参议院调查报告

1、_REPORT OFTHE PRELIMINARY INQUIRYINTO THE MATTER OFSENATOR JOHN E. ENSIGN_SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATESSENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICSBYCAROL ELDER BRUCE, SPECIAL COUNSELMAY 10, 2011TABLE OF CONTENTSPageI.INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS1A.Introduction1B.Summary of Findings3The Special Counse

2、l Recommends Referrals to the Department of Justiceand the Federal Election Commission7II. FINDINGS OF FACT7A.Factual Background 7B.Senator Ensign s Affair with Cynthia Hampton101.Mr. Hampton s Discovery of the Affair12Mr. Hampton Seeks Assistance to End the Affair and anIntervention Is Held133.The

3、Affair Continues until July 200814C.Senator Ensign Plans for Transition Finances for Mr. Hampton15Senator Ensign Arranges a Consulting Firm Position for Doug HamptonAfter Terminating Mr. Hampton16The Senator Has Extensive Discussions with Doug Hampton aboutSeverance Payments17The Senator s Father Ma

4、kes a Payment of $96,000 from the EnsignFamily Trust to the Hamptons19G.Mr. Hampton Receives Excessive Unused Vacation Pay20H.Senator Ensign Takes Action Surrounding Mr. Hamptons Post-Employment Lobbying21Senator Ensign Takes Steps to Reduce Records Retention, Communicate Off of the Senate Server, a

5、nd MinimizeContacts with the Ethics Committee21Senator Ensign Takes Efforts to Persuade and CompelConstituents to Hire Mr. Hampton22I.Mr. Hampton Departs and Immediately Lobbies Senator Ensigns Staff23J.Senator Ensign and John Lopez Agree to Channel Mr. HamptonsLobbying Contacts Through Mr. Lopez27S

6、enator Ensign and John Lopez Assist Allegiant AirlinesBased on Mr. Hamptons Lobbying29i2.John Lopez Assists Mr. Hamptons Client Entravision333.Mr. Hampton Lobbies Senator Ensigns Office on Behalf ofNV Energy34Mr. Hampton Requests Help in Developing RelationshipsBetween Allegiant Airlines and Federal

7、 Officials35Mr. Hampton Hires a Lawyer and Raises Damage Claims; Senator CoburnHandles Negotiations with Senator Ensign37Senator Ensign Discloses the Affair to His Staff and the Public in June2009381.The Senator Speaks of Making the Hamptons Whole 38Senator Ensign Makes Journal Entries Describing th

8、ePayment to the Hamptons39Senator Ensign Makes Draft Public Statements Referring to aSeverance Payment404.Based on Advice from Senator Ensigns Attorney, His StaffRemoves All References to Payments in the Final PublicStatement41Mr. Hampton Reveals in Public That the Senator MadePayments to the Hampto

9、ns42Michael Ensign, Sharon Ensign, and Senator Ensign SubmitAffidavits to the FEC Regarding the Payment43There Was No Evidence Supporting the Assertion inthe FEC Affidavits That the Senior Ensigns Paid forthe HamptonsTrip to Hawaii44b.Michael and Sharon Ensign s Payment to theHamptons Greatly Exceed

10、s Other Gifts Given toNon-Ensign Family Members45The Senator s Chief of Staff Misleads the Public Regarding SenatorEnsign s Actions and Mr. Hamptons Lobbying Efforts46III.SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRY INVESTIGATION47A.The Request for Investigation of Senator Ensign47B.The Preliminary Inquiry47Initi

11、al Document Productions, Witness Interviews, andDepositions48Retention of Special Counsel to Assist with PreliminaryInquiry49Additional Document Production and ForensicImaging49iib.Additional Depositions and Immunized Testimony50C.The Retirement and Resignation of Senator Ensign51IV.FINDINGS OF THE

12、SPECIAL COUNSEL51There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired toViolate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hamptons Violations of The PostEmployment Contact Ban, 18 U.S.C20751Mr. Hampton s Contacts Were Not Exempt asInformationalContacts51Contacts by Covered Persons Are Illegal Even

13、If theRequested Action Would Have Been Taken in Any Event523.Evidence of Aiding and Abetting534.Evidence of Conspiracy55B.Findings Concerning the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons56There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment Was Severance and the Evidence Does Not Support Claims Thatthe Pa

14、yment Was a Gift56There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Made False or Misleading Statements Concerning thePayment to the Hamptons57There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the PaymentViolated Senate Rule 38 and Statutory Prohibitions onUnofficial Accounts with Respect to Mr.

15、Hampton58There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment withRespect to Ms. Hampton Constituted an Unlawful andUnreported Campaign Contribution59Even if Senator Ensign s Assertions That the Payment Was a Gift Were Credible, Senate Rule 35 Would Have BeenViolated60There Is Substantial Credibl

16、e Evidence That Senator Ensign PermittedSpoliation and Engaged in Obstruction of Justice61There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Engaged in Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate, Including Violations ofHis Own Senate Office Policies621.The Applicable Standard622.Application

17、 of the Improper Conduct Standard63V.RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION67iiiKEY INDIVIDUALS & PRIMARY AFFILIATIONSDaniel AlbregtsCounsel for Cindy and Doug HamptonBrooke AllmonDirector of Nevada Policy for Senator EnsignDick BoutsDepartment of InteriorBrian ChatwinLegislative Assistant for Senator Ensig

18、nSenator Tom CoburnUnited States Senator (ROklahoma)Tim CoeFellowship FoundationSenator John EnsignUnited States Senator (RNevada)Darlene EnsignSenator Ensign s wifeMichael EnsignSenator Ensign s fatherSharon EnsignSenator Ensign s motherRebecca FisherDirector of Communications for Senator EnsignMau

19、ry GallagherChief Executive Officer, Allegiant AirChris GoberOutside Counsel for Senator Ensign at Fish &Richardson P.C.Simon GrosAssistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, U.S.Department of TransportationBruce HamptonTreasurer for The Ensign Family Trust (no relation toDoug or Cindy Hampton)Cind

20、y HamptonCampaign treasurer for Ensign for Senate and BattleBornPAC; wife of Douglas HamptonDouglas HamptonFriend of Senator Ensigns; Administrative Assistant toSenator Ensign; husband of Cindy HamptonPonder HarrisonVice President, Allegiant Air, NevadaTinna JacksonDeputy Chief of Staff for Senator

21、EnsignYorick JuraniInformation Systems Manager for Senator EnsignStarla LacyNV Energy, NevadaJohn LopezChief of Staff for Senator EnsignivNick LowrySenior Attorney, U.S. Department of TransportationOffice of Aviation Enforcement and ProceedingsTory MazzolaDirector of Communications for Senator Ensig

22、nMatt MesmerAttorney, Senate Select Committee on EthicsJason MulvihillChief Counsel and Legislative Director for SenatorEnsignDavid QuinaltyLegislative Assistant for Senator EnsignRachel RobertsScheduler for Senator EnsignSig RogichRogich Communications GroupLindsey SlankerNovember Inc.Mike SlankerN

23、ovember Inc.Paul SteelmanSteelman PartnersMarty ShermanFellowship FoundationPam ThiessenLegislative Director for Senator EnsignvGLOSSARYBattleBorn PACSenator Ensign s Political Action CommitteeCAACongressional Accountability ActCACIE-discovery vendor employed by SSCECODELCongressional Delegation tri

24、pCommitteeUnited States Senate Select Committee on EthicsCREWCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in WashingtonDOTU.S. Department of TransportationEEOCEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionEFSEnsign For Senate- Senator Ensign s CampaignCommitteeEISEnvironmental Impact StatementFAAFederal Aviation

25、 AdministrationFECFederal Election CommissionFECAFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971ManualSenate Ethics ManualNRSCNational Republican Senatorial CommitteeReportReport of Special Counsel Carol Elder BruceRPCRepublican Policy CommitteeSAAU.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms and DoorkeeperSSCESenate Select C

26、ommittee on EthicsviINTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGSA.IntroductionThe United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics ( SSCE or Committee ), assisted by Special Counsel, conducted a Preliminary Inquiry into certain conduct of Senator John E. Ensign.1 The scope of the Preliminary Inquiry included

27、 an examination into allegations that Senator Ensign violated Senate rules and federal law, including provisions of the criminal code, and/or engaged in conduct that reflecting discredit upon the United States Senate regarding the termination of Doug Hampton s Senate employment, Mr. Hampton s post-e

28、mployment contacts with the Senate, and payments made to the Hamptons, and any other matters as the Committee may direct.On April 21, 2011, as the Preliminary Inquiry neared its conclusion, Senator Ensign announced he would resign as the 24th Senator from the State of Nevada. Senator Ensign s resign

29、ation was effective May 3, 2011, the day before his sworn deposition was scheduled to begin.2 Although Senator Ensign s resignation divests the Committee of jurisdiction to impose discipline on him as of its effective date, Special Counsel, as required by the governing Resolution and Rules of the Se

30、nate, tenders this Report to the Committee for its consideration in the exercise of its continuing authority, obligations, and discretion under the Resolution and Rules.The Committee s investigation began after it received a complaint on June 24, 2009, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

31、Washington ( CREW ). CREW supplemented that complaint on October 6, 2009. These filings presented allegations of sexual harassment/employment discrimination, post-employment ban violations, and issues related to payments to Douglas and Cynthia Hampton, Senator Ensign s former Administrative Assistan

32、t and campaign treasurer.Based on these serious allegations and other information available to it, the Committee undertook an extensive Preliminary Inquiry as provided by Rule 3 of its Supplementary Procedural Rules. Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America

33、provides that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. Under the Committee s authorizing resolution, Senate Resolution 338, 88 th Cong. 2d Sess. (1964) ( S. Res. 338 ), the Committee is

34、 empowered to investigate not only violations of law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and the rules and regulations of the Senate, but alsoimproper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate. While Senators are expected to comply with all laws, Senate Rules and Standards of Conduct, the Senate a

35、nd the Committee have made clear that a Senator s obligations of ethical behavior go beyond this:1Special Counsel Carol Elder Bruce was appointed on January 31, 2011.2Since the very beginning of the investigation, Committee staff has been in communication with Senator Ensign through his counsel and

36、offered him the opportunity to provide any information or legal arguments he wanted the Committee to consider, and he has availed himself of this opportunity. Special Counsel continued this policy after her appointment.1Certain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to be unethical and

37、 improper even though such conduct may not necessarily have violated any written law, or Senate rule or regulation. Such conduct has been characterized as improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, and has provided the basis for the Senate s most serious disciplinary cases in modern times.3

38、During the course of the 22 month investigation, Committee staff, later joined by Special Counsel, conducted 72 witness interviews and depositions, including members of Senator Ensign s current and former staff and numerous third parties. The staffs for the Committee and Special Counsel also reviewe

39、d over a half million documents received from numerous sources, including Senator Ensign and his staff. Included in the materials reviewed were hundreds of documents previously withheld or not disclosed that were produced after the Special Counsel was appointed and challenged the basis for the non-d

40、isclosure.Special Counsel was careful not to seek intimate details of the extramarital affair referenced in the initial complaint. Whether a person is unfaithful to his or her spouse is generally the couple s own business to deal with, perhaps, in private communications with wronged spouses, marriag

41、e counselors, and others, and to surface the infidelity only if and when there is some public complaint or settlement made (such as in divorce proceedings or private resolutions). Reconciliation or resolution in private can protect the families involved and serve the greater good. This is no less tr

42、ue if one of the individuals is a public official . This case, however, involved two individuals whose employment and financial well being were dependent upon the Senator who employed them. This situation placed these individuals in a particularly vulnerable situation.Further, although concealment i

43、s part of the anatomy of an affair, the concealment conduct in this case by Senator Ensign exceeded the normal acts of discretion and created a web of deceit that entangled and compromised numerous people, including a loyal Chief of Staff, was an abuse of the Senators power, and raised serious issue

44、s of violations within the Committees jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of the affair itself and the concealment activities are presented only to the extent relevant to establish the basis and context of the actions that led to the alleged violations.As will be developed below, it is Special Coun

45、sel s determination that substantial credible evidence exists that gives substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign engaged in violations of law and of Senate Rules within the Committee s jurisdiction under S. Res. 338, as amended, including improper conduct which reflects upon the Senate und

46、er Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338. Had Senator Ensign not resigned the Special Counsel would have recommended that the Committee initiate an adjudicatory review for the purpose of considering the appropriateness of disciplinary action against the Senator. The Special Counsel is confident that the ev

47、idence that would have been presented in an adjudicatory hearing would have been substantial and sufficient to warrant the consideration of the sanction of expulsion. Special Counsel notes,3Senate Ethics Manual ( Manual ), Appendix E, at 432.2though, that Senator Ensign, by resigning before the Spec

48、ial Counsel could question him under oath in a deposition about the facts, did not have the opportunity to challenge factual assertions and evidence, the Special Counsel s interpretation of the facts, or the strength of the case against him.B.Summary of FindingsBased on the record in this matter, th

49、e Special Counsel respectfully submits that there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign violated Senate Rules and federal civil and criminal laws, and engaged in improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate, thus betraying the public trust an

50、d bringing discredit to the Senate. The following summarizes the Special Counsel s findings.There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired toViolate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hamptons Violations of The Post 207.oSenator Ensign facilitated Mr. Hamptons unlawful post-employmentl

51、obbying by pressuring contributors and constituents to hire Mr. Hampton even though he had no public policy experience or value as a lobbyist other than access to the Senator and his office. For example, when a prominent Nevada constituent declined to hire Mr. Hampton, Senator Ensign instructed John

52、 Lopez, his Chief of Staff, to jack him up to high heaven and inform the constituent that he was cut off from Senator Ensign and could not contact him any longer.oSenator Ensign agreed with Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez, to have Mr. Lopez be the point person for Mr. Hampton s contacts with the Senator s

53、 office in order to provide Mr. Hampton with the necessary assistance for his lobbying efforts during his post-employment period, and not for the purpose of making certain that Mr. Hampton complied with lobbying restrictions.oContemporaneous email communications reveal that Senator Ensign agreed to

54、and encouraged the improper contacts between Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez. Additionally, according to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign wanted himto assist Mr. Hampton, and wanted itout of sight, out of mind,so that Mr.Lopez couldtake the heat on his the Senator s behalf.oMr. Hampton improperly contacted Senat

55、or Ensign s office regarding at least twelve different client matters, and initiated at least thirty improper contacts to Senator Ensign s office and various other Senate offices during his one-year post-employment ban period.Senator Ensign communicated with Mr. Hampton and took action on behalf of

56、his clients, including the following matters, among others, which are explained in detail in this Report: (1) a Department of Transportation3( DOT ) enforcement action that was successfully resolved with a small fine; (2) a draft environmental impact study; and (3) facilitating high-level meetings b

57、etween one of Mr. Hampton s clients and the DOT Secretary, as well as other Senators.oBefore and after Mr. Hampton s termination and during the time period when the Senator was helping Mr. Hampton get clients, Senator Ensign instituted office policies that had the effect of making Mr. Hampton s cont

58、acts harder to detect, including a shredding policy, discouraging use of official Senate email accounts in favor of Gmail, and directing that all inquiries of the Committee go through Mr. Lopez, the person he directed to interact with Mr. Hampton.There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator E

59、nsign and His Parents Made False or Misleading Statements to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons.A $96,000 payment to Mr. Hampton, Ms. Hampton, and two of their three children from the Ensign Family Trust Fund, made at the time theHamptons were terminated fr

60、om the Senator s employ, constituted a severance payment, and Senator Ensign s affidavit to the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) that the payment was not severance is false.oSenator Ensign referred to the payment as severance on multiple occasions, including: (1) during an emergency staff meeting