Harlan K. Ullman, neocon whoremonger

 Another scandal for the Bush administration. The money line?

Palfrey's civil defense attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, told CNN that it was his understanding that Ullman used the business' services but did not engage in sexual activity with the escorts.

http://www.cnn.com/...

 I suppose I'll be beaten senseless by Melissa Gira for my lack of sensitivity regarding the plight of sex workers, but the I did it but I didn't inhale statement coupled with the sexual nature of the non event has me wiggling all over with delight just like a black lab puppy with a new chew toy. Lets hope it makes the Sunday talk show cycle.

 The Republican party is icky. You can't trust 'em with your short term or long term personal, financial, or national security. Other than comic relief I don't think the Gang of Perverts has provided much value this week.

•  It's Murder - No Iraqi exemptions

  by deepsouthdoug on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:54:18 AM PDT

  •  Wait a second

    I thought that Palfrey said she had her escorts sign a no-sex pledge.  I also thought that she said she had no idea what the escorts did when they went out but she did expect them to abide by the pledge.  A pledge... whoopee!  In any event, how does she know that there was no sex involved?  If I am a prosecutor, I am very interested in that question right now because it would occur to me that, as we all suspect we know, there was sex, she had a different rate for different services and, given that he never paid the agency for sex (who knows about the girl directly?), Palfrey can say that there was no sex.  However, she does know then who was having sex?  Was there a rate structure?  Was there something off the books?

    Obviously, if I am defense, I can simply state that because of the pledge and discussions with her escorts, she knows there was no sex.  She took the girls at their word.

    Just saying, if she can state something so affirmatively it would lead me to believe that she was doing more than taking people at their word unless she is incredibly naive which I doubt given her business and her clientele.

    I will love to hear the shouts from the right about how we're a bunch of hypocrites for bringing this up and making a case about it (although the response so far is, maturely, muted) as if we were the ones standing on soap boxes trying to force our own personal morality down the throats of an unwilling nation.

    by lgrooney on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:00:46 AM PDT

  •  Isn't there a Commandment called

    All of the Above?

    by lgrooney on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:01:23 AM PDT

•  He used their services but not for sex????

  ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!  You can't make this shit up; you really can't!!

  (Of course, I've got to admit that you can't make up stuff like "I tried marijuana a couple of times, but I didn't inhale," either.)

  by leevank on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:56:52 AM PDT

  •  impotent in foreign policy ... and other things

      Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

    by Iowa Boy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:58:16 AM PDT

  •  Actually it's very interesting

    If he used their services, but not sex, for himself.  Then perhaps providing hired sex partners to others?  Where does that take us?

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:41:36 AM PDT

  •  "Vote Republican; We Just Watch!" (eom)

    by section29 on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:44:19 AM PDT

•  tip jar

   I voted for Bush in 2000. Please don't hit me.
  
  
    Jim Esch ran for the House in 2006 in the NE-02 district. He had no national support, spent one third of what incumbent Lee Terry spent, and he came within 4% of winning.
  
  
  
  
  
  If you had the time to read my whole article I bet you've got at least $1.08 free on a credit card - please contribute to my
  Draft Jim Esch for 2008 campaign.

  by Iowa Boy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:57:33 AM PDT