embassies in 22 countries was a conference call between al Qaeda’s senior leaders and representatives of several of the group’s affiliates throughout the region.

The intercept provided the U.S. intelligence community with a rare glimpse into how al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, manages a global organization that includes affiliates in Africa, the Middle East, and southwest and southeast Asia.

Several news outlets reported Monday on an intercepted communication last week between Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Qaeda’s affiliate based in Yemen. But The Daily Beast has learned that the discussion between the two al Qaeda leaders happened in a conference call that included the leaders or representatives of the top leadership of al Qaeda and its affiliates calling in from different locations, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence. All told, said one U.S. intelligence official, more than 20 al Qaeda operatives were on the call.

To be sure, the CIA had been tracking the threat posed by Wuhayshi for months. An earlier communication between Zawahiri and Wuhayshi delivered through a courier was picked up last month, according to three U.S. intelligence officials. But the conference call provided a new sense of urgency for the U.S. government, the sources said.

Al Qaeda members included representatives or leaders from Nigeria’s Boko Haram, the Pakistani Taliban, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and more obscure al Qaeda affiliates such as the Uzbekistan branch. Also on the call were representatives of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates such as al Qaeda in the Sinai Peninsula, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The presence of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates operating in the Sinai was one reason the State Department closed the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, according to one U.S. intelligence official. “These guys already proved they could hit Eilat. It’s not out of the range of possibilities that they could hit us in Tel Aviv,” the official said.

Al Qaeda leaders had assumed the conference calls, which give Zawahiri the ability to manage his organization from a remote location, were secure. But leaks about the original intercepts have likely exposed the operation that allowed the U.S. intelligence community to listen in on the al Qaeda board meetings.

Fascinating read, but I’m surprised al Qaeda would get one – let alone multiple – leader on a conference call, given the NSA’s well-documented technical capabilities in hacking or intercepting electronic communications even before the Edward Snowden leaks. Given the relentless pressure being placed on them by U.S. and allied military and intelligence services, I would assume they’d resort to paper and smoke signals for their communications from here on out.

As a child of the 80s, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out my favorite quote from the story:

“This was like a meeting of the Legion of Doom,” one U.S. intelligence officer told The Daily Beast, referring to the coalition of villains featured in the Saturday morning cartoon Super Friends.

The Swiftboating of Mitt Romney

Posted: July 15, 2012 in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Investigative, Media, Mitt Romney, Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1

The Obama campaign released this simple but brutal ad yesterday: A series of headlines from recent weeks about Romney’s tenure at Bain, outsourcing jobs, and use of offshore tax havens, set to audio of Romney’s off-key performance of “America the Beautiful” at a campaign event in Florida last January. TPM’s David Kurtz compares this ad to the Lyndon Johnson campaign’s now legendary “Daisy” ad from the 1964 election.

The Atlantic’s James Fallows appeared on NPR yesterday to discuss the ad, and during the course of that conversation, the comparison was made between what Obama is doing to Romney now to what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Republican operatives did to John Kerry’s military record in Vietnam during the 2004 Election. An excerpt from that conversation:

FALLOWS: It has. And I think it’s worth focusing on why this is such a potential problem for the Romney campaign. The entire reason behind his campaign through the last year in the Republican primaries and now in the next four months in the general election is that America has business problems. He is a businessman, therefore, he’s the right person for the job.

And what the Obama campaign is doing on the basis of this Bain imbroglio is something similar to what George W. Bush was doing to John Kerry back in 2004 in the episode known as swiftboating. And by that, I mean making something that a candidate has assumed to be his strength, which, in John Kerry’s case was his military background, into a weakness.

RAZ: And so if the Obama campaign can make Mitt Romney’s business background not the presumed basis of his campaign, but instead a source of controversy, a source of potential weakness for him, that really does make problems in the campaign for the Romney team.

So if the Obama campaign is swiftboating, as you say, Mitt Romney – I mean, one of the criticisms of John Kerry was that he didn’t respond to this back in 2004, and Romney is only started to respond to it.

FALLOWS: Exactly. And I should make clear, in saying swiftboating, I’m not asserting that these are false accusations. I’m just saying they have this jujitsu effect. And it’s actually surprising the Romney team is not better prepared for them than it is. Number one, because they’ve had the last eight years since the John Kerry episode. Number two, over the last year, this is what Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and others were using as their angle of attack on Mitt Romney’s business background too.

Fallows’s analogy of the Bain attack being political jiujitsu by turning a candidate’s strength into a potential liability is correct. However, there are a few other reasons why the swiftboating analogy is not accurate here that are worth pointing out (Full disclosure/background: I reviewed hundreds of pages of military records for Kerry and others while working at CNN during the course of the Swift Boat controversy as it was playing out in 2004.)

  • After having reviewed multiple incident reports and service records obtained independently through Freedom of Information Act requests, documents filed contemporaneously at the time backed Kerry’s version of the events, every single time. In other words, the underlying basis for challenging Kerry’s service record was entirely false. In Romney’s case, independent reporting of multiple news organizations, as well as Bain Capital’s SEC filings and his 2002 testimony before the Ballot Law Commission in Massachusetts are the basis for questioning his version of events.
  • The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were an independent 527 group. This ad – and the entire strategy of attacking Romney’s record at Bain – was a direct hit organized by the Obama campaign.
  • Romney was attacked for his Bain record during the 2012 Republican primaries. He could have put a lot of these issues to rest if he had put the information out there months ago. Kerry’s military service was never challenged during the Democratic primaries, and did not become an issue until the Swift Boat group started running ads shortly after Kerry accepted his party’s nomination.
  • His continued refusal to release tax returns beyond 2010 is also compounding the problem. Also consider that when Romney was being vetted to be John McCain’s possible running mate back in 2008, he gave the McCain campaign 23 years’ worth of tax returns. Even though his tax returns and the end of his tenure at Bain are two completely separate issues, the Obama campaign has effectively joined them together at the hip. In this respect, Romney’s response is similar to Kerry’s refusal to release his full personnel and medical file (Standard Form 180) back in 2004.

The Obama campaign has effectively turned Romney’s record in the private sector – in his words, one of the main reasons why he should be elected president – into a liability. However, after looking at everything the Swift Boat campaign did to John Kerry, the analogy should end there. Romney’s current problem is almost entirely of his own making – the conflicting answers he’s given in the past and last week, as well as the SEC documents and his own refusal to release more tax returns.

Update: Business Insider compares Romney’s handling of the Bain questioning to Bill Clinton’s infamous and widely mocked “the meaning of the word ‘is'” during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Update II: Fallows has written a blog post elaborating on his swiftboating comments during the NPR interview. The whole thing is worth a read.

Update III: Another Kerry 2004/Romney 2012 comparison that has nothing to do with swiftboating –  both candidates used the same slogan, “Believe in America.”

 

Follow the Money Trail from Bin Laden’s Compound

Posted: May 14, 2011 in Foreign Policy, Investigative, Media, National Security, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

While the administration and the media have focused much of the public’s attention on the intelligence gold mine recovered by Navy SEALs during the Osama bin Laden operation, it is important to remember a less dramatic, but important angle that both the government and the press can look into: the financial lifeline that allowed the Al Qaeda leader and his family to build and live in that compound for years.

Al Qaeda has demonstrated it has the knowledge and savvy to use the financial and banking system to achieve its ends. The 9/11 plot, which investigators believe cost the organization between $400,000-500,000 to carry out, was financed almost entirely by Al Qaeda using a combination of cash couriers, conventional wire transfers and banking methods in the United States and overseas. Reforms implemented in the aftermath of 9/11 have made it more difficult to use a financial or banking institution to launder or transfer funds for nefarious purposes. By focusing on the compound, investigators may be able to collect more information about Al Qaeda, which could potentially be just as promising as any of the data from the raid.

Anyone who has ever bought a property or built a home knows that the entire process is inherently a team sport, requiring the participation of multiple individuals to see through to the end.  Simply put, Osama bin Laden couldn’t have bought the land, filed the paperwork, hired people to design and build the compound, overseen the construction, set up heating, water and electricity, and pay for bills, taxes and living expenses by himself. At every step of the way, he needed intermediaries to do it on his behalf and pay for the goods received or services rendered. Separating the individual components necessary to build that compound and make it function may uncover possible Al Qaeda operatives, calculate the costs, and possibly get a sense of the organization’s financial state at the time the compound was being built and while bin Laden was living there.

According to property records obtained by the Associated Press, a man named Mohammed Arshad bought adjoining plots of land in 2004-2005 to build the compound for $48,000.   Two of the plots were purchased using an unidentified middleman who may have passed them on to Arshad – one of several possible aliases he used – who may have been bin Laden’s courier that inadvertently tipped off U.S. intelligence officials to the location and existence of the compound.

The courier and his brother who lived in the compound are literally a dead end from an interrogation perspective – both men were killed during the raid. However, the money trail may still yield promising leads.  Unless the plots of land were bought using cash, there would have been some type of transaction involving at least one financial institution, whether it was paid as a wire transfer or a check.  Following the money from the transaction to its original source may yield more leads: the name or alias of an operative or holding company, contact information, or other persons who helped to facilitate the deal.

After the acquisition of the land, it would have been necessary to hire professionals to design and build the compound, meager as it was. Gul Mohammed, identified by The Sun as the builder of the compound, was quoted by the tabloid saying he never saw bin Laden or knew he was living there, and described the oversight of the project saying, “Only one or sometimes two would come to supervise my work – and they never cared about money.” Unless Al Qaeda was somehow able to keep the job in house with someone affiliated with or trusted by the organization, checking with architects, contractors, or construction firms in Abbottabad or nearby cities may generate even further leads on the amount of money paid and who – possibly the courier and his brother based on media accounts by the previous owners of the land and the builder – was responsible for overseeing the entire project.

Although photographs of the compound and the video of Bin Laden watching himself on TV show that it was far from luxurious, housing and feeding as many as three dozen people required some basic utilities for the compound, specifically water, electricity and heating.  A private or government-owned utility company presumably would have been responsible for installing the necessary infrastructure during the construction process, and would have issued bills and collected revenues from one of the residents or an intermediary.

Moreover, the courier or another person may have had to pay some type of taxes on the property, on a one-time or recurring basis. If so, corresponding records might exist for the compound in a federal or local tax agency in Pakistan.

By taking these possible leads, in conjunction with accounts from local merchants who provided goods and services to the residents of the compound, it may be possible to calculate an estimate for how much it cost Al Qaeda to build and maintain the property. This information, if cross-referenced with previously available intelligence about the organization or some of the new material obtained during the raid, could help government officials create a picture of Al Qaeda’s financial structure and health during the past few years. By doing so, it may be possible to better assess its capability to carry out an operation or to function as an organization.

Bin Laden had been living there for at least five years, President Obama told 60 Minutes, and he didn’t do it alone: “We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don’t know who or what that support network was.” Excluding the question of whether or not anyone in the Pakistani government was involved, the existence of the compound alone and all that was necessary to build it and keep it operational for its residents proves bin Laden had a support network in his personal circle for his immediate daily needs.

To use an old cliché, money makes the world go round. Support networks for any criminal or terrorist organization require money to function.  Looking into how much it cost to build this compound and where the money came from could yield more leads on Al Qaeda worth pursuing.  Such information may contribute to achieving President Obama’s objective of “badly disabling” the group, because history has shown that understanding and disrupting the financial lifelines of criminal or terrorist networks can be just as damaging to them as bombs and bullets.

U.S. Officials Find Porn Stash In Bin Laden Materials

Posted: May 13, 2011 in International, Investigative, National Security, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , ,
0

What does a guy cooped up in a house for five years with multiple wives do to pass the time? Apparently, he (or someone else living in the compound) had a porno collection:

(Reuters) – A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.

The pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.

Even though no one knows whose material this was, or if bin Laden himself ever viewed it, U.S. officials have been brutally effective at chipping away at bin Laden’s carefully constructed image of a pious man risking it all for the cause. In the 12 days since the raid, we’ve found out that he was caught flat-footed by U.S. Navy SEALs, was obsessed with his self-image in the media, and now we discover this. It’s a good PR/public diplomacy pushback at bringing down bin Laden’s mystique and showing him for who and what he really was.

Not to mention that this discovery is going to be fodder for every late night comedian in the world. Even the press is having fun with this. As Politico reporter Josh Gerstein put it: “Readying my #FOIA for bin Laden’s porn. Fear JWatch will beat me to it. May require ProPublica or NYT to delve into it”

Checkbook Jihad

Posted: May 13, 2011 in International, Investigative, National Security, Obama Administration, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

For those of you who are interested in the financial angle of terrorism, national security, and organized crime as I am, check out this article that ran in Foreign Policy yesterday.

Ensign Report Highlights

Posted: May 12, 2011 in Beltway Drama, Congress, Investigative, Senate
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

The report is a doozy (PDF file)…  Will live-blog details as I read them, including quotes and page numbers as necessary (Note: page numbers are based on their number in the PDF file, not the number that appears at the bottom of each).  Watch this space.

REACTIONS:

Statement from Sen. Ensign’s attorney Paul Coggins: “I am confident that the Department of Justice will conclude that Senator Ensign fully complied with the law.”

Separately, spokespersons for the FEC and the Department of Justice declined to comment on the Boxer/Isakson letters referring the case to them.

REPORT DETAILS:

CREW gets a shoutout… Melanie Sloan takes a victory lap: “The Committee’s investigation began after it received a complaint on June 24, 2009, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ). CREW supplemented that complaint on October 6, 2009. These filings presented allegations of sexual harassment/employment discrimination, post-employment ban violations, and issues related to payments to Douglas and Cynthia Hampton, Senator Ensign s former Administrative Assistant and campaign treasurer.” (p. 8 of the file)

Credible evidence of violations: “Based on the record in this matter, the Special Counsel respectfully submits that there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign violated Senate Rules and federal civil and criminal laws, and engaged in improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate, thus betraying the public trust and bringing discredit to the Senate.” (p. 10)

Ensign plays hardball: “When a prominent Nevada constituent declined to hire Mr. Hampton, Senator Ensign instructed John Lopez, his Chief of Staff, to jack him up to high heaven and inform the constituent that he was cut off from Senator Ensign and could not contact him any longer.” (p. 10) Update: More details…  the constituent was identified as Nevada political consultant Sig Rogich.  Looking back on the episode, Lopez later testified: “I just wanted to mention that when the Senator asked me to do that, I really felt like this is wrong. I remember really feeling like that
was abusing the office, you know, cutting someone off from official action because he didn’t hire [Hampton], I thought I had qualms about what I was asked to do.” (p. 29)

Violations of One-Year Ban: Hampton “improperly contacted” on at least 12 different client matters, initiated at least 30 contacts to Ensign’s office and other Senate offices during the one-year ban period. (p. 10)

Office Policies Included Shredding and Gmail Accounts: “Before and after Mr. Hampton’s termination and during the time period when the Senator was helping Mr. Hampton get clients, Senator Ensign instituted office policies that had the effect of making Mr. Hampton’s contacts harder to detect, including a shredding policy, discouraging use of official Senate email accounts in favor of Gmail, and directing that all inquiries of the Committee go through Mr. Lopez, the person he directed to interact with Mr. Hampton.” (p. 11)

$96K Severance Payment: The $96,000 paid to the Hamptons from the Ensign Family Trust Fund constitued a severance payment. Ensign’s affidavit to the FEC saying it wasn’t severance payment is false. (p. 11) Update: Affidavit re: $96K signed by Ensign’s parents saying money was part of pattern of them giving money to the Hamptons, including all expenses paid trip to Hawaii in 2006.  Report calls these affidavits “misleading and potentially false.” (p. 12)

Potential Obstruction of Justice Violations: Ensign deleted documents and files knowing they were likely to be subject to legal claim. Also deleted his personal Gmail account which he used instead of his Senate account. Contents from Gmail account could not be reviewed for the investigation. Ensign deleted at least 5 documents after receiving document retention notice from Ethics Committee in October of 2009.  (p. 13)

Violation of Office Policies: Report says Ensign violated his own office policies regarding sexual harassment and fraternization. Report says Ensign engaged in behaviors that would have led to the termination of one of his employees according to his own office policy. (p. 13)

Affair Began After Burglary: After burglars broke into the Hamptons’ Nevada home, Ensign allowed them to stay at their place until the door was repaired and Cynthia Hampton felt safe to go back to the house. The affair began shortly after the Hamptons moved into the Ensign home. (p. 18)

Losing His Mind: When Ensign began pursuing Cynthia Hampton, “She asked Senator Ensign if he lost [his] mind, and he replied yes.” (p. 18)

Late Night Fodder Material: Hampton’s reaction after finding out about the affair – “When the cars were parked in the airport parking lot, Mr. Hampton jumped out of his car and chased Senator Ensign in the airport parking lot.” (p. 19)

What Happens in Vegas: Ensign and Hampton ended the affair around Christmas of 2007, but resumed again a month later. They would have trysts in Vegas hotel rooms reserved in her name, because “it always had to be under my name, it could never be under his name.” (p. 19)

Big Phone Bill: Hampton found out affair was continuing in February 2008 after discovering text messages on Ensign phone during CODEL trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. The phone bills for the calls during the trip totaled nearly $1,000. (p. 19-20)

“Put Your Pants On”: Sen. Tom Coburn, Hampton and others confront Ensign about the affair on Valentine’s Day, 2008. Ensign writes letter to Cynthia Hampton breaking it off but later admits it was a lie. Two days later, Hampton sees his wife’s and Ensign’s cars parked outside a hotel near their neighborhood and calls Ensign spiritual advisor Tim Coe. Coe calls Ensign, telling him I know exactly where you are. I know exactly what you are doing. Put your pants on and go home.” A few days later, Ensign tells Hampton he loves Cynthia and wants to marry her, and that he can’t work for him anymore. (p. 20)

I Wish I Knew How To Quit You: Ensign separates from his wife and moves in with his parents, and the affair continues through July 2008. Ensign bought two cell phones so they could communicate directly, and created fake Yahoo addresses for both of them.  Coe has Sen. Tom Coburn call Ensign’s father and tell him about the affair.  According to him, the call happened, and Ensign called him in a rage after hearing about his father. (p. 20-21)

Not a Happy Ending: The report notes that Cynthia Hampton has filed for divorce and bankruptcy proceedings, and is moving to California to work for an unidentified Christian organization. (p. 22)

Leaving Las Vegas: Plan to separate Hamptons from Ensign included possibility of moving them to Colorado and having Ensign take over mortgage on Hampton’s home in Vegas or buying it outright. Ensign not happy about idea of buying the house, says his father won’t help with the finances of helping the Hamptons relocate. (p. 22-23)

Coburn’s Role: “According to Mr. Coe, Doug was more confident talking to Senator Coburn about finances than he was us, and Mr. Hampton thought Senator Coburn could deliver John s father, who was wealthy. Senator Coburn played a support role, and encouraged Senator Ensign to consider the plans developed by Mr. Coe and others regarding transition and separation.” (p. 23)

Not-So-Golden-Parachute: During a lunch in Vegas, Ensign tells NRSC aides Michael and Lindsey Slanker that Hampton is leaving his office, but lies about the reasons why. The Slankers come up with idea of having Hampton work at their political campaign consulting firm November Inc. as a “platform” for his work. If Hampton could get clients, he could use November Inc. as “the business card.” Ensign’s response to the idea was “giddy” and he immediately called Hampton to tell him of the plan. (p. 23-24)

Pink Slip: Ensign fires Cynthia Hampton from her job in March of 2008, saying his father and wife wouldn’t allow her to continue working for him. (p. 24)

Severance Pay: The $96K severance package was calculated based on 2 months’ pay for him, a year’s pay for her. Here’s where the plot thickens: “The two discussed gift rules and tax law, and splitting up the payments into various amounts, totaling $96,000, as a way to avoid the payment of taxes on the amount.” (p. 25)

Vacation Money: In addition to the $96K, Hampton received $6K in his final paycheck from Ensign’s Senate office for 12 unused vacation days, which in fact he may have used. Report notes “his work attendance was significantly less in the months leading up to April 2008. Therefore, there were likely no vacation days available to Mr. Hampton upon his departure from the Senate.” (p. 27)

The I-word: Ensign’s chief of staff John Lopez testified before the Ethics Committee Special Counsel under a grant of immunity. (p. 28)

Not a Coincidence: “The timing of Senator Ensign’s interest in the destruction of records and communication with oversight committees coincides with the affair with Cindy Hampton, and Mr. Hampton s departure.” (p. 29)

Preparing to Lobby: “Mr. Hampton, because of his salary level, was required under Senate Rule 37 to notify the Ethics Committee within three days of commencing any negotiations for prospective private employment, and to immediately recuse himself from legislative matters affecting that prospective employer. Committee Staff and Special Counsel were unable to find evidence that Mr. Hampton ever filed such a notification.” Hampton left the Senate on May 1, 2008, and the report notes “Mr. Hampton was banned from contact with the Senate effective May 2, 2008,” because of ethics rules. However, the report says that just five days later, he e-mailed Ensign aide David Quinalty regarding FAA issues on behalf of a Nevada client. Ensign’s legislative staff figured out the implications of the email pretty quickly.

“Mr. Quinalty testified that in every way I could think of, [this email] struck me as inappropriate and odd and something I should take note of. Mr. Quinalty immediately took the email to Pam Thiessen. Ms. Thiessen testified that upon review of the email, she concluded that it look[ed] like he [Hampton] broke the law, broke the ethics ban. Ms. Thiessen had Mr. Quinalty print out multiple copies, and gave one to Mr. Mulvihill, with instructions to take it to the attention of the Ethics Committee. Ms. Thiessen then spoke with Mr. Lopez, and stated that on its face [the email] was illegal. So I told John Lopez this is illegal activity, that it’s got to stop, and that Doug Hampton was being cut off from the leg. [legislative] shop. Ms. Thiessen then announced to the entire legislative staff that Mr. Hampton had broken the law and no one was to help him. Members of Senator Ensign’s legislative staff recalled this announcement in their testimony.”(p. 31-32)

Compartmentalized Contacts: Ensign and Lopez agree to limit all dealings between Hampton and the office to the two of them, effectively removing the rest of the staff from the process. Lopez told him about the ethics concerns about Hampton’s lobbying efforts, to which Ensign responded with what Lopez described as a “see no evil, hear no evil” attitude. Lopez was ignorant about the affair until Ensign called a staff meeting to announce it in 2009. (p. 34-35)

Coburn the Negotiator?: Hampton’s lawyer testifies that Coburn acted as a negotiator between him and Ensign for a possible multimillion dollar settlement on behalf of his clients. Coburn denies it in testimony to the committee. This discrepancy could come back to haunt Coburn. Stories with headlines like “Tom Coburn gets new scrutiny in Ensign scandal”  and a lead paragraph alleging “the Oklahoma Republican may have not been completely candid when questioned by Senate investigators about the still unfolding scandal,” are not good. (p. 44-45)

Going Public: After hearing of Ensign’s rejection of the offer, Hampton decided to go to the media with his case, writing a letter to Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. A few days later, Hampton forwarded a copy of the letter to Sen. Rick Santorum, at the time a paid Fox News contributor. Santorum tipped off Ensign, and this forced him to make a public statement admitting to the affair in June of 2009. (p. 45)

Semantics About Severance: Staff and counsel reviewing his prepared text announcing the affair suggested removing all references to severance or payments. Attorney Chris Gober explained the legal concerns in an email to Ensign’s communications director:

“[t]he statement, as currently written, raises a host of
potential criminal issues for the Senator. The language
draws a direct connection between the affair, the
termination of the staffers, and the severance payment.
Although the statement attempts to legitimize the reason for
the payment, it’s awfully odd that he made the payments
from personal funds. If this statement doesn’t get the
attention of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, then nothing will.” (p. 48)

Questions About Ensign FEC Affidavits: The report alleges that Senator Ensign and his parents may have been less than truthful in affidavits they filed with the FEC regarding the $96K. “The affidavits of the senior Ensigns and of Senator Ensign appear to be misleading and potentially false on the central issue of the FEC investigation the nature of the $96,000 payment from the senior Ensigns to the Hamptons and the purported pattern of generosity from the senior Ensigns to the Hamptons.” The Special Counsel says that inconsistencies between facts and affidavits merit further investigation by DOJ and FEC. (p. 51-52)

There Goes My Afternoon

Posted: May 12, 2011 in Beltway Drama, Congress, Investigative, Senate
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

The Senate Ethics Committee just published its findings on the John Ensign investigation.  It also published letters referring the case to the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission saying Ensign and others had violated laws relating to their relevant jurisdictions.

Stay tuned for more details.

Older Entries