David Vitter, the Louisiana U.S. Senator, appears to have escaped another round with revealing facts to the public regarding his connection to the Washington DC Madam.
According to the Associated Press, although he was on the witness list of the defense of Deborah Palfrey, but the defense team has decided not to call him and other “high-profiled” potential witnesses to the stand and instead has decided to rest its case.
This means that it appears that the junior Louisiana Senator will be saved from responding to any questions or cross-examination concerning his interactions with the service.
The prosecutors have been claiming that Palfrey’s escort service was a “fantasy service” for men and not a prostitution ring.
However, prosecutors have called witnesses to the stand who have indicated that the operation was a high-priced operation using the telephones across state line.
Vitter reportedly used the service when he was a member of the House of Representatives.
The Louisiana U.S. Senator has not made any revealing remarks concerning his involvement other than a statement after the initial revelation that he has committed a “very serious sin”. Other than that statement and later comments that suggest he is sorry that he has embarrassed his family and Louisiana, he has not made any other public comment.
If Vitter would have been called as a witness, his attorney had said he would have taken the “Fifth Amendment” against self-incrimination.
Yeah, but its all a moot subject now isn't it dears?????? Written by Why be bitter? Reconsider......................
on 4/16/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Vitter was to be a witness for the defense. The defense would want Vitter to say he did not have sex with those women, Ms. Palfrey's employees. Why wasn't he called? Perhaps because Palfrey's attorney felt that under cross examination, Vitter would say or do something to damage his credibility. Perhaps his credibility is already so damaged that Palfrey's attorney saw it as a lost cause to have him before the eyes of the jury. At any rate, Vitter has in no way been exonerated by this. If anything, his absence from the witness stand is evidence that he did, indeed, have sex with one or more of Ms. Palfrey's employees. If he were a credible witness for the defense with rock-solid testimony to present, why wouldn't Palfrey's attorney want that heard? Written by David (neither Vitter nor Duke)
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Tee Dub, bitter and chauvinistic are somewhat subjective measurements, but your body of work on bayoubuzz clearly proves that you possess these characteristics in much greater capacity than I. Therefore, I judge your fortune-telling to be incorrect on both points. I know that your chauvinism is a permanent condition, but if we rightards stop standing in the way of your western european style socialist utopia, do you think you can ever let go of the bitterness? Written by
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So the only thing I got right is that you're bitter? Nothing else in that list was correct, huh? This I doubt. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Tee Dub, Your accuracy on telling my fortune is just about the same as your accuracy on every other issue, you got 1 out of 6 right, almost 17% accuracy. Keep up the good work. And I don't use that term except in this case to test your political incorrectness, but I guess you're not as incorrect as you claim to be. Written by
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Like TW, I would suppose the personal actions of Vitter are sort of irrelevant where this subject is concerned, except for the votes he casts on the house floor......... Written by Keep flogging your floogies that's real productive
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well, all that is just fine; but now back to the article. Vitter would not have had to take the fifth, he simply could have lied on the stand. As every Bill Clinton supporter knows, perjury is okay if "it's just about sex." Written by kpf
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Man, I'll tell you what. You are as ignorant as you are an a**hole (and anyone who uses the term "wigger" is an A-1 a**hole, laisse-mon te dire) - you still don't know f&*^-all about academia, or much else of import, for that matter. My guess is that you flunked out of college - you work in sales - you are probably in your 50s or 60s, divorced, chauvinistic, and bitter. I thought you said you weren't going to read any more of my posts?!?!? Changed your "mind," eh? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Tee Dub, Don't let your employer know that you're flagrantly bragging about your political incorrectness. That's about the only thing that can cancel tenure these days. But I'm glad you've come down from your intellectual high-horse. I'll take your comments in the manner that they are given from now on, wigger. Written by
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Are you just now catching on to the fact that I am anything but politically correct? You're a slow learner! (There I go again!) TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Wut the %^$$#@^%#^ WUZ DAT ALL ABOUTS?????????? Written by ???????????????????????????????
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Folks: See the three entries below on a "Dems Ask if Kennedy will Take the Fifth on Vitter"-type of thread elsewhere on the Buzz. What does Vitter have to do with any of the witnesses? As regards unusual women in their line of work, a retired 63 year old PhD is rather more of an outlier than a 37 year old naval officer. (I can't speak from personal experience but I am somewhat well read and I have very broad range of clients - no pun intended.) But relevance is EXACTLY why I posed the following question at the time; "What would be different if she [subsitute "PhD" for "naval officer" and meaning does not change] had said, 'By the way, one of my customers was the then-Rep. Vitter.'?" For that matter, throw in Billy Crystal, twins in a trapeze, a calf, and all the dirty diapers a fork lift can carry. So what? Vitter was not charged and no part of his testimony would have been exculpatory for Palfrey. QED, at no point did Vitter need any "saving" from testifying.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
What on earth does Vitter have to do with the Naval officer, (Naval officer, nayuck-nuck-nuck it isn't like he tickled 'her' belly button from the inside or anything like that) and how does he 'just let her suffer'? I enjoy multi faceted style thinking, observations, contemplations, but yours seem to just be some kind of weird 'obsession'.
Written by Support Independents everywhere on 4/14/2008
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Kelly Haggar, Thank you for posting that.It looks like Vitter walks away as free as bird and yet he let`s the women suffer.
Written by Diaperman on 4/11/2008
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Drudge has linked to a story about a 16 year Navy officer (with 3 years prior enlisted so she could almost retire) being forced out for prostitution. She worked for Palfrey from Oct 05 to Apr 06 while she was the assigned to the Naval Academy. She testified under a grant of immunity. Thus, on that time line, Vitter was not one of her Johns. However, suppose he had been. What would be different if she had said, "By the way, one of my customers was the then-Rep. Vitter."?
Written by Kelly Haggar on 4/11/2008 Written by Kelly Haggar
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Tee Dub, Your logic is getting worse by the post. You obviously labeled his use of the "Democrat Party" as rightard speak, attacking him for using a conservative catchphrase. But you love to use leftwing speech, like "rightard" and "faux news". Why is it ignorant for him to use catchphrases, but not for you? And might not the use of "rightard" be offensive to the the mentally challenged? If it's OK to label conservatives with a term that plays on a derogatory label for mentally handicapped, it it also OK to label young white teens who embrace black culture as "wiggers"? Written by
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Here's the rub, no-name - you can call us "whiny baby wimps" "retreatists" or "cut-and-runners." You can call us "pinkos," "commies," "tree huggers," or "whale &^**&^%$@," you can call us "Merlot drinking, latte-sipping simpering nimrods," or (even though it doesn't make much sense) "leftards" for all I care. Name-calling doesn't bother me. Ignorance, however, does. I can't stand ignorant people. I'd rather hang out with smart, thinking conservatives (a rare breed, I acknowledge, but they do exist!) than sit around listening to lazy-ass idiot dope-smoking hippies any day. And it is ignorant to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party," plain and simple. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Tee Dub, If you don't like the "democrat party" lingo, then drop the "faux news" and "rightard" BS and all the other leftwing catchphrases that you like so much. Like I said before, do you want us to think you created those phrases, or is it OK for liberals to repeat their propaganda, but not OK for conservatives? Written by
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well, this is very off topic - but since you mentioned selling booze to a 19 year old - I recall reading in the paper around '68 or '69, about a 19 year old being arrested in his home state (Wyoming or there abouts) because he became abusive while attempting to buy beer. This 19 year old had just come home from a military hospital in Hawaii, due to having one leg, the other foot and his genitals blown off by a booby trap in Vietnam. At 18 you are an adult if you commit murder or any other crime, are guilty of statutory rape if you have sex with someone younger than yourself - even 1 or 2 yrs younger - you can be drafted (it can come back) and be sent to be killed or maimed fighting where our diplomacy failed, but you cannot drink beer. God damn, the dude had his genitals blown off, can't the poor SOB buy a friggin' beer? There is just way too much influence in our governance by control freaks, from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Written by kpf
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Lt. Cmdr. Rebecca Dickinson was fired by the navy because she does not hold herself to the standards people like vitter set for this country.She has been placed on leave and can face additional punishment,in others words her career is over and yet vitter and others walk free.So seeing she was a trashy hooker and not
a holy than thou senator like Vitter she is punished.I am sure you will support Vitter and even call for some democrat to step for the same thing in the future. Vitter and his supporters are nothing more than hippocrates that call on others
to live by their false morals.Now I am sure your a good person but when Vitter has
called on others to step down for less than what he has done,you have to admit
that is being a hippocrate.
Written by Diaperman
on 4/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Diaperman - The last time I attempted to stay on topic in a Buzz thread was less than successful but I'll nonetheless make one, repeat ONE, attempt here. Note the headline of this thread: "US Senator Vitter Saved From DC Madam Testimony." A reasonable person would conclude from that text that the editor believed Vitter needed to be "saved" from testifying. Within the story itself, it further says, "According to the Associated Press, although he was on the witness list of the defense of Deborah Palfrey, but the defense team has decided not to call him and other 'high-profiled' potential witnesses to the stand and instead has decided to rest its case. This means that it appears that the junior Louisiana Senator will be saved from responding to any questions or cross-examination concerning his interactions with the service." That language suggests the author also believed, as did the editor, that Vitter might have to testify. I pointed out the legal reasons why it was likely neither Vitter nor any other "high-profiled potential witnesses" would be called by the prosecution (no need) or allowed to be called by the defense (neither utility nor relevance). Had I been the prosecutor I would have objected to any such witnesses being called. If the defense had been serious it would have submitted a motion in limone. That's a pre-trial procedure to resolve disputes about evidence before the testimony or exhibit is offered up. During a trial you can make a proffer to preserve a disputed point of evidence for appeal, although in a criminal case that only helps the defense. The state almost always can't appeal an acquittal - "one bite of the apple." (It can happen, via a different statute not a lesser included, state and not feds the second time around, a conviction for jury tampering; it's possible but the stars have to align.) Now we arrive at your opening line, "So are you saying while their service was illegal, it is legal for Vitter to use their service?" Uh, no. (Moreover, I doubt a reasonable person could have formed such an opinion derived from anything in my post.) In the first place, the women providing the service were not being prosecuted. They were testifying under a grant of immunity. The Feds' goal was to put Palfrey away, not the women or the Johns. That's why no one in either category was on trial. Second, you are correct that the norm is that both parties to the same criminal transction have each broken the law. (Not that strange things don't happen - in the Teapot Dome scandal, Doheny was acquitted of paying a bribe that Fall was convicted of accepting.) In La. it used to be illegal to SELL booze to a 19 year old but it was not illegal for a 19 year old to BUY liquor. (Oversight, not policy, and it was fixed around 1996.) Here, however, the statute of limitations had expired, so there was no case to be brought against Vitter based upon the 1999-2001 calls. Before you jump to conclusions about taking the Fifth and some OTHER crime(s), note that a witness taking the Fifth is not required to divulge the crime(s) for which the refusal to testify is made. In fact, the protections of civil liberties are rather broader than you might imagine. There is a recent case out of Florida in which an attorney refused to tell the police so much as the name of his client while representing him during a hit-n-run investigation. Finally, as to all your other policy questions, I doubt we have enough common ground to make a discussion worthwhile. Somehow some web post somewhere to the effect that "Vitter likes used diapers" has become your pen name for a long time. It doesn't quite have the ring of "Carthage delcato est." There's an old Chinese proverb - "If you go looking for revenge, dig two graves." As for me, I expect to be voting for Vitter in 2010 and I expect him to win.
Written by Kelly Haggar
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So are you saying while their service was illegal, it is legal for Vitter to use
their service? If a dope dealer sells me drugs is it legal for me to buy them, I
mean he is the one selling the illegal item. Then more to the point of how Vitter
views women as just something for him to use. Do you think he is helping women by
using a hooker and then acting like he is better than them?
Madam Palfrey charged 300 dollars for her service and I would guess the hooker
charged 200 dollars or more for her service,so is this just how Vitter is helping
women in the work place?I do not understand why he is not talking about all the
help he is willing to give the working women of Louisiana? Written by Diaperman
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Wendy: Deborah Palfrey was charged because the Feds thought her escort service was a shell game. The first time Vitter didn't testify was because the Feds convinced the judge (which required no heavy lifting nor any insider trading) that Palfrey's breach of contract civil suit against a fired ex-escort was actually witness intimidation. No, the prosecutors did NOT agree with her on the point "that she ran an escort service, and not a prostitution ring." The point of having a trial is to prove the elements of the charged offenses. That's why the women were called to testify, as in: "Did you perform sex for money?" and "Did you give that money to Palfrey?" The answers were, of course, "yes" and "yes." That's why neither Vitter - - nor anyone else getting the sex - - was relevant to the crimes for which Palfrey was charged. "Resign" or "Stay" are different questions over which reasonable minds could differ. However, Vitter's testimony in this trial on these charges never had any relevance or utility. The prosecution had no need for it and the defense never had any use from it. Nothing Vitter could say would have exonerated Palfrey of the charges, except perhaps "She slept with me for free every time." Stephen has been a lawyer for a long time. This is really, really plan vanilla law. You don't have to be Perry Mason, Johnny Cochran, or Clarence Darrow to break this code. Written by Kelly Haggar
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
How sad Steve,Jeff and Tidmore must be today.
The politics of smearing and hating only reveals your pious attitudes since this happened. Written by Jimbo
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The Republican party should be proud that Vitter and Larry craig seem to get off,even though they lied to their voters about what they stand for.Vitter hiding the truth by even wanting to take the fifth,must make people wonder what else is hiding from his own voters.The fact that he is just sitting by as the women who helped him ,or prosecuted shows what he really thinks of women. Written by Diaperman
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Thank you Randall, but I can't help but add, it depends on what your definition of Is is.................. Nayuck-nuck-nuck-nuck..................... This thing just keeps a going round and round...... Don't those buzzy boy reporters have anything fresh to write in their articles??????????? Oh shades of diapah man and da TW plan.. Written by Row row row the vote, gently as we dream...
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Vitter is off the hook without further shame, disgrace and embarassment to the state. The fact that Vitter would have taken the Fifth to protect himself at all costs, regardless of the damage to Louisiana's image, speaks volumes about the "Honorable" junior senator--his arrogance, lust for political power and contempt for the citizens he represents. Written by Randall
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I thought it was Deborah Palfrey who claimed her service was an "escort service" that specialized in fulfilling its clients' sexual fantasies (and she signed her new escorts to a contract stating that they agreed that, if they had sex with their clients, they would be fired.), and that it wasn't a prostitution ring or service.
Did the prosecutors agree with her on that point (that she ran an escort service, and not a prostitution ring)? If so, what was the point of having a trial in the first place?
Wendy King Written by Wendy King
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Not knowing Senator Vitter's tastes (nor having any desire to do so) one would be jumping to conclusions to assume he "used" a prostitute. Perhaps "he was used" by a prostitite instead. Just a thought. Written by kpf
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
He didn't use a prostitute? Are you SERIOUS? What do you think happened that caused him to go out there, Wendy Vitter in tow, to confess to a "serious sin" to the national media? I mean, are you retarded? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Vitter used a prostitute." NOT.
Too bad your simple mind cannot understand that there is no proof of your ASSumption.
"What Chris Whittington has done, or what Larry Flynt has done, is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the case at hand"
More proof you are not nearly as smart as you wish you were. The only difference between these two guys is a wheelchair.
"And for the love of God, enough with the "rightard" speak - it's the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat" Party,"
There is NOTHING "democratic" about the Democrat party, and besides,....it is so much fun seeing "pinhead tards" like you get so upset about it. :)
Written by 4unionparish
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
My oh my, that was very DEMOCRATIC of you TW........ Written by Watching you switch hands
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Union Parish ("West Carroll Parish without the Glitz") guy - what is it with you? You don't have an argument to stand on, so you turn to silly conspiracy theories to "bolster" your case. Vitter used a prostitute. Whether we agree with the law or not, it is illegal to do so. He could be prosecuted for this, and he way well be (although I doubt it, for reasons that RhettsWife has discussed numerous times). What Chris Whittington has done, or what Larry Flynt has done, is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the case at hand. They did not hold his bits for him while he was doing this. And for the love of God, enough with the "rightard" speak - it's the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat" Party, you pinhead. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Diaperman................. Shushhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.............. sh. shush............ Written by Now let's get on with it........................
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This PROVES that calling Vitter was only a stunt likely to help Palfrey in movie contract negotiations. It is also very likely there were serious political motivations involved.
"This would solidify beliefs that calling Senator Vitter to testify was all a political news stunt to create sympathy for the defendant and hurt Senator Vitter. In a telephone interview with leading political analyst, Lee Fletcher, Fletcher said, “I have always thought this was just a stunt”, making reference to Palfrey’s likely movie contract negotiations. Fletcher went on to say that “this proves that there was nothing Senator Vitter could offer that was material to this case”."
".........any link between Whittington and Flynt would likely prove very embarrassing for the Democrat Party, both state and national."
http://louisianaconservative.com/?p=481
Written by 4unionparish
on 4/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
