Ensign is resigned to preserve his power and glory at all costs

If John Ensign loved his family, he would have resigned June 16, 2009, the day he announced his affair with Cindy Hampton.

Surely the senator knew then the circumstances that would cause him grief had nothing to do with sex and everything to do with his own efforts to keep Doug Hampton financially whole so the vengeful husband wouldn't go public.

If Ensign had resigned nine months ago, there wouldn't have been a Senate Ethics Committee investigation.

If he had resigned, the Justice Department might not have launched an investigation. His family would have been spared the pain of revelation after revelation about the cover-up.

If he had resigned before the filing deadline, his seat would be on this year's ballot.

For reasons of his own, the Nevada Republican refuses to give up the power and glory of being a senator.

Now his friends, his former staffers and businesses that wanted either his support or just to keep on his good side are being dragged into a grand jury investigation. Bet they wish he had resigned.

The investigations initially focused on whether Ensign broke either Senate ethics rules or federal laws when he tried to hustle clients for Hampton, who wanted to make as much as he had been making as Ensign's administrative assistant since 2006. The Hamptons both worked for Ensign but were let go in April 2008, even though the affair didn't end until August of that year.

The subpoenas reveal a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., seeks documents by March 31. KLAS-TV, Channel 8 reported the grand jury is asking for records from eCommLink, Selling Source and Pay Card USA, as well as Ensign's former chief of staff John Lopez. Investigators also asked for information from Nevada spinmeisters Sig Rogich and Pete Ernaut, as well as others at R&R Partners.

But Channel 8's real scoop is that federal investigators are looking into whether Ensign tried to block legislation in exchange for campaign donations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Ensign headed during the 2007-2008 election cycle. If true, that goes beyond cover-ups and violations of lobbying bans and jumps into the arena of real corruption.

Political consultant Mike Slanker and his wife, Lindsey Slanker, are expected to be questioned, both because Slanker provided Hampton a job after he left Ensign, and because the Slankers worked for the NRSC when Ensign was the head.

There's nothing unusual in a politician making a call and trying to help a staffer get a job. It's done all the time. The problem for Ensign is whether or not he crossed the line and did something illegal such as knowingly violating the one-year ban on staffers lobbying him.

Far more serious would be if he made promises in exchange for campaign contributions. If that's true, he's dead meat.

That would go far beyond his hypocrisy of being a high-profile Promise Keeper who touted his values while condemning others. Remember, he dragged Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn into his nasty mess. Coburn tried to negotiate a payment to Hampton. Hampton first demanded $8.3 million. Then $2 million.

Presumably at some point, Ensign's parents, Michael and Sharon Ensign, would be asked about why they paid the Hampton family $96,000.

If Ensign had resigned, he would have avoided this painful process where every time he thinks he's back in the role of the distinguished silver-haired senator, some damaging allegation erupts.

One line from a Hampton e-mail to Ensign rings true. "It just appears to me that you only care for yourself."

He insists he's done nothing legally wrong. Even if that's true, he has hurt a lot of people along the way, including people he purports to love.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.