The Clinton Foundation: It depends on how you define “is”

When Barack Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, he made her appointment contingent on her husband revealing the contributors to his foundation in order to avoid any questions about potential conflicts of interest. The foundation subsequently disclosed its donors– after refusing to list them for a decade– and it turned out they included many “governments, corporations and billionaires with their own interests in U.S. foreign policy”.

Yet try getting an answer now from the foundation about its donors. I’ve been trying all week to see if Gulnara Karimova (daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan) or any companies she owns have given money to the foundation, and I can’t get a reply. I have heard from a source that Gulnara is a donor, directly or indirectly, but I don’t have any solid evidence of that. Either way, the foundation appears to be quite unwilling to honor its pledge of “openness.” It’s all in the tradition of the foundation’s titular head.

Note: Thanks to all the readers who wrote about the story. Many pointed me to sections of Gulnara’s website, like this one on propaganda. A number also noted that the picture on the site showing Gulnara with Bill Clinton mistakenly refers to the former president as “Senator Bill Clinton.” As one reader wrote to the magazine, “It would have been well for Mr. Silverstein to highlight this error, as it displays Karimova’s obvious unconcern to relay factual information.”

Absolute Last Word on Soccer: Fans make PETA activists look open-minded

Not since endorsing horse slaughter have I received so many angry emails from readers of this blog as I have in response to my recent posts about the lamentable American soccer team. Really, American soccer fans need to lighten up; the anti-horse-slaughter crowd had a much better sense of humor. Also, fans might want to channel some of their energy and passion into more enlightened causes than soccer, such as ending world hunger and homelessness.

Given the flood of emails, I feel compelled to write a short reply.

Many of the recent emailers have attacked me for rooting for Brazil because it is such a strong team. “Wow, it must be tough to root for the best team in the world. Way to go out on a limb there…frontrunner. You remind me of kids I went to school with that suddenly were Bulls or Cowboys fans,” one wrote. Others said that rooting for Brazil was as disgusting as rooting for the New York Yankees.

Here’s the truth: I do root for the Yankees. I love Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter in particular.

And that’s it from me. You can keep writing but not another word from me on the topic until the U.S. is, inevitably and joyfully, eliminated in the first round of the 2010 World Cup.

Washington Post and Reporters For Sale to Highest Bidder

From Politico:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it’s a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.” Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …

Does the Post have any credibility left?

For Your Morning Viewing Pleasure

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report were both unmissable last night.

The former featured segments on Iraq and Dick Cheney (whose balls are so big they can be seen from Google Earth) and media coverage of Michael Jackson. The latter has segments on Senator Al Franken and whether Americans should now care about soccer.

Enjoy. The Cheney segment in particular must be seen.

Clinton Boner Picture Identified

Yesterday I posted an item describing a picture (sent to me by several sources) of former President Bill Clinton posing for the camera with Gulnara Karimova, daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan and a woman widely accused of corruption and thuggery. I didn’t post the picture because I wasn’t sure who owned the rights, but a reader emailed me to say that I could find a copy at Gulnara’s personal website, so here it is. (Incidentally, for a taste of just how vile Gulnara is, spend a few moments on her site.)

The picture turns out to have been taken at an AIDS fundraiser held last May at the Cannes Film Festival. There are also pictures on the site of Gulnara at the same event with Kanye West and Steven Seagal. Those two may or may not know who Gulnara is, but Clinton surely does. For him to pose with her, and allow her to use the picture to seek to enhance her legitimacy, is wrong no matter what the charity event.

Still no reply from the Clinton Foundation about the picture or whether Gulnara, her companies, or her minions have made any contributions. I’ll update this post if I ever hear back.

More on the Awful American Soccer Team

I received dozens of replies to yesterday’s post about why I hate the American soccer team and was so happy to see it seize defeat from the jaws of victory in the Confederation Cup final against Brazil. The replies were overwhelmingly negative and a few were nasty (”You are embarrassing to our nation, the sport and journalism”). I’ll publish a few below. Thanks to everyone for writing, even Matt Horton, who sent that last comment (and I published the most civilized sentence of his tirade).

I don’t have time to respond to all the emails, but two things. First, to all those — including the editor of this blog — who said I don’t know anything about soccer, I lived in Brazil for five years and have seen many games, and even covered a few when I worked for the Associated Press. I have watched every World Cup since 1990 and have not missed a single game of Brazil’s in all that time. So I do know something about the game — and yes, of course, Brazil is my favorite team, which is why the American collapse last Sunday was especially delicious — and I recognize good soccer. The United States does not play good soccer; the national team has forever been boring, mostly talentless (Landon Donovan among the few exceptions) and specializes in choking on the rare occasion that it manages to get ahead of a good team.

Second, various emailers accused me of hating the United States and rooting against the team for “political” reasons. That’s just stupid. I root for American baseball and basketball teams in international competitions. I just hate the soccer team, for the reason I stated in the original piece and because it’s filled with a bunch of losers. I wish them continued defeat and heartache in the World Cup.

Meanwhile, here are a few comments:

From Matt Smith:

Don’t be such a jerk. It’s a first for American football fans to see our country in a FIFA Final Cup match. The reason why people enjoyed seeing the US play the best team in the world is a lot like seeing George Mason take on Florida in 2006. Was it probable? No chance. Were they going to win the NCAA Championship? Probably not, but we—Americans—like the underdog, and it’s deeply rooted in our history.

Wait a few years before you start hating on U.S. Soccer. Besides, find another country to cheer for after we lose in the World Cup.

From Brandon West:

I disagree with your piece, but I will acknowledge that we shouldn’t expect the U.S. to be competing with the best from now on. But to suggest that the U.S. never belonged in the competition is a little bit much. The U.S. team has been largely the dominant program in our conference, and is beginning to give Mexico a run for its money. They have been ranked ahead of Mexico for some time now, this isn’t completely a [new] phenomenon that we are practically the best team in the CONCACAF, which is how we got into the competition in the first place.

From David Cody:

I have no idea if the U.S. soccer team is mediocre now, but they certainly were 15 years ago, when I finally just gave up on them. You couldn’t find a better example of reckless ignorance, even on television. Watching the US play soccer was like tuning in to an Olympic track meet and getting a demolition derby instead.

And my favorite, from Richard Steele, who frequently posts comments on GOAL, the New York Times blog on soccer under the moniker of boringarsenal.

Loved your response to the USA v Brazil match. As an avid follower of real football, nee soccer, I am always amused when fellow office workers chime in with following, “Hey, I watched that, what was it, the Confederations Cup, wow, it was great.” “Gee, I’m going to start watching soccer, it’s really a wonderful sport.” I spend 9 months of the year watching the Premier League and Football League matches from merry old’ England, and suddenly whenever an international match of dubious value pops up, my fellow Americans get quite worked up…Yeah, I hate ‘em, too!

Coleman Concedes: The good news and the bad news

From the New York Times:

Nearly eight months after Election Day, Al Franken, a former comedian and an author, appeared certain on Tuesday to become the next United States senator from Minnesota, giving the Democratic Party at least symbolic control over Senate filibusters.

Outside his St. Paul home, the incumbent, Norm Coleman, a Republican who had held the seat for one term, conceded the election to Mr. Franken, bringing an end to a lengthy battle that had resulted in thousands of pages of legal documents, cost tens of thousands of dollars, and had left many ordinary Minnesotans weary.

Mr. Coleman’s announcement followed a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday in Mr. Franken’s favor. There, the case had centered, in part, around whether some absentee ballots had been wrongly excluded and standards had been inconsistent, as Mr. Coleman contended.

Finally Americans will get the opportunity to see what it looks like when a filibuster-proof majority is squandered.

Clinton’s Latest Boner: Ex-president poses with dictator’s daughter

Two trusted sources have sent me a picture of former President Bill Clinton posing for the camera with a woman who the sources say is Gulnara Karimova, daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan, one of the world’s worst regimes. The picture is undated but was clearly taken recently. I haven’t published it because I don’t know who owns the rights, but I have compared it with photographs of Gulnara on the web and it certainly appears to be her.

Gulnara is not your run-of-the-mill dictator’s daughter. She may succeed her father as head of Uzbekistan and she has been implicated in a long string of scandals. Last year, the Daily Mail of London published a photograph of Gulnara with the controversial financier Nathaniel Rothschild. The accompanying story said:

[Gulnara] has had problems with the American authorities…A 36-year-old Harvard graduate, [she] was made the subject of an arrest warrant after she defied a court and took her two children by a U.S. man of Uzbek origin back to her homeland…

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, said: ‘This woman is not just the daughter of one of the most violent tyrants on Earth, she is also directly implicated in atrocities and the major beneficiary of the looting of the Uzbek state. ‘I am stunned that Rothschild would want to pose with her.’

I have contacted the Clinton Foundation to ask about the photo. I wrote:

I was sent a recent picture of Bill Clinton with Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan. She is a very controversial figure in her own right.

Has Gulnara or any of her companies given money to the foundation? Has anyone from Uzbekistan given money? if so, how much and when?

The pic looks like an official portrait. Do you have a copy i can post online?

Finally, why would President Clinton chose to associate with someone as reviled as Gulnara?

I have yet to hear back from the foundation’s press office. If I do, I will update this story immediately.

Note: There is no mention of Gulnara as a contributor on the foundation’s website.

The Evil of Sam Zell

I used to work at the Los Angeles Times and still read it online regularly, although I rarely see a hard copy. I was just in Los Angeles for a week and was surprised to see that — despite Sam Zell’s best efforts to destroy it — it’s still an exceedingly good newspaper.

There were strong stories every day I checked, especially this piece by Mike Anton about agricultural workers in the Coachella Valley, and this story by Greg Miller about soon-to-retire CIA lawyer John Rizzo (”John was kind of the legal enabler of the agency,” said a senior CIA official who worked with Rizzo and requested anonymity when discussing the agency. “His approach was always to find a way legally for the agency to do what it wanted to do.”), and this story about a six-year-old girl suffering with schizophrenia.

Hopefully the Times can rid itself of Zell soon, and leave him on the dustbin of newspaper history.

I hate the U.S. (Soccer Team)

Americans almost always interpret international sports victories as demonstrations of national superiority, so it was wonderful to watch the U.S. soccer team’s massive choke in the Confederation Cup final against Brazil. Ahead 2-0 at the half, the Americans watched helplessly as Brazil scored three goals in the second half to win. (Actually four, but the referee blew a call and failed to credit what I, watching the game on television, could see was an obvious goal by Kaka.)

All the hype in American newspapers about the national team’s second place finish obscures the fact that the U.S. team is mediocre and should never have been in the final to begin with. They lost three of their five games and stumbled into the second round by pure luck. Yes, they beat Spain, but upsets can happen on any given day, especially in a tournament where (after the first round) every match is an elimination game.

The U.S. got lucky early against Brazil, but showed its true colors by sitting back the rest of the way and being stomped into submission. It leaves me very hopeful for the team’s early exit from next year’s World Cup.

Note: Just got this email from Ivana Veljkovic:

Hi Ken,

I just read your post. I personally could not care less about soccer/football but it is really funny that, during the first half of the game, all of my non-American/non-Brazilian friends were cheering for US team. I was following their posts on Facebook and they all wanted to see Brazil, described as a team of “pompous asses”, fail and were really disappointed when Brazil eventually won. It is funny how cross-national unity works.

Readers, please keep sending your comments, even the hate mail. I will post a sampling tomorrow.

Snack Attack: Industry lobbies on junk food

From the Wall Street Journal:

The food and beverage industries are coming around to support some efforts in Washington to limit the sale of junk food in school vending machines, the Washington Post suggests. There are a few reasons for the shift.

For one thing, many companies now have divisions that could profit from a shift to healthier foods. Coca-Cola, for example, might not mind so much if kids drank less Coke— as long as they switched to Dasani water, another Coca-Cola product.

What’s more, as states look to fight childhood obesity, they’re considering taking matters into their own hands to create local regulations. A dozen states already have rules on what foods can be sold at schools, beyond the lunch line. And the industry would rather follow (and try to influence) a single, national standard, as opposed to a patchwork of state rules.

Administrative Note

Ken Silverstein is away until June 29. Washington Babylon will resume when he returns.

Obama and political triangulation: the more things change…

First see this from the Washington Post:

What does it tell you when banks, investment houses, insurance companies and derivatives traders are so pleased with their regulators that they are prepared to pull out all the stops to keep them?

What it tells me is that the current system of financial regulation has been thoroughly captured by the companies it was meant to restrain — and that the only way to put things right is to bring in new rules, a new structure and tough new regulators. Anything short of that, and you can almost guarantee that the inmates will be back in charge of the asylum by the time the next bubble starts to develop. Judged by that standard, the proposals the Obama administration put forward this week to reform the regulatory apparatus were a bit of a disappointment…

Given that we have just gone through the worst financial crisis in 75 years, one would hope that the government’s response would be something more than an exercise in political triangulation…Instead, the Obama team, hoping to ride the wave of public outrage before it crested, determined to fashion a reform proposal even before a thorough analysis could be completed. And by deciding to contort and trim their proposal to accommodate the objections from powerful interest groups and key members of Congress, members of the Obama team have now made it politically acceptable for everyone to treat this as just another special-interest free-for-all of the sort that helped cause the crisis in the first place.

Now see this from the New York Times, “Obama’s Pledge on Donations Faces Reality”:

When President Obama arrived at the Mandarin Oriental hotel for a fund-raising reception on Thursday night, the new White House rules of political purity were in order: no lobbyists allowed. But at the same downtown hotel on Friday morning, registered lobbyists have not only been invited to attend an issues conference with Democratic leaders, but they have also been asked to come with a $5,000 check in hand if they want to stay in good favor with the party’s House and Senate re-election committees.

The practicality of Mr. Obama’s pledge to change the ways of Washington is colliding once more with the reality of how money, influence and governance interact here. He repeatedly declared while campaigning last year that he would “not take a dime” from lobbyists or political action committees.

So to follow through with that promise, Mr. Obama is simply leaving the room.

Barack Hoover Obama

Kevin Baker has an excellent piece in the July issue of the magazine (available to subscribers) about the similarities between our current president and our thirty-first, Herbert Hoover:

The comparison is not meant to be flippant. It has nothing to do with the received image of Hoover, the dour, round-collared, gerbil-cheeked technocrat who looked on with indifference while the country went to pieces. To understand how dire our situation is now it is necessary to remember that when he was elected president in 1928, Herbert Hoover was widely considered the most capable public figure in the country. Hoover—like Obama—was almost certainly someone gifted with more intelligence, a better education, and a greater range of life experience than FDR. And Hoover, through the first three years of the Depression, was also the man who comprehended better than anyone else what was happening and what needed to be done. And yet he failed.

Mind you, Baker is not (like the majority of the GOP) rooting for Obama to fail:

It is impossible not to wish desperately for his success as he tries to grapple with all that confronts him: a worldwide depression, catastrophic climate change, an unjust and inadequate health-care system, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ongoing disgrace of Guant·namo, a floundering education system. Obama’s failure would be unthinkable. And yet the best indications now are that he will fail, because he will be unable—indeed he will refuse—to seize the radical moment at hand.

Every instinct the president has honed, every voice he hears in Washington, every inclination of our political culture urges incrementalism, urges deliberation, if any significant change is to be brought about. The trouble is that we are at one of those rare moments in history when the radical becomes pragmatic, when deliberation and compromise foster disaster. The question is not what can be done but what must be done.

Along comes the New York Times today with a piece by Joe Nocera about Obama’s financial regulatory “reform” plan that’s particularly interesting in tandem with Baker’s piece:

Three quarters of a century ago, President Franklin Roosevelt earned the undying enmity of Wall Street when he used his enormous popularity to push through a series of radical regulatory reforms that completely changed the norms of the financial industry. Wall Street hated the reforms, of course, but Roosevelt didn’t care. Wall Street and the financial industry had engaged in practices they shouldn’t have, and had helped lead the country into the Great Depression. Those practices had to be stopped. To the president, that’s all that mattered.

On Wednesday, President Obama unveiled what he described as “a sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system, a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression.” In terms of the sheer number of proposals, outlined in an 88-page document the administration released on Tuesday, that is undoubtedly true. But in terms of the scope and breadth of the Obama plan — and more important, in terms of its overall effect on Wall Street’s modus operandi — it’s not even close to what Roosevelt accomplished during the Great Depression.

Rather, the Obama plan is little more than an attempt to stick some new regulatory fingers into a very leaky financial dike, and not rebuild the entire system. Without question, the latter would be more difficult, more contentious and probably more expensive. But it would also have more lasting value.

Ensign Love Triangle

From Politico:

The son of the couple at the center of the sex scandal that has engulfed Sen. John Ensign was being paid by the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2008 at the same time his mother was having an affair with the Nevada Republican.

Both Doug and Cynthia Hampton were already working in senior positions for Ensign when their son Brandon Hampton was hired to do “research policy consulting” for the NRSC in March 2008. The younger Hampton, 19, was paid $5,400 before he left the Ensign office in August last year, Federal Election Commission records show.

That means during March and April 2008, three members of the Hampton family were working for Ensign. Both Doug and Cynthia Hampton stopped working for Ensign at the end of April 2008.

And it appears that the Hamptons aren’t happy with Ensign and will be speaking out soon:

A former campaign staffer for Sen. John Ensign is confirming her involvement in an extramarital affair.

Daniel Albregts, a Las Vegas lawyer for the couple, says that Doug and Cindy Hampton confirm that they are the couple Ensign referred to during his news briefing Tuesday.

Albregts calls it unfortunate that the senator chose to air what the lawyer calls “this very personal matter, especially after the Hamptons did everything possible to keep this matter private.” The lawyer says the Hamptons will be ready and willing to tell their side of the story at some point in the future.

Ladies’ Men

From Politico:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), whose name turned up in an investigation of an alleged prostitution ring in 2007, said Ensign was going through “personal difficulties they’re going through so we certainly have all of them in our prayers.” He wouldn’t comment further.

Friend of Azeri Dictator Reportedly to be Named Ambassador to Baku

The indispensable Laura Rozen reported that Matthew Bryza, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs, “is being recommended by supporters as U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan.”

Rozen describes Bryza as having “liaised intensively with the Georgian leadership, including during the Russian-Georgian conflict last summer, and says that some are concerned that his “appointment as Washington’s man in Baku [the Azeri capital] might potentially put a wrinkle in Obama’s efforts to ‘reset’ relations with Russia and send mixed signals about the kind of relationship he is trying to build.”

But an associate close to Bryza says it is inaccurate that Moscow would perceive him as hostile or too close to Tbilisi, and noted that Bryza has strong and positive relationships with Russian officials…

Bryza was seen as having gone “beyond what someone in his position would usually do” in showing support for Mikheil Saakashvili in the run-up and during the Georgian-Russian conflict last summer, a former senior Clinton administration official said. “Not so much by what he said,” but with “frequent public demonstrations that he was” close to the Georgian president.

But Bryza was also representing the preferences of the administration he then served, the former official acknowledged. “A lot of people in the U.S. government have responsibility for the aggressiveness of Georgia last summer and the mistaken belief there that the U.S. was going to come to their support” more than it did, the former official said.

Russia most definitely does have a negative view of Bryza, but there’s a far more direct reason for concern about his potential nomination: Bryza, and his wife Zeyno Baran are totally in the tank for the Azeri dictatorship and his appointment would be demoralizing for democrats (such as they are) in Azerbaijan. In 2007, the Azeri Foreign Minister reportedly attended the Brzya-Baran nuptials in Istanbul.

Just as Bryza was the point person for the relationship with Saakashvili leading up to the war, he had the same role vis-a-vis the stolen parliamentary elections of 2005 in Azerbaijan. President Ilham Aliyev (who inherited power from his KGB dad) promised the U.S. government (through Bryza) that he was going to have free and fair elections; the elections were a sham; and there was no negative reaction from the U.S.government.

Meanwhile, Baran periodically says Azerbaijan should take steps towards democracy but is effectively a mouthpiece for the regime. See, for example, this regime-friendly panel she moderated at the Nixon Center:

In her introductory remarks, Baran observed that the elections represented a step forward, citing President Ilham Aliyev’s decision to fire three regional governors involved in election fraud as an unprecedented move. She cautioned that there were equally significant problems that remain to be addressed, and noted that “more needs to be done” before Aliyev can establish his legitimacy and prove to the West and to his own people that he is committed to the democratic process.

Her remarks about Aliyev firing three governors as a positive sign are ridiculous. Aliyev wanted to look like he was trying to do something, and was, I’ve been told by a very well-placed source, going to fire these guys anyway. According to my source, fraud was no different in those regions than in other places, and in fact it was almost certainly less fraudulent than in Baku, where the results were falsified in nearly every district.

(I’ve written about Bryza’s and Baran’s support for other Caspian-region dictators here.

Russian Oligarch Retains Advisory Firm Close to Hillary to Help Resolve Visa Ban

Intelligence Online reports that the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska has hired an advisory firm with close ties to Hillary Clinton to help him get a visa to enter the United States. As I’ve previously reported here, Deripaska has been barred from this country over concerns that he has ties to organized crime.

Intelligence Online says (warning: story is firewall protected) that Deripaska — who previously employed beltway lobbyists close to John McCain, including his former campaign manager Rick Davis — has retained the Endeavor Group, which, the newsletter says, “specializes in providing services to billionaire and show business personalities.”

Endeavor’s partners include Lorrie McHugh-Wytkind, formerly “Communications Director for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Deputy Press Secretary for Media Affairs and Operations for President Bill Clinton,” and its advisers include Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior under Bill Clinton and a Hillary supporter during the Democratic presidential primaries.

Update: Adam Waldman, founder and president of the Endeavor Group, writes to say that his firm doesn’t lobby, so I’ve changed this post to reflect that. The firm’s website says, “The Endeavor Group represents a select group of entrepreneurial, high net worth individuals. The firm was founded in 2001 to provide cross-disciplinary advisory and execution services in support of the complex business and philanthropic initiatives of our clients.”

Waldman also said that Lorrie McHugh-Wytkind has been a strategic communications partner (which means consultant) to my firm on two very specific philanthropic initiatives, dealing with (i) Malaria and (ii) Neglected Tropical Diseases. She has never had any involvement, nor would she, in our work with Oleg Deripaska or any other client matters outside of these two projects. Second, Bruce Babbitt who is the Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund and serves on our informal advisory board, never has had any involvement with our client work.”

I don’t think that changes the thrust of the post or of the Intelligence Online piece, though. Deripaska did hire a firm with ties to Hillary Clinton, which can’t be a bad thing nowadays.

William Jefferson’s Attorney: a degree in advanced chutzpah

From the Washington Post:

Federal prosecutors laid out their bribery case against former U.S. representative William J. Jefferson yesterday, telling jurors that he squeezed hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from people who sought his help, while the defense said that Jefferson might have committed unethical acts but that they were not illegal.

“A lot of what you hear you will disapprove of,” said defense attorney Robert P. Trout, who acknowledged that Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, benefited from business deals he helped broker in Africa. “But he’s not charged with a violation of House ethics rules. He is accused of a crime,” Trout said…

The FBI raided Jefferson’s Capitol Hill home in 2005 and famously found $90,000 wrapped in foil and stuffed in food containers in a freezer. The money was supposedly going to then-Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar as a bribe to facilitate a business deal. Prosecutors showed the jury pictures of frozen food containers — for Boca Burgers and Pillsbury pie crust — in which the money was stashed. “It is a startling and often disheartening account of public corruption at the highest level of our government,” said prosecutor Mark Lytle, who asked, “How did we get to the point where a sitting U.S. congressman had $90,000 hidden and concealed in his freezer?”

Trout told the jury that the money in the freezer had received so much publicity that he contemplated opening his statement with “a joke about the cold cash.” Instead, he offered this explanation: “He was looking to hide the cash . . . so it would not be found by the housekeeper or an intruder.”

The Ensign scandal: Did girlfriend double-bill for utilities?

From the Washington Post:

Ensign is considered a leading voice among social conservatives in the G.O.P. In 1998, as a House member running against Reid, he called on President Bill Clinton to resign after revelations about his affair with a White House intern. “He sent taxpayer-paid staff out to lie for him, and that is a misuse of office,” Ensign said, adding that the president had “no credibility left.”

In September 2007, Ensign called then-Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) “embarrassing” after Craig was arrested in an airport men’s restroom and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a sex sting. Ensign played the leading role in an unsuccessful effort to force Craig into resigning from the Senate immediately.

Ensign’s affair began a few months after he called for his colleague to resign, according to a timeline provided by his office.

By the way, public records show that Cindy Hampton, Ensign’s girlfriend, got paid about $2,000 by the senator’s campaign in 2008–$1,000 for consulting, $1,041.95 for accounting, and $41.95 for “payment of utilities” (given the repetition of the $41.95 figure, you have to wonder if she didn’t double-bill on utilities. That said, this is obviously the least of Ensign’s problems). The nature of the consulting was not disclosed. Her husband, Douglas Hampton, was paid well while the senator slept with his wife–as an administrative assistant to Ensign, he received $144,146.71 for his work during 2007 and 2008.

Keep Guessing Who’s Coming to Dinner at the Obama White House

From MSNBC:

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush Administration argument that a president doesn’t have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.