Did the Ensign Confrontation over His Affair Take Place at a “Family” Gathering?

/81 Comments/in /by

picture-105.thumbnail.pngAs I linked to unwittingly in a past post, journalists are particularly interested in Tom Coburn’s take on John Ensign’s affair because they live together. 

Reporters mobbed Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who shares an apartment with Ensign on Capitol Hill. "I’m not answering any Ensign questions," he announced. "You can ask all you want."

That home, of course, is where Doug Hampton claims a confrontation about Ensign’s affair occurred in February 2008.

Citizen92 asked a very good question in a past thread–where John Ensign and Tom Coburn share a place together.

I searched and the Hamptons didn’t own property in DC (city). Neither do the Ensigns. Neither do the Coburns. At least under their own names. Any ideas who owns the Coburn-Ensign pad? Or are they renters?

To which I asked whether or not Ensign and Coburn are members of The Family.

The Family, as Jeff Sharlet has reported, is a secretive fellowship that aims to mobilize pseudo-Christian issues to accrue power–what he described "a good old boy’s club blessed by God."

They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls "Jesus plus nothing" — a government led by Christ’s will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything — sex and taxes, war and the price of oil — will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It’s a good old boy’s club blessed by God.

As Jeff has reported, the Family owns a C Street house in which–at least as recently as 2002 or 2003–Ensign lived.

The brothers also served at the Family’s four-story, redbrick Washington town house, a former convent at 133 C Street S.E. complete with stained-glass windows. Eight congressmen—including Senator Ensign and seven representatives—lived there, brothers in Christ just like us, only more powerful. We scrubbed their toilets, hoovered their carpets, polished their silver.

And in his book, Jeff reported that Coburn lived in the house when still a Congressman.

The rules forbid Brownback to reveal the names of his fellow members, but those in the [prayer] cell likely include some of the men with whom he lived in the Family’s C Street House for congressmen: Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee, former representative Steve Largent of Oklahoma, and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, then a representative …

In other words, the Ensign-Coburn "home" Read more →

Share this entry

Ensign’s Senate Colleagues Confronted Him about His Affair in February 2008

/93 Comments/in /by

The Las Vegas Sun has posted the letter John Ensign’s cuckold, Doug Hampton, sent Fox News not long before Ensign admitted his affair. In it, he reveals there was a confrontation over the affair in February 2008 that Tom Coburn attended.

The unethical behavior and immoral choice of Senator Ensign has been confronted by me and others on a number of occasions over this past year. In fact one of the confrontations took place in February 2008 at his home in Washington DC (sic) with a group of his peers. One of the attendee’s (sic) was Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma as well as several other men who are close to the Senator. Senator Ensign’s conduct and relentless pursuit of my wife led to our dismissal in April of 2008. I would like to say he stopped his heinous conduct and pursuit upon our leaving, but that was not the case and his actions did not subside until August of 2008.

No wonder the Republicans don’t really want to talk about this–they’ve known about it for over a year. Here’s what Coburn had to say:

Reporters mobbed Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who shares an apartment with Ensign on Capitol Hill. "I’m not answering any Ensign questions," he announced. "You can ask all you want."

"You don’t have any thoughts?"

"I don’t have any thoughts."

"Have you had a chance to talk about it?"

"I’m just not going to comment."

Finally, Coburn was badgered into making a defense. "He is a bright young man," the senator said of his 51-year-old colleague. "Lots of people make mistakes."

Also in the letter, Hampton describes his fears that efforts to pursue justice in this matter may put his family "in harm’s way."

The actions of Senator Ensign have ruined our lives and careers and left my family in shambles. We have lost significant income, suffered indescribable pain and emotional suffering. We find ourselves today with an overwhelming loss of relationships, career opportunities and hope for recovery. Our pursuit of justice continues to place me and my family in harm’s way as we fear for our well being (sic).

Ut oh–this is Las Vegas this guy is talking about. 

Hampton talks about a lot more details in this affar–I wonder who Hampton is going to give the exclusive to for that story?

Share this entry

Court Allows Padilla Suit Against Yoo To Proceed

/81 Comments/in , , , , /by

There was a significant new opinion released in the NDCA late Friday (h/t Lindy and Fatster) in the case of Jose Padilla v. John Yoo. The decision is devastating to Yoo and to the thought by the Obama Administration that the American legal system is going to blithely allow them to simply "move forward" and leave behind, and out of sight, the malevolence, malfeasance and depravity of senior Bush/Cheney legal officials in relation to their torture regime.

Yoo might be having a bad day when a Federal judge starts his analysis of your immunity claim by citing Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist Papers. And that is exactly what Judge Jeffrey S. White of NDCA District Court has done:

[War] will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free. [The Federalist No. 8, at 44 (Alexander Hamilton) (E.H. Scott ed., 1898).]

First, a little background is in order. The plaintiff is Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested with great fanfare on May 8, 2002, on a material witness warrant, by the Bush Administration as being a "dirty bomb" suspect. As the "material witness" warrant was a sham, Bush (through Rumsfeld) quickly designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and placed him in the custody of the Department of Defense, the military, and locked him up indefinitely in the US Naval brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Padilla was detained without being charged, was subjected to extreme isolation, including isolation from both counsel and from his family, and was interrogated under threat of torture, deportation and even death. He was placed in solitary confinement in a tiny cell in an otherwise empty wing of the military brig. Padilla alleges that he was “subjected to a systematic program of unlawful interrogation methods and conditions of confinement, which proximately and foreseeably caused him to suffer extreme isolation, sensory deprivation, severe physical pain, sleep deprivation, and profound disruption of his senses.

The defendant is the notorious John Yoo, Bush torture lawyer extraordinaire. Yoo, of course, is currently a law professor at the University of California Berkeley and was, at the times material to the complaint, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel for the Bush/Cheney Administration. Padilla states, Read more →

Share this entry

Roland Burris: “Fred Is Dying on the Vine”

/23 Comments/in /by

I’m just now catching up to the Roland Burris-Rob Blagojevich transcript that got released earlier this week, in which the wannabe Senator from Illinois scrambles to find a way to pay off the Blago machine in time for the Senate decision.

I’m most struck by the centrality of Fred Lebed, then Burris’ law partner, to the discussion. That’s because we’ve got several pieces of evidence that Lebed would be–and might have been–at the center of a quid pro quo between Burris and Blago.

RobBlago mentions Lebed when he first raises the issue of "anything you might be able to do."

BLAGOJEVICH: We’ve had a number of conversations about, you know, anything you might be able to do; you and Fred might be able to do here before the end of the year for Rod.

And when Burris suggests he’ll have to do a fundraiser, he alludes to conversations with Lebed about the appearance that would give.

BURRIS: So let, it is and so if I put on a fundraiser now …

BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.

BURRIS: … and, I, you know I, I think it would have something … this is what I’ve been talking to Fred about it, it has so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment …

Burris then tries to buy time by explaining that Lebed is on a business trip to NY (Tim Wright is the lawyer who represented Burris in his appearance before the State Legislature, and who was giving him detailed directions on how to respond to questions about contacts with the Blago people, which makes his appearance in this context interesting unto itself).

BURRIS: And, and my law partner we were gonna try to do something at the law firm. I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright.

BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.

BURRIS: Okay, ’cause Tim is not looking for an appointment, okay.

BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.

BURRIS: So if I can talk to my law partner who’s been, you know, in New York trying to drum up business.

[snip]

BURRIS: I think he’ll be back in on Monday.

BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.

BURRIS: But, ah, but Fred and I, look I said I gotta call you. I have, I have not.

BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.

BURRIS: ‘Cause I didn’t know how to deal with this situation.

Read more →

Share this entry

Decision Day On al-Haramain (updated)

/67 Comments/in , , /by

graphic by politicalbaseIt is decision day for the gunslingers at the al-Haramain corral. If you recall when we last left this little vignette, exactly one week ago today, Judge Vaughn Walker had just issued a fairly terse ruling giving certain instructions to the parties. Both parties were given one week, until today, May 29th, to produce written responses to the court.

The plaintiff al-Haramain was addressed as follows:

Plaintiffs shall, no later than May 29, 2009, submit a memorandum addressing whether it would now be appropriate and/or feasible for plaintiffs to file a motion for summary judgment on their claim under 50 USC § 1810. Plaintiffs should address the merits of filing such a motion under two scenarios: (1) with a protective order in place allowing plaintiffs’ counsel access to the Sealed Document; and (2) with no such protective order and no such access.

Basically very good news for the plaintiff, they are apparently going to proceed with their case, but were being given the option on how to proceed. Make no mistake, proceeding forward with the case is what plaintiffs are in this for; it is not about money for them.

The obstreperous and defiant defendant, the United States government by and through President Barack Obama was, however, not treated so kindly by the court. Judge Walker, clearly fed up with their belligerence and recalcitrance, drew the blade of a guillotine over the government’s head (and rightly so I might add).

Defendants are now ordered to show cause why, as a sanction for failing to obey the court’s orders:

(1) defendants should not be prohibited, under FRCP 37(b)(2)(ii), from opposing the liability component of plaintiffs’ claim under 50 USC § 1810 —— that is, from denying that plaintiffs are “aggrieved persons” who were subjected to electronic surveillance; and

(2) the court should not deem liability under 50 USC § 1810 established and proceed to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.

Defendants shall submit written response to this order no later than May 29, 2009.

By good fortune, today is May 29, and the documents are rolling in. Here is the filing from al-Haramain hot off the press and before it even hits PACER. As Marcy put it a week ago when Walker’s order was filed, “how do you feel about summary judgment 1) with also getting the document, Read more →

Share this entry

What Pelosi, Rockefeller & Harman Could Have Done

/198 Comments/in , , , , /by

There has been an ongoing discussion for the last two weeks or so about the briefings that congressional leaders were allegedly given regarding the Bush/Cheney torture program (See for instance here, here, here, here and here) and what Congressmembers like Pelosi, Rockefeller, Harman and Graham could have done to fight the malfeasance of Bush and Cheney. This post will explain what they could have done.

I promised a discussion on the speech and debate clause and what was possible, at least theoretically, for Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, or any Congressmember that had knowledge, to have done about the wrongs of the Bush Cheney Administration, even in relation to national security level topics.

The speech and debate clause is found in Article I, section 6 of the Constitution and reads as follows:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The key wording is the last part "…and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." The down and dirty is that congressmembers (and in certain cases key staff) cannot be questioned or held to answer in any forum, civil, criminal or otherwise, for speech and/or discussion regarding legitimate interests and business of Congress; such conduct occurring on the floor or in committee is absolutely privileged.

Let’s have a look at the history of the Speech and Debate Clause. In United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980), the Supreme Court stated, "The Framers viewed the speech or debate privilege as fundamental to the system of checks and balances." Indeed, it was framed by the founders as one of the seminal checks and balances against the power and greed of the Executive Branch. You know, exactly what Congress was staring at, and cowering from, with the Bush/Cheney crew. The Congressional privilege has been discussed and upheld in a Read more →

Share this entry

Fast Trash!

/68 Comments/in /by

I’ve been busy lately; sorry about that. On a positive note, that is likely good for you readers. Nevertheless, this is the fastest and most awesomest weekend imaginable, it is a holiday weekend and time to blow some trash talk around. There is a convergence on Sunday of the Grand Prix du Monte Carlo (Monaco), the Indianapolis 500 and, yes Elizabeth, those good ole boys will be circle jerkin at the Coca Cola 600 in Concorde, North Carolina. Lotta horsepower.

First up to bat is arguably the biggest auto race in the world, the Grand Prix of Monaco. The legendary street course in the Principality is treacherous and nerve wreaking for the drivers. Ususally you simply cannot win at Monaco unless you start in one of the top four spots on the grid, because it is very difficult to pass on the narrow course full of tunnels, hairpins and chicanes. Jenson Button, driving for the brand new Russ Brawn team (Brawn took over the remnants of the defunct longtime Honda team that quit F1 due to financial concerns), is leading the points chase and has won a shocking four out of the first five GPs this year. Button has a 14 point lead on Rubens Barricholo, his Brawn teammate. Sebastian Vettel is third, 18 points back. I got up and watched qualifying this morning out on the patio as dawn came over Camelback Mountain. Was beautiful. Button is on pole, with Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen joining him on the front row (a first for a Ferrari this year, they may be finally sorting the bugs out of their rides). Rubens and Vettel are in the second row, with Ferrari’s Felipe Massa in P5. For those of you not familiar with the historic circuit through the streets of Monte Carlo, I have attached a cool music video with footage from the 2003 race to give a flavor for how hair raising it really is (See also here). Should be a great race, and the festivities start at 7:30 am EST on Speed Channel. I think this is a real shot for a Ferrari breakthrough for either Kimi or Massa.

250px-2009_indianapolis_500svg.thumbnail.pngNext up is the Indianapolis 500. Indy used to be called "The Greatest Spectacle In Racing". Somehow or another, it just doesn’t have the lustre it used to; but Read more →

Share this entry

Senate Judiciary Hearing on Torture, Two

/199 Comments/in /by

Whitehouse: SASC report. Great deal of disagreement with OLC analysis. Mora called 2003 OLC memo profoundly in error. To extent that it relied on memo, did not include fair analysis. Chart based on OLC opinion. Green means go column. Read Admiral Dalton, that green column was wrong legally, embarrassing. At Haynes’ direction, directed that OLC opinion supplant opinions of working group. Zelikow, you heard that copies of your memo should be collected and destroyed. What does that say?

Zelikow: Lawyers did not welcome peer review. Would shut down challenges even inside the govt. 

Whitehouse: It’s our nature to quarrel with each other. Is there any suggestion you would draw that they were less than perfectly confident with their views?

Zelikow: Arguments I was making were pretty profound, their whole interpretation of CID standard raises grave consequences. They had options. Let’s take another look at this. Or, Zelikow, boy, this shows how rusty you are in practicing law. They didn’t do either of those things, C, we don’t want to talk about it.

Whitehouse: Luban. Lee decision. Texas decision. Addicott didn’t cite it. Lee describes waterboarding as torture. In 93 pages, where they dig out medicare reimbursement, they don’t find a case on point, in which the 5th circuit, calls it repeatedly torture. I’ve pressed the DOJ on this, bc I think it’s unimaginable. AG Mukasey’s response was that it wasn’t relevant under Civil Rights Act, doesn’t relate under CAT. At that time I was out of time. Civil RIghts Act has no substantive elements of its own. Vehicle for enforcing Constitutional violations. Leads directly to Constitutional standards on torture. What OLC said about it–definition also founded on Constitutional standards of US. Impossible by Congress by statute, the statute criminalizing torture cannot create a definition of torture that narrows Constitutional definition. Distinction is yet another false device. They either missed case on point. I guess we’ll find out from OPR which it was. 

Luban: Lee case decided in 1983, before CAT and torture statutes. Not surprising that it didn’t exist yet. 

Graham: Would it be torture to put a spider inside a jail cell who was afraid of spiders. 

Luban: Conceivably.

Graham: Would you say if we put a spider in the jail cell we were torturing them.

Luban: If we knew that spiders are deadly. An ordinary person.

Graham: Mr. Addicott has a different view about torture. Do you think he is unethical.

Luban: I think he would be unethical if Read more →

Share this entry

al-Libi Dies in a Libyan Prison

/100 Comments/in , , , /by
Graphic by Darkblack

Graphic by Darkblack

We have been talking heavily about torture, renditions and the legal and motivational justifications therefore nonstop for the last couple of weeks. But one of the earliest entries in this sordid tale (witness the December 18, 2001 entry on Marcy’s Torture Timeline) was the capture and torture of Ibn Sheikh al-Libi. What became of al-Libi has been ripe discussion ever since he was disappeared. From Andy Worthington (h/t Barb) we learn of al-Libi’s demise:

The Arabic media is ablaze with the news that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the emir of an Afghan training camp — whose claim that Saddam Hussein had been involved in training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons was used to justify the invasion of Iraq — has died in a Libyan jail.
…
This news resolves, in the grimmest way possible, questions that have long been asked about the whereabouts of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, perhaps the most famous of “America’s Disappeared” — prisoners seized in the “War on Terror,” who were rendered not to Guantánamo but to secret prisons run by the CIA or to the custody of governments in third countries — often their own — where, it was presumed, they would never be seen or heard from again.

Al-Libi was captured by Pakistan on or about December 18, 2001 and was one of the earliest subjects rendered at the will if the CIA, being sent to Egypt for torture. And what did Bush/Cheney want out of him? Information connecting Sadaam Hussein with al-Qaida of course, which he eventually coughed up to his tormenters.

The significance of al-Libi in the events that followed and have led us to where we are today cannot be overestimated.

In Egypt, he came up with the false allegation about connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was used by President Bush in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, just days before Congress voted on a resolution authorizing the President to go to war against Iraq, in which, referring to the supposed threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, Bush said, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.”

That October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati was a critical base for entire set of lies that put us into the unconscionable and unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq. You might remember the Cincinnati speech, it was the first time Bush Read more →

Share this entry

Obama To Git-Mo Better Military Tribunals

/99 Comments/in /by
graphic by twolf

graphic by twolf

The GOP squeals and Obama greases their detainee wheel. On May 1st, the New York Times warned that President Obama was contemplating reinstating the tyrannical Bush/Cheney military tribunals for Gitmo detainees.

Yes, the same Barack Obama that forcefully pronounced to the American public during the election:

By any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,

Not to mention declaring that as President he would:

reject the Military Commissions Act.

That was then, this is now. And now, today, it is seems nearly confirmed that military commissions will be back. From Peter Finn at the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections, government officials said.

The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
…
Officials said yesterday that the Obama administration will seek a 90-day extension of the suspension as early as next week. It would subsequently restart the commissions on American soil, probably at military bases, according to a lawyer briefed on the plan.

To be clear, the Administration indicates that Obama has not given the final sign off on the plan, and the ACLU has already sworn to fight any such plan. One thing is for certain, however, Obama is not contemplating this move in order to give the detainees so tried the equivalent level of due process and justice that would be afforded by American courts, else he would simply use American courts as he stated was his intention while campaigning for votes.

No, you can safely bet that the idea is to use evidence and restrict rights in order to obtain convictions and severity of sentences that would be less likely with traditional due process and fundamental fairness. Not that the original iteration of the tribunals produced particularly good results as a mere three convictions have been produced out of a known total of 779 detainees since the inception of Gitmo. One area clearly in play to obtain the desired easier convictions under Obama’s tribunals would be allowance of hearsay evidence:

Under the administration’s rule changes, hearsay evidence would be admissible if a judge determines it is reliable, officials said. Read more →

Share this entry