Why Sen. Ensign should be worried about possible indictment

LasVegas Sun

Sunday, April 4, 2010 | 2 a.m.

In the federal penal code, it is known as “structuring.”

And it is a word Sen. John Ensign should remember because it is very
likely to be on any indictment with his name on it.

That’s what I am told by a reliable source familiar with the
deliberations occurring inside the Justice Department as federal
authorities in Washington try to do with Ensign what they could not do
with former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens: Get their man. Or, because they had
Stevens and then lost him because of misconduct, Justice wants to make
sure if it goes to the next step with Ensign, the charges stick.

Structuring is a broad term that refers to the crime of creating
financial transactions to evade reporting requirements — for example, a
$96,000 payment to your mistress laundered through a trust controlled by
your parents and calling it a “gift” instead of what it obviously was: a
severance payment that had to be reported.

That the feds are looking at structuring as a possible crime will not
surprise many old hands who have watched the sordid Ensign saga play
out, morphing from a fairly grotesque
he-slept-with-his-best-friend’s-wife-who-was-also-his-wife’s-best-friend
story to a fantastically creepy tale of a senator trying to keep the
cuckolded husband quiet by any means necessary, including, perhaps,
structuring transactions with businesses in exchange for campaign
contributions.

Maybe Ensign won’t be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?

Two former federal prosecutors in the past two weeks have said there is
enough evidence to indict Ensign. “Just based on what the senator has
said himself and what Mr. (Doug) Hampton has said … under the federal
standard of probable cause, there’s enough to indict the senator now,”
ex-prosecutor Stan Hunterton, a well-respected local attorney, said
March 19 on “Face to Face.” Then, Thursday on the program, Melanie
Sloan, the former federal prosecutor who now heads a D.C. watchdog group
that has filed several complaints against Ensign, said, “I completely
think” Hunterton is right.

The question is how Justice might, ahem, structure a deal with Ensign.
It is clear from observers — and from those who know the thinking inside
the Justice Department — that the Stevens debacle has cast a shadow over
the Ensign case.

The department is being very deliberate in assembling a case against
Ensign. But Justice has a mountain of documents and e-mails that,
combined with the senator’s own admissions or statements in e-mails,
would seem to amount to a formidable case. And last week’s New York
Times story, showing how Ensign’s contacts with a local company (similar
to several other interactions), show how far the senator was willing to
go to get Hampton work, mostly while he was employed by ex-Ensign aides
who had formed a lobbying/consulting firm. The structure, so to speak,
is becoming more transparent all the time.

This drip-drip-drip of revelation seems to have left Ensign unfazed,
like a man who is slowly drowning but believes he can rise above it —
or, perhaps, deludes himself into thinking he can walk on water. But as
Republicans here and in Washington play the pathetic see-no-evil,
hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil game vis-a-vis Ensign, it is becoming more
obvious that their craven behavior could be self-defeating.

If Ensign gets indicted, he will become a national and state nightmare
for the GOP. National Democrats will brandish him as a symbol of
corruption (they may anyhow) and local Democrats will wrap the junior
senator around the GOP Senate nominee’s neck, especially because Sue
Lowden and Danny Tarkanian foolishly have said they would welcome his
support. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid directly go after his pal to boost his sagging fortunes. I
can hear it now: “Sorry, John. But now you know how Doug Hampton feels —
how it feels to be screwed over by your best friend.”

Why are the national and state Republicans mute? Cowardice, perhaps? Or
is it, as NBC political guru Chuck Todd tweeted Friday, repeating
something he previously said on “Face to Face” a couple of weeks ago:
“NV/DC GOPers desperate to wait for Gov. Gibbons to be out of office
before pushing Ensign out but can they really (http://nyti.ms/91kElt)?”

The Web link in Todd’s tweet is to last week’s Times story, emphasizing
the point that if the Republicans wait too long, their silence could be
very costly. And if Ensign gets indicted and no prominent Republican has
called for him to resign, there’s no way to structure that deal to the
GOP’s benefit.
--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:32:56 -0400, hk
wrote:

Maybe Ensign won't be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?


After what I have seen in the last 60 years, nothing surprises me in
DC


I'm not quite so ancient.. lol... but the one thing that did surprise me
recently was Obama's election. I really didn't think we had it in us. It
gave me hope for the future. I know... I know... Here comes the attack from
the righties...

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 05/04/2010 3:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:32:56 -0400,
wrote:

Maybe Ensign won't be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?


After what I have seen in the last 60 years, nothing surprises me in
DC


I'm not quite so ancient.. lol... but the one thing that did surprise me
recently was Obama's election. I really didn't think we had it in us. It
gave me hope for the future. I know... I know... Here comes the attack from
the righties...

Not an attack, just a simple observation.

If I was a loser, hanger, messed up my life and hopelessly screwed
myself with low moral context I too would vote Obama. After all, he is
promising "free" health care with other peoples money. Bails out losers
too with other peoples money. He promises to screw those who did it
right (rich) so my ass is confortable. Hell, I wouldn't care about DC
bankruptcy, that is someone elses problem in the future. Yep, I hear ya.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 05/04/2010 3:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:32:56 -0400,
wrote:

Maybe Ensign won't be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for
not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?


After what I have seen in the last 60 years, nothing surprises me in
DC


I'm not quite so ancient.. lol... but the one thing that did surprise me
recently was Obama's election. I really didn't think we had it in us. It
gave me hope for the future. I know... I know... Here comes the attack
from
the righties...

Not an attack, just a simple observation.

If I was a loser, hanger, messed up my life and hopelessly screwed myself
with low moral context I too would vote Obama. After all, he is promising
"free" health care with other peoples money. Bails out losers too with
other peoples money. He promises to screw those who did it right (rich)
so my ass is confortable. Hell, I wouldn't care about DC bankruptcy, that
is someone elses problem in the future. Yep, I hear ya.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


As usual, you've displayed your total lack of awareness of those things
external to you and to your own problems.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 05/04/2010 3:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:32:56 -0400,
wrote:

Maybe Ensign won't be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for
not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?

After what I have seen in the last 60 years, nothing surprises me in
DC

I'm not quite so ancient.. lol... but the one thing that did surprise me
recently was Obama's election. I really didn't think we had it in us. It
gave me hope for the future. I know... I know... Here comes the attack
from
the righties...
Not an attack, just a simple observation.

If I was a loser, hanger, messed up my life and hopelessly screwed myself
with low moral context I too would vote Obama. After all, he is promising
"free" health care with other peoples money. Bails out losers too with
other peoples money. He promises to screw those who did it right (rich)
so my ass is confortable. Hell, I wouldn't care about DC bankruptcy, that
is someone elses problem in the future. Yep, I hear ya.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


As usual, you've displayed your total lack of awareness of those things
external to you and to your own problems.

Cut the crap.

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 05/04/2010 3:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:32:56 -0400,
wrote:

Maybe Ensign won't be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for
not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be
re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?

After what I have seen in the last 60 years, nothing surprises me in
DC

I'm not quite so ancient.. lol... but the one thing that did surprise
me
recently was Obama's election. I really didn't think we had it in us.
It
gave me hope for the future. I know... I know... Here comes the attack
from
the righties...
Not an attack, just a simple observation.

If I was a loser, hanger, messed up my life and hopelessly screwed
myself with low moral context I too would vote Obama. After all, he is
promising "free" health care with other peoples money. Bails out losers
too with other peoples money. He promises to screw those who did it
right (rich) so my ass is confortable. Hell, I wouldn't care about DC
bankruptcy, that is someone elses problem in the future. Yep, I hear
ya.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


As usual, you've displayed your total lack of awareness of those things
external to you and to your own problems.

Cut the crap.


Touched a nerve I see... perhaps you should talk to your doctor.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:48:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:32:56 -0400, hk
wrote:

Maybe Ensign won't be indicted. Maybe he will resign in exchange for not
being indicted. Maybe he will serve out his term or even be re-elected.
Would that be any more incredible than anything else we have seen?


After what I have seen in the last 60 years, nothing surprises me in
DC


I'm not quite so ancient.. lol... but the one thing that did surprise me
recently was Obama's election. I really didn't think we had it in us. It
gave me hope for the future.

I was interested in Obama until I figured out he was just more of the
same. In spite of what the right is saying, Obama looks like the 5th
Bush brother to me. His administration is loaded with former Bush and
Clinton people. The policies are not significantly different. Even the
much vaunted health care reform ended up being a stimulus package for
the same people we were allegedly trying to reform.

When did your interest change? Before or after the election? Did you vote
for him?

I disagree that he's loaded his administration as you suggest. He picked
great people for tough jobs, without regard (mostly) for politics.

I know the tea party is a running joke and they have attracted a lot
of whackos but they do ask a fundamental question. How long can we
continue to spend 66% more than we make as a country, borrowing the
rest from people who don't necessarily have our best interests in
mind?

It's a legitimate question, but unfortunately they are so incoherent that
they are a joke.

We may say we are in a recovery but we will need about a 170% growth
rate, just to stay even. We are no where near that and we certainly
can't do it within a carbon cap.

You're just making up numbers. The recession is officially over.
Unemployment has stablized. Things are mending, Iraq is winding down... all
seems pretty good to me. Sure, there are issues, but the sky isn't
falling... sorry, but it isn't.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:34:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was interested in Obama until I figured out he was just more of the
same. In spite of what the right is saying, Obama looks like the 5th
Bush brother to me. His administration is loaded with former Bush and
Clinton people. The policies are not significantly different. Even the
much vaunted health care reform ended up being a stimulus package for
the same people we were allegedly trying to reform.

When did your interest change? Before or after the election? Did you vote
for him?
About March of 2008 when he started quibbling on "change" and decided
Bush was right on *some* of the wars.

So, you think we should have just let bygones be bygones and not gone after
bin laden? He was in Afg. and Bush never followed through there.

By July it was clear he was on Bush's schedule in Iraq and
Afghanistan, even pushing it out a few years.

Bush's schedule? More like Iraq's schedule for us to leave, which we're on
track to do.

I still say we will be there when Obama leaves ... unless we have a
Vietnam moment and leave off the roof in a helicopter.

By there, you're talking about Afg? I suppose we may have a presence there
for a while. I doubt it'll be heavy duty military.


I disagree that he's loaded his administration as you suggest. He picked
great people for tough jobs, without regard (mostly) for politics.


If you hire all the same people and do the same thing, why would you
expect change?

He didn't hire "all the same people" and he isn't "do(ing) the same thing."


I know the tea party is a running joke and they have attracted a lot
of whackos but they do ask a fundamental question. How long can we
continue to spend 66% more than we make as a country, borrowing the
rest from people who don't necessarily have our best interests in
mind?

It's a legitimate question, but unfortunately they are so incoherent that
they are a joke.

I think that is just the way the press covers them.

No. They're incoherent. Even Faux News can't keep things straight.

Perot made the same points and he was a punch line.

Perot seemed pretty good until he went paranoid. Then, he became a punch
line.

The US did end up following most of his advice and did make a dent in
the deficit for a few months.

Well, if you're talking about doing some common-sense things, ok. But, you
can't really claim he was the author of them.


We may say we are in a recovery but we will need about a 170% growth
rate, just to stay even. We are no where near that and we certainly
can't do it within a carbon cap.

You're just making up numbers. The recession is officially over.
Unemployment has stablized. Things are mending, Iraq is winding down...
all
seems pretty good to me. Sure, there are issues, but the sky isn't
falling... sorry, but it isn't.

--

Which number? We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, that is a
fact that you can find many places.
The rest are just what happens when you turn that over. If you make 60
and spend 100 you are spending 166.% of your revenue. 170% is really
not enough growth to cover the interest and stay even.
The reality is, the various ponzi schemes we have in the entitlements
will require unbelievable growth in GDP to remain sustainable.

You're acting like there will never be any reform or readjustment in
anything... that's highly unlikely.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:31:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

When did your interest change? Before or after the election? Did you
vote
for him?
About March of 2008 when he started quibbling on "change" and decided
Bush was right on *some* of the wars.

So, you think we should have just let bygones be bygones and not gone
after
bin laden? He was in Afg. and Bush never followed through there.

Bin Laden was in Pakistan by the time Obama came along. We have no
reason to be there.

My understanding is that if we aren't in that area, and Pakistan pushes him,
he'll return. There are plenty of supporters of his on both sides of the
border.



By July it was clear he was on Bush's schedule in Iraq and
Afghanistan, even pushing it out a few years.

Bush's schedule? More like Iraq's schedule for us to leave, which we're on
track to do.

I will be shocked if we ever leave Iraq.

Depends on your definition of "leave." I think we'll be there in some
capacity for a long time. I think we'll be honoring our agreement with the
Iraqi gov't to leave in the next year or so.


I still say we will be there when Obama leaves ... unless we have a
Vietnam moment and leave off the roof in a helicopter.

By there, you're talking about Afg? I suppose we may have a presence there
for a while. I doubt it'll be heavy duty military.


That is more dangerous than Iraq.

Afg. is definitely more dangerous for a number of reasons.



I disagree that he's loaded his administration as you suggest. He picked
great people for tough jobs, without regard (mostly) for politics.


If you hire all the same people and do the same thing, why would you
expect change?

He didn't hire "all the same people" and he isn't "do(ing) the same
thing."

The financial people are the same.

Many of the financial people are the same. Many are not. I don't think he
can be condemned for this.




The US did end up following most of his advice and did make a dent in
the deficit for a few months.

Well, if you're talking about doing some common-sense things, ok. But, you
can't really claim he was the author of them.

Perot and his charts were what focused people on why the deficit was
bad, we need that again.

But deficits are only bad if we ignore them. We are certainly not doing
that. A deep recession requires deficit spending to stimulate the economy.
It's an economic fact (and there aren't really too many of those).



We may say we are in a recovery but we will need about a 170% growth
rate, just to stay even. We are no where near that and we certainly
can't do it within a carbon cap.

You're just making up numbers. The recession is officially over.
Unemployment has stablized. Things are mending, Iraq is winding down...
all
seems pretty good to me. Sure, there are issues, but the sky isn't
falling... sorry, but it isn't.

--

Which number? We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, that is a
fact that you can find many places.
The rest are just what happens when you turn that over. If you make 60
and spend 100 you are spending 166.% of your revenue. 170% is really
not enough growth to cover the interest and stay even.
The reality is, the various ponzi schemes we have in the entitlements
will require unbelievable growth in GDP to remain sustainable.

You're acting like there will never be any reform or readjustment in
anything... that's highly unlikely.

I sure haven't seen any indication that the government is willing to
address this problem. They keep kicking the can down the road and
hoping they will be out of office before the system crashes.
Unfortunately the only real answer is to cut back on entitlements or
raise taxes to an intolerable level. I am starting to hear rumblings
of the VAT tax again.

Reform is coming, assuming there are enough sensible Republicans around. I
think ultimately some taxes will need to be raised and some entitlements
cut. It depends on which and for whom. VAT is likely DOA for a number of
reasons.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:18:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think the bottom line is the whole crusade in Afghanistan was a
wasted effort. As soon as we leave things will go back to the way they
were.

I'm not sure that would be a good thing, given that's where 9/11 was
hatched.

I am not even convinced Saddam was the problem for us that we made him
out to be. If this was really supposed to be about oil it was really
silly. Saddam would have been very happy to sell us cheap oil.

He was a problem, but he was contained... not perfectly, but well enough
that he wasn't much of a threat.


Iraq was all about Israel, as Iran is now.

I don't follow... Iraq wasn't really threatening Israel... not that Saddam
didn't want to, but he really wasn't dumb enough to try anything overt.


As for the debt and deficit, I don't see anyone doing anything serious
to fix it. Cutting entitlements or raising taxes are both politically
impossible right now. These "soak the rich" schemes are good press but
in the grand scheme of things the money raised is insignificant.

And, your solution is....

--
Nom=de=Plume