Prostitute-lovin’ Louisiana “Republican family values” Senator David Vitter spent a boat load of money on legal fees to one or more law firms to avoid being called to testify under oath about the DC Madame and his personal years-long use of her prostitutes’ services. That information would be included in his periodic FEC financial reports.
Has anyone looked into that?
I recall in the news reports of the time that his primary aim was to avoid being compelled to testify under oath about what he knew of the DC Madame, her house of prostitution and his personal years-long use of her prostitutes’ services. Once he was on the witness stand under oath, he would have been asked questions also about his use of other prostitutes in New Orleans (one of whom passed a professionally administered polygraph).
How much he paid for legal fees during those years would be included in his FEC reports, a public record. He COULD have paid for such legal fees from his personal funds at the time instead, but (a) he is not a wealthy person and (b) his marriage was in jeopardy and under stress and why would his wife Wendy (same name as the prostitutes he favored in DC and NOLA according to some reports) ever agree to let him spend their limited personal savings on legal fees to cover up his preference for sex-for-pay?
One of his fears may have been questions about whether he used only female prostitutes, or whether he played for both teams. We will never know. Some have had suspicions. Personally, I don’t care, but Sen Vitter would have been petrified to have that known, if true, by the voters in deeply conservative Louisiana.
He had no other major legal problems at the time — no ballot access issues, no ethics investigation, no FEC investigation of failure to report campaign contributions — so all of his significant law firm payments during those years would have been related to his use of prostitutes. I assume there would be a Bell curve of his campaign’s payments to law firms — legal fees rising from when he was first notified his phone number had been found in the DC Madame’s records to a burst of legal fees as his law firm(s) filed frantic motions with the court to avoid having him subpoenaed to testify under oath, then tapering off after the court ruled in favor of his motion to avoid testifying. Law firms are late-billers so law firm costs to his campaign would have continued for a few more FEC quarters after news he would not be required to testify.
How many hundreds of thousands of dollars of his campaign contributions did he ultimately pay to law firms to cover up his history with prostitutes?