Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

DC Madam Case: Weirder By the Vitter (Minute)

The DC Madam case, which forced Sen. David Vitter's (R-La.) "very serious sin" confession, is getting weirder by the minute.

DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey is trying to subpoena gossip columnists, investigative TV reporters, government officials, madams of scandals past, and, now, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

And no, Leahy is not embroiled in the madam scandal. He's being threatened with a subpoena because of his outspoken criticism of the Bush administration's Justice Department, mainly over the U.S. attorney firings brouhaha.

As Palfrey attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley wrote in an email update on the case, Palfrey is seeking to subpoena Leahy to testify "as to his knowledge of the 'corruption' of the justice system by political influence."

What does Leahy have to say about the absurdity of his involvement in this? "As chairman, he gets some awfully wacky requests. But this one might make it into the top ten," Leahy spokesman David Carle tells us.

Among others, Palfrey wants to subpoena: New York Post gossip doyenne Cindy Adams to testify how she got information still under court order; Heidi Fleiss, the infamous Hollywood madam; and ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross, who, through an exclusive agreement with Palfrey, was first to obtain the madam's client list.

Palfrey's attorney suggests "political pressure" was put on ABC News to "bury" the names of other prominent clients listed in the phone records. To that assertion, Jeffrey Schneider, senior vice president for ABC News, says, "Utter nonsense."

"Our decisions about what to report were based solely on what we deemed newsworthy," he told us yesterday.

Meanwhile, even after fresh allegations surfaced this week that he had sex with another prostitute, Vitter was back in Washington, all business as usual, presumably heaving a sigh of relief that at least he's not Larry Craig.

But Vitter, who in the past has denied having affairs with prostitutes in New Orleans, is still not answering questions about the former New Orleans prostitute named Wendy (the "other" Wendy, as she's being referred to; Vitter's wife name is Wendy, too). The other Wendy claimed at a press conference this week with Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt that she had a four-month sexual relationship with Vitter in 1999 after he was elected to Congress.

Unlike Craig's Senate Web site, which is dominated by press releases, statements and letters relating to his embarrassing scandal, Vitter's official site makes no reference at all to his tawdry headlines. Vitter's office has declined to comment on the former prostitute's charges.

By Mary Ann Akers  |  September 12, 2007; 6:30 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Chaos at the Petraeus Hearing
Next: At HUD, It's 'Portrait Portrait On The Wall'

Comments

Does anyone remember Larry Flynt standing beside Genifer Flowers while she made her accusations against the then Presidential candidate of a 12 year affair in 1992? He must have been sulking because the other "porno" magazine was publishing her story. And of course Hillary is the one who used the so-called wiretapping expert (Pellicano, lately in jail) to say that Genifer's tapes of conversations with the presidential candidate had been altered. Not that much longer ago than 1999 in terms of past affairs and perhaps more relevant of things to come.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

So foot tapping in a bathroom gets you stiffed by Mitch McConnell, but romps with various "pay for sex" gals gets you nothing. Family and traditional values anyone?

Posted by: WOW | September 12, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The most interesting quote to me is the one from Jeffrey Schneider of ABC News, "Our decisions about what to report were based solely on what we deemed newsworthy," From what I've seen ABC News finds Repulsican faux pas much more newsworthy than those of Democraps. If 90 or more percent of so called TV journalists vote Democrap, don't tell me there isn't a liberal media bias. Also don't tell me it is because they are better educated or care more. It is because they are pseudo intellectual elitists who were educated by socialist/communist leaning professors that favor controlling the masses for their own protection. This is because these pseudo intellectual elitists have a superiority complex.

Posted by: r man | September 13, 2007 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Why are Republicans demanding Larry Craig leave, but not David Vitter? Are they ALL paying for sex?

Posted by: It Figures | September 13, 2007 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Vitter is a disgrace. What on earth is the matter with the voters of Louisana?

And his wife is a complete idiot. She should have filed for divorce and taken his smart a** for everything he had.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Praise the lord! .. and do you have a price list?

Posted by: artmann11 | September 13, 2007 7:42 AM | Report abuse

"The most interesting quote to me is the one from Jeffrey Schneider of ABC News, "Our decisions about what to report were based solely on what we deemed newsworthy," From what I've seen ABC News finds Repulsican faux pas much more newsworthy than those of Democraps. If 90 or more percent of so called TV journalists vote Democrap, don't tell me there isn't a liberal media bias. Also don't tell me it is because they are better educated or care more. It is because they are pseudo intellectual elitists who were educated by socialist/communist leaning professors that favor controlling the masses for their own protection. This is because these pseudo intellectual elitists have a superiority complex."


Gee, could it be that Republicans ran on a platform that they were inherently morally superior to EVERYONE?! Could it be that they claimed the mantle of righteousness, claimed to be Jesus' representatives on Earth while Democrats were of Satan? Could it be that Republicans claimed the moral high ground yet were snorting meth off a male hooker's ass? Ya think?

THAT IS WHY THEY GET THE PRESS, MORON.

"Also don't tell me it is because they are better educated or care more."

You fake religious types use religion as a weapon. But when almost your whole party is exposed as a pack of closet homos, adulterers, or white collar criminals beyond anything we've ever seen in this country you hypocrites whine and cry like babies. Situational morals. Which means none.


MORALS AND VALUES MY ASS. You turn it on and off like a switch. It's disgusting.

Then you created a General Jesus version of god to lead you to war so you could kill and torture without feeling guilty. Your hands are blood red.

I have had quite enough of it and your type. You are exposed.


Religion mixed with vast money, power and politics. What a volitile combination.

Enough to smoke the world. And I'm sure you will if given the chance.

Posted by: artmann11 | September 13, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Artmann11, I'm an atheist, and you have exposed your lack of reading comprehension combined with the ability, often equated with those thought to be insane, of seeing things that are not in the printed word. The comments were directed at media bias and your weak, crazed mind took off on a real wacky tangent. You've got to be a typical, pseudo intellectual, name calling liberal. How sad for you.

Posted by: r man | September 13, 2007 8:28 AM | Report abuse

"You've got to be a typical, pseudo intellectual, name calling liberal. How sad for you."

For your information, I'm not even close to being a liberal. I am just sick and tired of the media bias BS.

"don't tell me there isn't a liberal media bias"

There isn't a liberal media bias.

Republicans get the negative press because of the reasons I stated.

Corporations know exactly who to favor if they want to consolidate even more power and control information. REPUBLICANS.


"It is because they are pseudo intellectual elitists who were educated by socialist/communist leaning professors that favor controlling the masses for their own protection. This is because these pseudo intellectual elitists have a superiority complex."

Blah, blah, blah. Commies and socialists? What a god damned idiot.

There's commies under muh bed! There's socialists in muh turlet!!

COMMMIES!!!!!!!!!


Brainless bullsheit and fear is all you have. Commies? Jesus, what a maroon.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

According to a Media Matters report, a majority of our nation's newspapers, small and large, run more conservative syndicated columnists than progressive ones.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."...

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/?f=h_top


Liberal media bias? hardly.

Posted by: artmann11 | September 13, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The reporting of news is more accurate in
1] WSJ
2] WaPo
3] NYT
then it is on tv, but it used to be better when they were not racing tv for the news.

The consistently best reporting on Enron was in the Houston Chronicle.

What I take away from this is that news reporting is negatively affected by the need to sell, and therefore, to entertain. The Chronicle had a city rapt with attention for every detail on Enron - it could afford to go slow and in depth.

Editorial policy is different from news reporting. The NYT is almost always Democrat on its ed pages, the WSJ is always Republican.
Both papers do not interfere with their newsrooms. Murdoch's purchase of WSJ may change that.

On tv, stories that sell - sex, violence, scandal - obviously are prominent. FOX's editorial policy seems to leak into its reporting, but what we mainly see is more sex, violence, and scandal. If you see MSNBC's ed policy in its news you will still concede that it is mainly sex, violence, and scandal.

24-7 news at the level of "THE ECONOMIST"
will not sell.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Editorial policy is the reason I don't subscribe to the Al-Jazeera Constitution, AKA the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The reference was to TV journalists artmann11. Read with comprehension, OK? Newspaper readership is down as a percentage of population. Most people don't take the time. They get it from TV & Radio in minute sound bites. They don't take the time to get behind the brief images and analyze the issues. So when the Dan Rather types choose their words they do so to influence. For example they will put "conservative" before "Repulsican", but rarely put "liberal" before "Democrap". That's because they honestly believe liberal/left is or should be mainstream/middle of the road and conservatives whether social or fiscal are extreme right when most are center/right.

Posted by: r man | September 13, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

First--"Name calling liberal"? This from a person who uses terms as "Democrap" and "Repulsican". As for Media Bias, the Media are bipartisan when it comes to sexual scandal (the first one with political overtones was Gary Hart a liberal Democrat-and the one that opened up this Pandora's box). Think of all the Clinton "Gates", Vincent Foster, etc, etc. in the '90s. I assure you "R Man" that the press will become more "balanced" in your eyes on January 20, 2009 when the Media has another Clinton to kick around.

Posted by: A Hardwick | September 13, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I simply love it, only in America!

Posted by: DC Man | September 13, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Awww, geez Hardwick, it's bad enough hearing that woman's voice in campaign soundbites and debates, much less for four years as prez. I think Dick Morris is probably correct in surmising she will cause the return of Repulsican control of the government.

Posted by: r man | September 13, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

BRAVO! Artmann11. But you know r man is a closet republican. You can tell by how he writes.

Posted by: TM | September 13, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

That's Libertarian, TM.

Posted by: r man | September 13, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice if the commenters would make their arguments by the clarity of their reasoning not the too frequent resort to ad hominems. Regards, Carl W. Lundqu iist, JD, Colonel, Army of the United States, (Retired) ......Boston

Posted by: cwlund@verizon.net | September 13, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

My recent comment needs a bit of cleaning up. Sorry.
It would be nice if those commenting on the issues being discussed would make their arguments by the clarity of their reasoning and not by the too frequent use of ad hominems. Regards, Carl W. Lundquist, JD, Colonel, Army of the United States (Retired) ..... Boston

Posted by: cwlund@verizon.net | September 13, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Vitter is, like Sen. Craig, just the latest installment of the "Sleazebag of the Month." Or maybe, "Hypcrite of the Month" is more appropriate.

And with Sen. Stevens, Reps. Jerry Lewis and Doolittle waiting in the wings for their defrocking, the last year of the shrub's administration should be colorful. And the Dems have Rep. Jefferson on their side of the ledger.

Time to move the central government to Nebraska, perhaps to the HQ of the former B52 bomber command.

Posted by: pacman | September 14, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I think the bottom line is that there is a Republican Governor in Larry's state who will naturally appoint another Republican to fill his seat and there is a Democratic Governor in Vitter's state who will appoint a Democrat. Family values are therefore left at the door, folks. It all comes down to politics! This is hypocrisy at its finest.

Posted by: Blatchfordplace | September 14, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

You people should stand back and look at yourselves. You all are full of hate and show that. Could someone please explain that? Even with all of the problems, We are still a great nation. Why can't we be the greatest people? The reason is that we are a spoilt bunch of failures, from a human stand point.

Posted by: redbaron29 | September 14, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

ya'll r crazed. It's real simple. Dems. r for middle n poor folks; Repub. r for rich n richer folks. U DO THE MATH!!!!!

Posted by: roco1@sbcglobal.net | September 14, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH, EVERYONE WAS WONDERING HOW THIS GASTLY TALE WOULD TURN OUT. WOULD THERE BE MARTIAL LAW? WOULD THE ELECTIONS BE POSTPONED FOR NATIONAL SEC. REASONS? ONLEY THE SHADOW KNOWS! ...... TO BE CONTINUED.

Posted by: roco1@sbcglobal.net | September 14, 2007 11:08 PM | Report abuse

why are we so interested in making private lives public? it is perverted. salacious. prurient. inane. yet that interest seems to have escalated into a fetid obssession. the whole clinton-lewinsky ordeal was hideous.freakish! it was between him and the intern. why did we care so much? is it because the masses enjoy watching the high and entitled wobble a bit while on the throne? is it that real lives can so quickly degrade into soap-opera? is that entertaining? what vitter does or did on his "free" time is his business.and his family's. not yours. not mine. not ours.
and who decided vitter was to become worthy of the evening newscast? what about the "other" government officials? did they lobby successfully somehow to succeed in
NOT being worthy?

bottom line. why do we care? who should care? and, while we are in the act of caring, we don't care at all! he's not in my family. not a neighbor. i live in another state. i enjoy it when men get themselves into hot water?

instead of focusing on vitter we should be examining ourselves. now, that would be the right thing!

Posted by: boredwell | September 15, 2007 6:15 AM | Report abuse

A- this is a very funny story! And to top it off, B- you used the word "brouhaha"! That is perfect. :) http://whatisgwbushdoing.blogspot.com

Posted by: Melisa | September 15, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Diaper Dave was just doing his duty (heh heh) to boost the Nawlins economy. And, besides, what goes on between consenting adults, even if one or more are dressed like infants, is they own bidness.

Posted by: Whatever | September 17, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Yes Roco, there will be Martial Law, the Nazi's have intermingled the Military and Law Enforcement for that very reason. As they have already themselves predicted, there will be another HomeGrown False Flag
"Emergency" to justify it. I do see your point: why do we care about the DC Madame's clientle when we have Bush to worry about.

Posted by: ferrari5k | September 17, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Victimless crimes? The brothels Vitter is connected to, the DC Madam and the House of the Rising Sun in NOLA, are both alledged to be associated with organized crime. If so it is likely that some of Vitter's payments went to put drugs in the hands of children.

Posted by: Road Rash | September 18, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Public figures who support a certain set of values and morals, but behave differently in private make themselves fair game. Hypocrisy is still a cardinal sin in public affairs. (Pun intended!)

Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

You go Vitter! Keep on doing to the American public (and your constituents) and Wife Wendy, what you did to the other Wendy for four Months. If all of these fools offer it up, I say stick it to them with a vengeance. They definitely deserve it for being stupid and unable to discern you for what you are (family values and such persona) - you should have been a priest for they also have a flock that they tend to if you know what I mean?

Posted by: Joseph | September 18, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Larry Flynt deserves a medal of freedom far more than the Bremer, Tenet et al

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"Vitter is a disgrace. What on earth is the matter with the voters of Louisiana? And his wife is a complete idiot. She should have filed for divorce and taken his smart a** for everything he had."

Louisiana voters are responsible for Vitter's actions outside his elected office?

As for Vitter's wife and what she "should" have done; I had the same feelings about Bill Clinton's wife when he so publicly humiliated her and their daughter. Apparently power and greed sometimes trump personal pride, be you the spouse of a Republican or a Democrat.

Human weakness knows no party lines. But then again maybe the response of the spouses is truly the result of their love and compassion. Who knows? It is sad.

Posted by: Fewanswers | September 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm a former Madam from NJ getting arrested about 11 years ago. The DC Madam should just have said, "I'm setting up a date between a client and a worker. He may give her a foot massage, try on her clothes, just cuddle or yes, they may even have sex, but I don't ask them what they will be doing on their appointment".

We are so immature when it comes to sex in this country. We have to know everything that's going on in someone's private life.

Madam's are not traffickers, not do they hire anyone that's underage. We all have a different reason why we are in this business. Some are going to college, some are soccer moms, etc. We are NOT the drug addicted street girls.

It's 2007, and it's time for the laws to be repealed where this is no victim or complaint. This is a Christian and moral issue, not an arrestable offense.

Back off America, we don't need rules and regulations when it comes to our sex lives.

Did prostitution end with Heidi, Palfrey, Babydol, Mayflower Madam or me, I think not. Decriminalize it and it will be a safer business for all concerned. This is a Civil Rights and Human Rights issue. It was legal at one time, bring it back, and you won't even know it's going on.

njmadamx@yahoo.com

Posted by: madamx | September 22, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Greetings from California!

Well so much to comment on, the article, the comments, but I won't do any of that. Why the hell am I spending a perfectly good Sunday morning writing this when I have laundry to do and clothes to mend for the week? Because this is interesting stuff, that's why. I want to bring up an important point that I haven't seen here yet It seems that people call purchasing the services of a sex worker some kind of moral weakness.

I argue that it is not a weakness, it is an honest need, and one that men are being taught to feel ashamed of. With all this tittilation around, since all major advertisers use sex and women (and men, increasingly) as sex objects to sell their ware.

Whether it is for biologcal reasons, or learned reasons (or more accurately, because of both), men seem to be very horny a lot of the time. There are many recent and sound studies to show this. Therefore, seeing a sex worker is very akin to seeing a therapist (if she is independent--that requires a lot of intelligence especially if her business is internet based)

For men, sexual play is a form of therapy. If they don't have it, they resort to non-consensual, uncomfortable, or unsafe measures to get it. Either that or they become tremendously repressed and have to try to control others--it's a commoon psychlogical reaction when a natural need is not fulfilled and is demonized....look it up in your local library in the section of Psychology.....

Let there be professionals so that people who provide these services are paid fair and square for their time. I wish that people in marriages would figure out that sex is imporatnt.

Many have told me that on average half of their clients do not have wives or girlfriends, but work for major corporations and simply can't afford the time of a relationship. Being responsible members of society, they want to make sure that the person taking care of them is taken care of.

I am a sociologist and, in youth, a very beautiful young woman. For that, I had men coming on to me wherever I went. Sometimes I liked it, but most times I was highly annoyed that strangers felt it was ok to come up to talk to me, and then try to persuade me to come hang out with them, or give me their number. So when you study sociology and this sort of thing happens to you on a regular basis, you can't help but do the math and realize that all this hanging out with men is probably costing a lot of women and costing you DEARLY.

So I spent a lot of time after that trying to get men to realize that no I didn't want to hang out with them, spend my time with them--just for the fun of it. Yes, I think this happens to a lot of us.

It's a social climate--if it's ok to do that--for strangers to go right up to a woman they don't know and start telling the woman what they think of how they look and so forth, I believe that there ought to be women (and men and others) out there right up front, putting a price in their time.


Thanks for reading, and remember, do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Posted by: Boddhisatvah66 | September 23, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Palfrey list Sounds like the black book of 1918
That trial of the century was removed clean out of all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here is 46000 phone records.
The listed are not womenizers or machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay, Lutheran Shock and Awe agitators of all wars.
And they are only the cover for the real pimps somewhere underground.

Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century

Posted by: Billing | October 6, 2007 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Song of Deborah


...They chose new gods; then was war in the gates... Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song... the LORD made you have dominion over the mighty... Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty... Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land rest forty years. Judges 5.

Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Clean Governance.
Palfrey list is like the Black Book of 1918.
That Trial of the century is deleted from all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here has 46000 phone bills.
The listed are not womenizers, machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay lutheran whock and awe agitators of all wars and all panics.
These wretches are one dirty cover to the real pimps deep underground.
A curse on the kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and Judge Adolph Kessler now.

Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918

Posted by: Billing | October 7, 2007 5:35 AM | Report abuse

nice stuff

Posted by: google | November 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company