6 Comments

  • Hmm, I don’t detect here a touch of annoyance that yet another Bush administration figure has been exposed as a hypocrite, do I?

    Also, as far as “blackmail” goes, it seems to me a very legitimate defense strategy for Ms. Palfrey to call as witnesses for the defense the no doubt many, many Bush administration officials who have been using her service (at least until they switched, as Mr. Tobias did, to a service that “uses Central Americans”). Those witnesses will certainly corroborate her defense that she was not selling sex, only “massages” and “adult fantasy.”

  • Does it really shock you jhs that a State Department official was having sex with a call girl? If this offends your sensibilities so much I just can’t imagine what your level of moral outrage was when you found out a President was having sex with an intern in the White House.

  • Certainly, I see embarrassment here, but where is the blackmail? I think of blackmail as transactional, i.e., “I will expose your name from my list unless you…” what? What is she demanding from the clients?

  • Shorter Richard: behold, the CLENIS!!!11!

  • I think it is great. It has been known long before the Clinton administration that Washington had a lot of naughty boys. Clinton made the mistake of not knowing the line and then lying about it.
    I’m sure there is plenty of naughtiness to go around. We’ll get to see how much.

  • Other than Ms. Palfrey trying to make her problems go away by using scare tactics and the possibility of Democrats getting another stick to beat the Bush Administration over the head with, does anyone really care?

    Of course the tabloid media cares! Nice timing. Anna Nicole Smith was starting to get a little old.