As the investigation of his actions deepens, ethically tainted Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has begun whining about the media coverage of the scandal. As Politico reports:

The Nevada Republican made the charge as he was being asked whether he’s been subpoenaed in a grand jury probe into the aftermath of his affair. Instead of answering that question, he descended into an extended rebuke of the press — including Politico — for the way it has covered the scandal surrounding him.

“Seeking of the truth should be not only part of the Justice Department and part of our judicial system, but also should be ... a goal of reporters today,” Ensign said. “Unfortunately, too much of our press is ... (1) biased or (2) just about ‘gotcha.’”

On the one hand, Sen. Ensign complains that the press isn't seeking the "truth," but, on the other hand, he sidesteps a simple question about whether he has received a subpoena. If he is so interested in making sure the truth is known, the senator should be willing to answer questions like this.

Unfortunately, whining about the media cannot undo the actions taken by Sen. Ensign in the scandal involving Doug and Cynthia Hampton.

Amid reports that the FBI has started interviewing people connected to him, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) may have welcomed supportive words from just about any elected official. But probably not from Jim Gibbons, his state's deeply unpopular governor.

For starters, Gibbons has been ethically tainted himself. Within months of taking office as Nevada's governor, Gibbons was the subject of an FBI investigation. And accusations of sexual infidelity and sexual assault have swirled around Gov. Gibbons.

Although the FOX News station in Las Vegas described Gov. Gibbons as "quick to come to Ensign's defense," the governor's words were not as bold or encouraging as Sen. Ensign could have hoped for. Instead of saying he felt confident that Ensign would be exonerated of any wrongdoing, Gov. Gibbons offered comments like this:

"We’ll see where the chips come out and end up."

Gibbons added this gem:

"John's a wonderful friend and I believe in his heart he was doing what he thought was right. And it’s unfortunate that it crossed maybe a line or two."

When your so-called defenders say you've "crossed maybe a line or two," that's not very helpful.

Click here to read CREW's statement on the revelation that the FBI is investigating Sen. Ensign.

Politico reports today that the FBI has begun interviewing witnesses in the scandal involving Sen. John Ensign (R-NV).

In light of this revelation, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), issued a statement:

"It is not surprising that the FBI is investigating because there is reason to believe Sen. Ensign was involved in at least two felonies: conspiring to help former aide Doug Hampton violate the lobbying ban, and failing to report to the FEC the $96,000 severance payment made to Cynthia Hampton.

"The fact that the FBI is investigating makes clear that no one -- not even a powerful United States senator -- is above the law. It is time for him to resign."

For copies of the letters that CREW sent last year raising serious ethics concerns about Ensign, click here.

In this video clip, Sloan tells ABC's "Nightline" why Ensign's behavior is so troubling.

According to National Journal, ethically-tainted Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will try to “reintroduce himself” to Nevadans next week as he hosts the first of two forums on health care reform. Perhaps the senator is hoping that tea-party types will be so focused on denouncing health care reform that they’ll never dream of asking questions about the ethical concerns surrounding him.

Let’s hope that at least some of the people who show up at these forums will be as willing as CNN’s Rick Sanchez was to ask the tough questions about Sen. Ensign’s behavior vis-à-vis the Doug Hampton scandal.

Sen. Ensign's "reintroduction" faces obstacles. According to National Journal:

Ensign's poll numbers in NV are worse than Sen. Harry Reid's (D), and only slightly better than continually-embattled Gov. Jim Gibbons (R).

Click here to hear CREW's Melanie Sloan summarize the serious ethical concerns surrounding Sen. Ensign.

There are questions about whether Nevada gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval abided by the advice he received from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States about the sort of political activity in which he could engage before he resigned his federal court judgeship.

At some point, Judge Sandoval sought advice from the committee regarding the sort of political activities in which he could engage prior to resigning his position. On August 5th, the chair of the committee, Judge M. Margaret McKeown, informed Judge Sandoval that Canon 5 of the Judicial Code of Conduct requires judges to refrain from political activity. Canon 5B states “a judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office,” while Canon 5C additionally states “a judge should not engage in any other political activity.”

Judge Sandoval had argued that Nevada law defines “candidacy” as filing a declaration of candidacy of an acceptance of candidacy, appearing on the ballot or receiving contributions in excess of $100. Nev. Rev. Stat § 294A.005. The committee, however, noted that Canon 5's proscription on political activity is broader than Nevada law and advised Judge Sandoval he could “consult privately with a limited group of individuals” about running, but could not make any public solicitations, inquiries or conduct a poll. Neither could he raise money, form even an informal committee, engage in any other political activity, or publicly discuss his candidacy or rumors of it.

Judge Sandoval announced his resignation on August 15th and actually stepped down on September 16th. Before he left the bench, however, it appears Judge Sandoval may have engaged in exactly the kind of political activity he was warned to avoid. For example, a push poll was conducted in which questions were phrased so as to suggest the other candidates in the governor’s race are unethical while extolling Judge Sandoval’s ethics. Although it has been reported that the Republican Governor’s Association paid for the poll, if Judge Sandoval was consulted or participated in the poll in any way, he would have violated the judicial code of conduct. Similarly, if as it has been suggested, Judge Sandoval hired political consultants or set up meetings to arrange campaign donations before he resigned – whether or not he actually held those meetings – again he would have violated the judicial code of conduct.

Judge Sandoval should disclose exactly who he met with and what activities he engaged in while sitting on the bench and deciding whether or not to run for office. The bottom line is that Judge Sandoval is presenting himself to Nevada voters as the ethical candidate in the race; that’s a pretty high bar. Skirting around the judicial code of conduct is no way to start.

Melanie Sloan is the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

We've been monitoring the progress of ethics reform in the state -- and there has been progress. That's why we were struck by this article about Nevada. Yesterday, House Democrats introduced ethics legislation:

Nevada Assembly Democrats rolled out their agenda for ethics reform Monday, calling for the automatic expulsion from office of any state official who violates ethics laws three times and the prohibition of public officials from using government time or property for a political campaign.

They also called for a measure to force all Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) that contribute to campaigns to file contribution and expenditure reports and register with the secretary of state.

But, according to local experts, there's not much hope for reform in Nevada:

"The notion of ethics and Nevada politics in the same sentence just doesn't work," said Fred Lokken, a political science professor at Truckee Meadows Community College and a registered Republican. "There is no real will to do this. You have individual legislators willing to push this but the legislative session as a whole will not.

"And they won't for two reasons: One, the public is not clamoring for it and, two, they don't want to cut off the deals they have."

Meanwhile, as we noted last week, Nevada's Governor, Jim Gibbons, is under federal investigation for allegedly receiving gifts in return for favors he performed while a member of Congress.

This pre-election altercation is ending with no criminal charges against the Governor-elect of Nevada. And, it looks like there won't be a civil trial either according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons will not be prosecuted on allegations that he assaulted cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo three weeks before Election Day, but authorities are continuing to investigate whether anyone attempted to influence Mazzeo's statements to authorities.

District Attorney David Roger said Wednesday that before deciding not to pursue the case, he met with Mazzeo and conducted an extensive review of Mazzeo's allegations that Gibbons grabbed her in a parking garage and threatened to sexually assault her after a night of drinking on Oct. 13 at the McCormick & Schmick's restaurant, near Flamingo Road at Paradise Road.

"We review cases to determine if there is sufficient evidence to go forward at trial, and we felt we did not have a provable case," Roger said. "We looked at the totality of the evidence in making our decision."

Mazzeo was disappointed with Roger's decision. "The only thing I can say is our system sucks," the 32-year-old Las Vegas Valley resident said. "I actually even said that if he (Gibbons) apologized to me, I would drop everything. And he wasn't man enough to actually apologize. But he knows the truth, and I know the truth."

So, this scandal for Gibbons appears to be over.