Ensign’s defense crumbles under a mountain of evidence

Let's assume -- despite a mountain of evidence -- that former U.S. Sen. John Ensign is innocent.

Let's assume -- as his lawyers argued in a 12-page submission to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics -- that Ensign never intended to break the law when he recommended his former best friend, top aide and cuckolded husband, Doug Hampton, for lobbying gigs with Nevada companies.

Let's assume Ensign never intended for Hampton to violate the law that requires a one-year cooling off period before ex-Senate staffers can lobby their former bosses, and that he didn't conspire with Hampton to break that law.

Then answer this question: On May 8, 2009, when Ensign learned that Hampton had emailed the Senate office about a regulatory matter, and that Ensign's own staff felt the contact was a violation of the cooling-off law, why didn't the senator act to stop it?

Why didn't Ensign tell his chief of staff, John Lopez, that Hampton was to have no contact with his office and that any lobbying was illegal?

It's what an innocent man in Ensign's position would have done. But Ensign didn't do that. In fact, he couldn't, because the lobbying was keeping Hampton employed and out of Ensign's way as the affair with Hampton's wife continued.

Instead of blacklisting Hampton, Ensign set up a secretive system whereby Hampton could continue to lobby his office, though his chief of staff, breaking the law each time and exposing the senator to legal liability that would ultimately end his political career.

That's just one of several points at which Ensign's elaborate (and, at times, pathetic) legal defense falls short. And there are plenty others.

Ensign's lawyers contend the senator wanted to help Hampton find government relations work that wouldn't violate the cooling-off law. But if that's so, when Ensign suggested they tell people that Hampton left Ensign's employ because the two had a "falling out," why did Hampton object that this would hurt his ability to land clients? The only reason is that access to Ensign and his staff was going to be a Hampton selling point. (And Ensign agreed with Hampton's reasoning.)

Ensign's lawyers contend that when the senator called Nevada businesses to pitch Hampton's services, "he made it clear in such calls that he was just recommending Doug Hampton and that any decision on whether or not to hire Hampton was up to the potential client." Really? Then why did Ensign order his chief of staff to call Republican consultant Sig Rogich and "jack him up to high heaven" when Ensign learned Rogich had advised a client against hiring Hampton? The senator said Rogich was "cut off" from Ensign's office, and, in fact, the two didn't speak thereafter.

Ensign's lawyers contend that the senator used Gmail accounts not to hide his dealings with Hampton, but to separate official business from political or personal business. (Ensign was head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee at the time.) But each and every contact that Hampton made with Ensign's office -- there were at least 30 -- pertained to official business. Yet it was conducted via Gmail, not official Senate email.

Ensign's lawyers contend he deleted that Gmail account -- despite an Ethics Committee order that he not destroy documents -- because he was worried it would be hacked after the address was published. But Ensign could just as easily have stopped using the account and switched to another -- he did that to conceal his affair with Hampton's wife. Instead, Ensign deleted potential evidence.

The list goes on. And no matter your assumptions, at nearly every turn, Ensign's defenses fall flat under the weight of a mountain of evidence against him.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@ reviewjournal.com.