My, my Repubs are bigger pervs than Dems and bigger hypocrits too- The AIDs Czar

[Mucho]

Senior Official Linked to Escort Service Resigns

April 27, 2007 8:58 PM
Brian Ross and Justin Rood Report:

Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation.  Tobias, 65, Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), had previously served as the Ambassador for the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief.

A State Department press release late Friday afternoon said only he was leaving for "personal reasons." On Thursday, Tobias told ABC News he had several times called the "Pamela Martin and Associates" escort service "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage."   Tobias, who is married, said there had been "no sex," and that recently he had been using another service "with Central Americans" to provide massages.

Tobias' private cell number was among thousands of numbers listed in the telephone records provided to ABC News by Jeane Palfrey, the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," who is facing the federal charges. In an interview to be broadcast on "20/20" next Friday, Palfrey says she intends to call Tobias and a number of her other prominent DC clients to testify at her trial.

"I'm sure as heck not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, four to eight years, because I'm shy about bringing in the deputy secretary of whatever," Palfrey told ABC News.

Palfrey maintains she ran a sexual fantasy business that was legal and that if any of the women who were working for her had sex, they did so in violation of her rules and without her knowledge. She says there are a number of other prominent Washington, D.C. men who will be on her witness list.  "I'll bring every last one of them in if necessary," Palfrey said.

As the Bush administration's so-called "AIDS czar," Tobias was criticized for emphasizing faithfulness and abstinence over condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS.

 

April 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/18061468

[BT]

Knute

I did not know you were such a staunch member of the bedroom police.

I hope Martin fulfills her promise of releasing the names of all her "prominent" clients.

[Mucho]

Knute

I did not know you were such a staunch member of the bedroom police.

I hope Martin fulfills her promise of releasing the names of all her "prominent" clients.

Me too! I am sure you Repub hypocrits will lead the pack. What you reap so shall you sow thus sayeth the Knutester.

[BT]

I am sure you Repub hypocrits will lead the pack

and i am equally sure there will be some dems in the bunch. And if past is prologue they won't resign like their more honorable republican peers have.

[Mucho]

I am sure you Repub hypocrits will lead the pack

and i am equally sure there will be some dems in the bunch. And if past is prologue they won't resign like their more honorable republican peers have.

Even mo' betta!

[Lanya]

Just a massage, eh? Very Ted Haggard-like.

[BT]

Just a massage, eh? Very Ted Haggard-like

Posts like that could be construed as a hate crime if the legislation you posted about in the other thread passes.

[Lanya]

Really?
I got the info from Fox News.
 FOXNEWS.COM HOME >  U.S.
Evangelical Leader Admits to Buying Meth, Receiving Massage From Gay Escort
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227159,00.html

 I made a comparison.  Haggard admitted to getting a massage (at first).
 I don't think I made the comparison  to anyone who was involved, and last I heard, making comparisons aren't hate crimes.

[BT]

So your reference to Haggard had nothing to do with the type of sex involved? It was gay sex wasn't it? Was your comparison meant to be complimentary or derogatory. What were you thinking at the time of your post? Were you filled with hate for gays, hate for fundamentalist preachers or hate for fundamentalist preachers who engage in gay sex?

Have you ever posted derogatory things about Haggard before?

Is he a member of a protected or a soon to be protected class?

If you were involved in a violent act against a protected class would your posts in here be fair game to prosecute you for a hate crime? Would they show a pattern of thinking?

So yeah really!
 

[domer]

Christ.

[BT]

Christ.

You don't think that if the powers that be wanted to make a case they could do it with a literal reading of selected posts?

Not like we have never had run away prosecuters before.

[domer]

First, there's no violent crime to couple with the hate aspect. To my knowledge no hate legislation goes beyond that scenario. Second, there are concepts in constitutional law -- which I know are onerous for the average guy to invoke in defense -- which would be applicable to this situation, such as "void for vagueness" (basically what it says) and also "overbreadth" (that is, sweeping protected activity within the statute's reach). Further, of course, as you alluded, it would be the rare prosecutor indeed who would misuse such a law (but remember Nifong). With that introduction, however, I do concede that there could be room for mischief in a loosely drafted law.

[Plane]

First, there's no violent crime to couple with the hate aspect. To my knowledge no hate legislation goes beyond that scenario. Second, there are concepts in constitutional law -- which I know are onerous for the average guy to invoke in defense -- which would be applicable to this situation, such as "void for vagueness" (basically what it says) and also "overbreadth" (that is, sweeping protected activity within the statute's reach). Further, of course, as you alluded, it would be the rare prosecutor indeed who would misuse such a law (but remember Nifong). With that introduction, however, I do concede that there could be room for mischief in a loosely drafted law.

Leagal Jargon is daunting to most of us .

Is the point of having this large set of special words to make it possible to mean very specific things with less potential for misunderstanding?

Or is obfuscation written in at times?

[Lanya]

The law as I understand it does protect religious groups.   So far I haven't seen anyone get slammed with a lawsuit for engaging in theological arguments....or comparisons.

And no, I was most definitely not alluding to the fact that Haggard later admitted to having sex----with a man.  Only to the fact that first he said massage, and later, sex.

[BT]

And no, I was most definitely not alluding to the fact that Haggard later admitted to having sex----with a man.  Only to the fact that first he said massage, and later, sex.

Hopefully the press won't jump on your story. You know how it is when the sharks go into a feeding frenzy and cherry pick comments made over a decade of postings.

What did they come up with on Imus? 3 quotes over 30 years? And we all know once you are damned in the press it is hard to be judged objectively. Look at Katrina. Look at this Tobias guy. Look at Bush Lied People Died.

What is becoming quite apparent is the truth doesn't matter. It certainly doesn't matter in certain publications and blogs.

It may matter in a court of law if you have the wherewithal to hire quality defense, but still, by the time it reaches that point your reputation has been destroyed.

It's a brave new world out there, where the constitution is set aside to soothe national guilt. Tell me how the 14th amendment and specifically the equal protection clause is being honored in hate crime legislation. Far as i can tell it isn't when crimes against one class are more onerous than against another class.