Posted on 07/21/2007 10:08:18 PM PDT by advance_copy
In the first hour, Ian chats with Deborah J. Palfrey, the 'D.C. Madam' who had all of her assets seized by the IRS.
Oh, man. Her trial, if it comes to that, is gonna be a hoot.
What amazes me is that they are trying to punish her for compromising behavior on their part. Sounds just like big government to me.
I’ve got to question whether it was a legal “escort service” as she claims. If the prosecutor has one or two girls who worked for her that claim she quietly encouraged them to sell sex, she is toast.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that she was running a prostitution ring. The fun is going to begin when more of the phone numbers get traced and she starts calling people as defense witnesses.
>>>What amazes me is that they are trying to punish her for compromising behavior on their part. Sounds just like big government to me.
So there are no laws against prostitution ? There are no federal laws that cover interstate activities in support of prostitution and conspiracy to commit ? Guess again. We’ve had those since the days of small government.
I salute the lady’s imagination and ingenuity in manufacturing a myth that being charged under decades old statutes make her the biggest martyr since Cindy Sheehan against the evil Bush and Chaney regime. She is an absolute guardian of the constitution, I’m impressed. Someone crackpots can rally around, as being on Coast to Coast attests.
And ps, the earlier post slamming Tammy Faye was very shabby. I seem to see a lot of posts like that these days. And not only from people who signed on in December 2006.
She's going to have a subpoena list a mile long. AFAIK, her defense team can make their information public if they so choose. This could be developing into a real hot potato for DC.
Say what?
You haven’t even posted on this thread. Yet, you’re calling me out?
Sheesh. What lame trolls you two are.
Colleen Rowley (former FBI agent who investigated 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui) is on now. She’s a Bush-hater and a Huffington Post-blogging PNAC conspiracy nut.
Not sure about the guardian part, but it looks like she means to vigorously exercise her Fifth Amendment right to "a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".
I remind you, in order for there to have been a crime committed, there must be a victim. The common element of all criminal law is, that, without a victim there is no crime. This is usually the case when you find yourself charged in actions brought by a government agency or bureaucrat, in the interest of the state or “the common good of the community.” In many of these cases, there is, indeed, no victim. No victim, no crime.
Not everyone that listens with an open mind is a crackpot. There is a reason C2C is the #1 overnight radio program. Youmay not agree with all the ideas brought forth on C2C, but it does delve deeply into stories and the people relating them. Guests such as Dr. Michiu Kaku, the world's leading scientists in string theory (e=mc2), aren't exactly crackpots.
You cannot accurately assert that there is no victim in the crime of prostition. There are the wives and children of the johns, the parents and other loved ones of the whore.
It’s not as though there is a victim in every act of prostitution, everybody involved directly and indirectly may be perfectly fine with it.
But there is not a victim in every act of DUI, either. Yet we as a society cannot allow it, because it is a danger to the society overall. The same is true about prostitution.
Finally, it is a little-understood fact that the law does not exist for the benefit of a victim. The law acts on behalf of the state in order to maintain the well being of everybody.
Prostitution (at least in DC) is against the law. That does not mean somebody gets hurt every time it happens. But prostitution run rampant in DC or anywhere hurts everybody.
She is giving both the First and Fifth Amendment a workout!
How does one explain all the whores and whore mongers in Congress?
>>>but it looks like she means to vigorously exercise her Fifth Amendment right to “a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”.
And who deprived her of either? That has no bearing on the red meat she is throwing out for the conspiracy kooks, trying to change the focus from her indictment as a pimp, into a Rosie O’Donnell type moonbat carnival.
>>>Not everyone that listens with an open mind is a crackpot
Of course they aren’t. I think its main audience component is people who just enjoy the freak show, similar to Rosie on the View. But the ones who ARE, that’s the basic target audience in the pimp lady’s campaign to muddy the water on Coast to Coast and any other sympathetic venue she can find.
Again, I salute her. It’s clever. Reminds me of mafia boss Crazy Joe Gallo’s campaign against the FBI, crying to the press it was a racist anti-Italian conspiracy to charge him with Cosa Nostra crimes. His storyline was by fighting the charges against him he defended all Italians and stood up to the real (Italian hating) government criminals. He led protest marches with thousands of well-wishers and became a hero to the crackpots of the day. Worked real well for him too, up to the point rival Mafiosi gunned him down at one of those same rallies.
Maybe the pimp lady will learn from his mistake and avoid calling for DU/Moveon/Coast to Coast listener rallies.
One last thought, she suggests the government wanted her phone numbers to blackmail people. Does anybody think they couldn’t have gotten them from the phone companies?
I agree. Read my tagline!
It does promise to be a circus. Nevertheless, I'm not conviced it's a bad legal strategy.
One last thought, she suggests the government wanted her phone numbers to blackmail people.
Are you sure she said that? I understood her to say that government agents told her defense team that people had been referred to her agency by unspecified parties for the purpose of later blackmail.
The Clintons run the IRS, so one interpretation is
that Palfrey is a threat to their return to the White House.
Not sure why, since of the thousands of men on the list, 100% are Republicans. [/s]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.