“God’s Law” and Mark Sanford’s DIY Consequences

/35 Comments/in /by

Eric Erickson tries to recover from Blue Texan’s sound thumping of him yesterday by excusing Mark Sanford’s adultery and lying because he has no Bible Study group:

We live in a fallen world and we ourselves are fallen. I am disappointed in Sanford, but not angry. The default for politicians seems to be unchaste. All we can do is work for ideas and try to find men of good character to fight for those ideas.

I think one thing I have noticed in the past five years is that Democrats and Republicans tend to elevate politicians to such a level that there is no accountability. It is insular. There is no support group, no small group of friends, and no authority that can guide, admonish, and correct politicians privately.

We have each other. I’m off in a bit to hang out with friends from my Bible Study. Sanford probably has none of that. I’m sure John Edwards did not. Nor Bill Clinton. Nor John Ensign. [my emphasis]

What he appears to have missed–even from Sanford’s own press conference–is that Sanford does have a Bible Study group.

Did your wife and your family know about the affair before the trip to Argentina?

Yeah. We’ve been working through this thing for about the last five months. I’ve been to a lot of different–I was part of a group called C Street when I was in Washington, it was a Christian Bible study of some folks that ask Members of Congress hard questions that I think were very very important. I’ve been working with them.

Problem is, it is populated with a bunch of other sanctimonious Conservatives who believe that their power matters more than the empty vows they mobilize to wield that power. I’m just waiting to see who’s the next member of "the Family" to tearfully confess to being a complete moral hypocrite while condemning others. Who will it be? Sam Brownback? Tom Coburn? Jim DeMint?

Which brings me to–far and away–the most annoying part of Sanford’s press conference: his attempt to validate his moral absolutism even while confessing he fell afoul of it.

But I am — I am here because if you were to look at God’s laws, there are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. Read more →

Share this entry

Did “the Family” Force Sanford to Ditch His Mistress?

/114 Comments/in /by

As Citizen92 pointed out, Governor Mark Sanford mentioned the "C Street" group in his press conference today (TPMM picked up on it too). Now, I’m not positive that the "C Street" group is the Family, but if so, then it makes two Family members in just over a week admitting their infidelities.

Which makes me particularly interested in the context of Sanford’s reference to the group–following on his statement that his wife knew of the affair.

Did your wife and your family know about the affair before the trip to Argentina?

Yeah. We’ve been working through this thing for about the last five months. I’ve been to a lot of different–I was part of a group called C Street when I was in Washington, it was a Christian Bible study of some folks that ask Members of Congress hard questions that I think were very very important. I’ve been working with them. 

[snip]

It was discovered five months ago.

He suggests the affair was discovered and he spent much of the last five months since it was discovered getting counseling, first and foremost, from the C Street group (he also names someone, Cubby Culbertson, who attended the press conference). Suggesting that the Family–if it is indeed the same thing as C Street–has known about Sanford’s affair for at least some of the last five months.

So consider the timing.

June 11: Doug Hampton sends letter to Fox

June 15: Doug Hampton emails letter to Fox

June 16: Ensign admits affair

June 18: Sanford disappears to Buenos Aires (telling his staff he might be hiking in the Appalachian trail)

June 19: Publication of letter suggests ties to the Family

Now, Sanford’s wife released a statement saying that she threw him out two weeks ago. But she also makes it clear she had no idea where he went.

I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband’s infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.

Read more →

Share this entry

Yes, an Adulterer WAS Living in “the Family’s” House; Yes, “teh Gays” Are Ruining Marriage

/15 Comments/in /by

In the last post, I asked whether Cindy Hampton–John Ensign’s mistress–is the one who failed to report the severance she is said to have received.

But the Politico article has two more important details. First, this paragraph all-but confirms that the confrontation over the affair that took place in Tom Coburn’s presence took place in the home owned by "the Family."

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another of Ensign’s housemates, told POLITICO on Monday that he wasn’t at the confrontation and knew nothing of the affair until Ensign’s news conference last week.

Others lawmakers who live with Ensign include Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). An aide to Stupak declined to comment on the matter, and Wamp’s spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

DeMint, Stupak, and Wamp have all been reported to live in "the Family’s" house on C Street.

Also note, Tom Coburn still doesn’t want to talk about the fact that he was being a moral scold for the two months of time when he knew his colleagues was conducting an affair.

And speaking of moral scolds, here’s the reception you get these days in the Senate if you’re a straight man abusing his marital vows.

During a vote Monday evening, Ensign was greeted warmly by both Democrats and Republicans, who approached him, shook his hand and gave him hugs. He was greeted by a slew of senators, including Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, Bill Nelson, Jon Kyl, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Mel Martinez, John Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John Kerry, Kent Conrad and Chuck Schumer.  

Most of these men, of course, like to claim teh Gays are ruining the institution of marriage. And most of these men, of course, gave Larry Craig a far different reception when his sex scandal was exposed.

It’s nice to see moral hypocrisy is alive and well on the Hill. 

Share this entry

Did Ensign’s Mistress Fail to Report Her Own Payoff?

/18 Comments/in /by

The Politico reports that Senator Ensign may have a campaign finance problem–because he did not report the "severance payment" he is said to have given his mistress, Cindy Hampton, when he fired her last year (h/t CREW).

There continue to be a number of outstanding questions on the scandal, including whether Ensign gave a "severance package" to Cindy Hampton, his former campaign treasurer. The affair between Ensign and Cindy Hampton lasted from December 2007 to August 2008, Ensign said. She and her husband both left Ensign’s payroll at the end of April 2008.

POLITICO and The New York Times both reported that Cindy Hampton received a severance package from the senator, but Ensign’s camp has declined to confirm whether any such payments actually took place.

If Ensign, or any other entity, did provide Cindy Hampton with a severance payment, those payments were not recorded on Ensign’s disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

"If the payment was compensation for her work for the PAC, it has to be reported," said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance expert with the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease. "It doesn’t matter when the payment was made."

But, as Citizen92 pointed out, Cindy Hampton was the one in charge of reporting that payoff. And when they got rid of her, they brought in the same woman, Lisa Lisker, brought in to clean up after the NRCC embezzlement scandal. (See also this comment from Citizen92 where he was connecting some of these dots back in February 2008.)

Anyway, that confrontation in front of Coburn, the NRCC embezzlement scandal and Ward’s retirement may be coincedental timing – or there may be more to it.

Ward was the treasurer of Ensign’s Battle Born PAC. Ward was replaced by Hampton.

Ward was the treasurer of the (Republican) Senate Majority Committee, headed by Ensign. Ward was replaced by Hampton.

And, of course, Ward was the treasuer of the NRCC (his primary embezzlement dipping well). Ward was briefly replaced by the incumbent assistant treasurer, but in June 2008 was replaced by Lisa Lisker, a partner in the DC based powerhouse firm Huckaby Davis Lisker.

What’s interesting is that after the Hamptons left DC “for medical reasons”, Ensign’s Battle Born PAC made Lisa Lisker treasurer.

Any chance that Ensign (or the Hamptons) were personally plugged into the embezzlement scandal? There sure are a lot of common players here.

Read more →

Share this entry

Why Tom Davis Shouldn’t Be Obama’s Cyberczar

/38 Comments/in /by

Aside from the questionable logic of appointing yet another Republican who won’t get us a seat in Congress, I’ve got three specific objections to the possibility that Tom Davis, former Republican Congressman from Northern Virginia, might be named as Obama’s Cyberczar.

Tom Davis, a moderate Republican from Virginia, has emerged as a leading candidate for the Obama Administration’s newly created position of cybersecurity czar. Sources familiar with the White House’s deliberations on the subject say Obama officials feel a Washington power player would make a better candidate than a tech guru. "They want someone who understands technology issues, but more importantly, knows how to get things done in Washington," says a cybersecurity expert who has been consulted by the White House. "There are very few people who have that combination of skills, and Davis is at the top of that short list."

First, it’s one thing to name a Republican to a post, but yet another to name the former head of the Congressional re-election campaign. When Davis headed the NRCC, after all, he did two things of questionable ethics which surely hurt Democrats’ cause. It was under his leadership, after all, that the NRCC made some changes (the permission for outside employment, and the lumping of all committee accounts into one) that laid the groundwork for the money laundering problems discovered last year.

While I was buried in the White House’s amazing email fraud yesterday, the Politico posted an article further developing the NRCC accounting story. The Politico describes three roots to the accounting fraud. The NRCC no longer required executive committee approval for certain expenditures, it consolidated all its accounts, and it permitted people to work outside the NRCC.

Under Virginia Rep. Tom Davis and New York Rep. Thomas Reynolds, who chaired the committee from 1999 until the end of 2006, the NRCC waived rules requiring the executive committee — made up of elected leaders and rank-and-file Republican lawmakers — to sign off on expenditures exceeding $10,000, merged the various department budgets into a single account and rolled back a prohibition on committee staff earning an income from outside companies.

These changes gave committee staffers more freedom to spend money quickly and react to a shifting political landscape during heated campaign battles, and House Republicans were able to claim larger majorities after the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections.

Read more →

Share this entry

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