« Previous | Main | Next »

In Newsletters, 'D.C. Madam' Gave Advice, Scorn

May 01, 2007 9:31 AM

In_newsletters__mn Even call girls get performance reviews, at least the ones who worked for Jeane Palfrey's Washington, D.C., escort service.

"Without being overtly vulgar, a pair of tits and an ass, without accompanying brains, sophistication, LOOKS and carriage, just won't cut it in this business or at least, not with this particular agency!!"  wrote Palfrey in a monthly newsletter sent to the women who worked for her. 

Calling herself "Miz Julia"  or "the management,"  she regularly offered criticism, beauty advice and warnings about undercover police during the 13 years her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, was in operation.

D.C. Madam Affair Unfolds in Pictures.

In a January 1994 newsletter, she wrote, "Congress is back in session. This always helps to boost business."

In another edition, she complained, "That damn Monday night football...ruines [sic] business every single Monday night!"

Not all were racy. In several dozen issues reviewed by ABC News, much of the content would almost be recognizable to anyone who's pulled shifts in cubicle land: exhortations to improve organization and efficiency; handy tips for improving employee performance; updates on company policies.

"Nail color is to match the lipstick color. The lipstick color is to compliment a person's natural coloring," she advises, along with passing on details of a "fat cream for the thighs" and retin-A so "a gal of 40 can shave off 4-6 years realistically. Mgt. encourages such."

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Palfrey was a stickler for punctuality.

"Organization and efficiency need to be, No, must be the bedrock from which the on-call escort service operates," reads one passage from 1993. In that particular article, Palfrey encouraged her employees ("girls," as she called them) to invest in cellular phones.

"Searching for pay phones in strange places and driving in circles when lost are extraordinarily exasperating and frustrating experiences, which need not be," Palfrey counseled.

Palfrey used her newsletters to instruct women in her employ to destroy all records or notes connected to the business, complaining about one of her girls arrested in a police sting in Alexandria, Va., "The bimbo kept records."  "Destroy the data immeidately [sic]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" she wrote, while repeatedly demanding the women save all newsletters and adhere to the policies and procedures they dictated.

Prosecutors obtained a number of the communiqués and used them to build their case against Palfrey.  In one court filing, prosecutors used passages like "INTENSE SCRUTINY OF ANY DWELLING SPACE (HOME, OFFICE, HOTEL), VISITED BY PAMELA MARTIN, IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ON-CALL!" to bolster their argument she was running a prostitution ring.

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.

In one newsletter,  she explains "adult service or fantasy escorts" command $200 an hour "because of the risky and sexual nature of these appointments. Obviously, the more liberal the booking or act, the more $ one makes." 

But she warned the girls they are "damned fools" if they think they can go on calls, "collect the $200 and 'just talk.'" "We do not sell social appointments, but adult fantasy ones here at Pamela Martin.  Anyone who believes otherwise, will find themselves unemployed."

In a clucking, sometimes sharply remonstrative third-person voice, Palfrey also issued directives on how to be a better escort.  Don't smoke before an "appointment" because "clients" complain. It's permissible to leave an appointment early if your "routine" ends before the allotted time, but try to stay for at least half of a 90-minute appointment. You can stay the entire time, if you like, but "there should be no feeling of obligation on your part to do so!" Palfrey counseled.

Employees' unfamiliarity with the Washington, D.C., area was a source of serious exasperation for Palfrey, the newsletters show. "The Agency recently hired a gal, who doesn't seem to have a clue in hell, as to how to navigate the roadways and streets of the metropolitan D.C. area," read one entry from 1994.

Partially blaming the girl's "poor sense of direction," Palfrey used the opportunity to chastise any of her women who had trouble answering the following questions:

"The streets of Washington, D.C. run 3 ways, i.e., east-west, north-south and diagonally. Which streets are designated alphabetically(?); numerically(?); have state names?" (In Washington, lettered streets run east to west; numbered streets run north to south; and streets named after states typically run diagonally.)

"North, South, East Capitol Streets and the Mall divide Washington, D.C. into 4 sections. (True or False.)" (True.)

"Of the streets designated by a letter, all letters are used except 3.  What 3 letters of the alphabet are not utilized, here?" (Trick question: Four letters never got their own streets. While Palfrey may have been recalling there are no X, Y or Z Streets in Washington, there is also no J.)

When Palfrey was in more charitable moods, she gave affirmative advice and tips. In another issue from 1994, she told her employees how to clean up their credit reports by asking credit agencies to remove negative information from their record.  In yet another, she tipped her girls off to the advantages of being a model at a hairstyle show ("free colorings and cuts").

In one issue, Palfrey even gave a product endorsement. "Victoria's Secret," she wrote, "is the only place a Pamela Martin girl shops."

May 1, 2007 in D.C. Madam Affair | Permalink | User Comments (109)

User Comments

Now we will see how our pious, holy, family values congressmen have comported themselves.These times, and this century will rival that historical period of the industrial robber barons.
Prepare to vomit, America! The day of judgment is at hand.

Posted by: aeskylos | May 1, 2007 10:16:46 AM

Palfrey was running an illegal business, on which she most likely did not pay taxes. Her long winded "explanation" about why she is releasing the names of the johns makes no sense unless she hopes/thinks doing so will cause the powers that be to convince the prosecution to stop prosecuting her for fear of embarrassing more "important" men. Palfrey took a chance doing illegal acts and got snagged. And?????

Posted by: karen | May 1, 2007 10:23:03 AM

There is also no "B" street - it's Independence avenue south of the Mall and Constitution Avenue north of it.

Posted by: DC | May 1, 2007 10:27:46 AM

Smart business woman. You gotta admire that. As for the politicians who were stupid enough to use Madam Palfrey's 'service', well, as long as they haven't spent their careers promoting 'family values' or trying to 'restore dignity to public office' in response to the 'immoral Clinton years', let them deal with their wives while the rest of us stay out of the way. The hypocrites, on the other hand, should pay dearly for their sins.

Posted by: spleen | May 1, 2007 10:28:16 AM

Wanna make bets on which party they will belong to? You know, the family values party. Karma is such a sweet girl.

Posted by: GR | May 1, 2007 10:30:00 AM

Don't assume it was just congressmen, simply because congress was in session (when business was good, according to Ms. Palfrey's comments).

There are a lot more Congressional staffers, lobbiests, and of course Bush Administration officials than there are M.C.'s.

Posted by: Richard Green | May 1, 2007 10:37:12 AM

well...your sins will seek you out...and it stinks...i think we'll find that a man's human nature far transcends politcal boarders. but for those of you who did preach 'moral values' you make people who struggle to live by them look bad. we all make mistakes...but if there's a written record on your mistake...sorry but it's time to fess up. i think we'll find pretty much a 50/50 split in the political spectrum of who's on the call list. the human nature to lust is present in everyone...so it's going to be an embarrassing time for our leaders overall. bring back real values...not your soapbox, feel good, sound good stuff.

Posted by: ns | May 1, 2007 10:43:29 AM

I wonder how many times Billary will show up on that list.

Posted by: Anon | May 1, 2007 10:47:17 AM

she ran her business a lot better than the republicans are running the governments. She is on trial. how about putting some of her clients on trial?

Posted by: semiramis | May 1, 2007 10:49:42 AM

This is one smart lady.By going public with the names she is betting on the named people testifying on her behalf that they did not have sex,and therefore winning her case.

Posted by: Texas Bubba | May 1, 2007 10:58:16 AM

In response to ns: I agree with you overall, but my point about hypocrisy is that it takes a really corrupted soul to use one's power at the pulpit to actively preach the high road while taking the low (especially so specifically). In my opinion, the lies and hypocrisy are as bad as - if not worse than - the sin itself. As for your 50/50 prediction, sorry, but something tells me that the Republicans have, until the last election, felt they were invincible. There is a clear arrogance that has taken over the Republican party. Arrogance leads to carelessness. I would be willing to bet that most of the Dems looking for a little lovin on the side were a little wiser about covering their tracks.

Posted by: spleen | May 1, 2007 11:02:19 AM

I don't know why so many people are assuming her clients were primarily Republicans. She's operated in DC since 1993 -- that's more Clinton years than Bush years, isn't it?

BTW, if you look at who was arrested at Julie's NYC a couple years back, at least two men were prominent left-wing lawyers in Manhattan.

Posted by: Manny | May 1, 2007 11:16:54 AM

The importance of hypocrisy is overrated. Just because a fat smoker tells you that being fat and smoking is a bad idea doesn't mean it's a good idea. Traditional family values aren't false or wrong because people who espouse them struggle and fail like the rest of us.

Posted by: Leo | May 1, 2007 11:18:39 AM

Sophisticated? Victoria's Secret is so tacky!

Posted by: Marisa | May 1, 2007 11:24:15 AM

OMG! Sex in Washington D.C. ? So what else is new? It must be a slow day for media to feed at the same bowl as the supermarket tabloids. There must be something more important to write about, lets see; Iraq, gas prices, the economy, candiates for president, aids, world hunger, and so on and so on and so on.

Posted by: Jerry Grogan | May 1, 2007 11:26:03 AM

A woman could not be a women with out some dirty men around. It's OK for men to do the same thing but not women. Tell me WHY?

Posted by: Edie | May 1, 2007 11:27:12 AM

Yes, Leo, but the fat smoker who is CRITICAL of others who are fat smokers - who goes out of his way to encourage others to look down on 'struggling and failing' fat smokers...well...

"Hypocrisy is overrated." Wow. A perfect message for our children. Let's teach that in our schools and get America back on the right track.

Posted by: spleen | May 1, 2007 11:29:13 AM

Spleen, people always triumphantly pounce on the sexual misconduct of social conservatives as if that vindicates social liberalism. It doesn't.

Posted by: Leo | May 1, 2007 11:33:17 AM

Once again, Leo, it's not about the sexual misconduct. It's about the hypocrisy.

Posted by: spleen | May 1, 2007 11:36:34 AM

Just to clarify a comment above. Dick Morris is not a democrat. While he did work to help Bill Clinton win re-election, the vast majority of his clients are Republicans and conservatives.

Posted by: Jason | May 1, 2007 11:43:11 AM

Clinton was impeached for a consensual act not involving prostitution. If not for Tripp and Goldberg pushed by the Republican dogs, he would not have been and 911 would not have happened. He did a great job as President. The Republicans destroyed him using Ken Starr so they could try to grab the government and steal the treasury. They deserve what they get and Bush should be impeached, and the Madam cannot do enough damage to these hippocrits. What goes around comes around.

Posted by: Franklin | May 1, 2007 11:53:22 AM

Watch for BP's CEO to resign next...he likes "no sex" prostitutes too

Posted by: CaptainDread | May 1, 2007 11:54:02 AM

Street directions? Credit ratings? Hot stuff, all right.

Posted by: Hattie | May 1, 2007 12:10:00 PM

Nothing will come of this, unfortunately. This stuff has always gone on in the "halls of power" and always will. There are two classes in America -- those who wield power and those who don't. The former indemnify themselves against all hazards except the very most egregious. Power corrupts even saints.

Posted by: super | May 1, 2007 12:26:58 PM

It's great to see Democrats supporting a woman who ran an illegal business, exploited young women, and paid no taxes. I hope she rots in jail.

Posted by: Mark Green | May 1, 2007 12:32:42 PM

At least the girls RECEIVED money for getting screwed by the pols.

Posted by: Tim | May 1, 2007 12:37:47 PM

As for Ms. Palfrey's personal prowess between the sheets, as they said in my university days, those who can't, teach.

Posted by: Richard Morris | May 1, 2007 12:38:43 PM

Boys town isn't in Lincoln, NE.... It's in Omaha, NE 60 miles away.

Posted by: whocares | May 1, 2007 12:39:32 PM

I think most of the Dems were using the male escort service..

Posted by: ChiefJayStrongbow | May 1, 2007 12:42:29 PM

I know several of these fringe businesses and the great americans that frequent them. We need to stand by these patriots who only want to free themselves of the burdens of power. There are so many "comfort stations" in DC that a show pony couldn't jump over the list of hot spots.

Posted by: Carville | May 1, 2007 12:43:04 PM

Thats all great...Now, can you please release the names of the high name clients? Do your journalistic duty.

Posted by: gly | May 1, 2007 12:46:44 PM

Leo,"family values" are just that family values!! They need to be taught at home and reinforced with deeds and actions that uphold the ideals!! They should not be LEGISLATED to the rest of us by people that can't live up to their own expectations. If you cant see a problem with that...oh well. By the way...when last I checked hipocrisy is not a family value nor a virtue...it is however.....reprehensible !!!

Posted by: vin | May 1, 2007 12:50:32 PM

vin, I wasn't praising hypocrisy, just saying that too much is made of it. Hypocrites don't refute the worth of the values they pay lip service to but fail to consistently honor.

And, Franklin, on impeaching Clinton: federal civil rights law bans an employer from demanding sexual favors from subordinates and linking that to career consequences. Paula Jones sued Clinton because her post-refusal career in state government stagnated while Gennifer Flowers got a plum position. In investigating, as required by law, whether Clinton had a pattern of promoting and rewarding female subordinates who service him while retaliating against those who refused him, it became noteworthy that one intern recieved unprecedented West Wing access, career help from Vernon Jordan with a high-powered New York fashion firm, etc. Thus the issue of whether Clinton had engaged in any sexual activity of any kind with Lewinsky was directly relevant to a civil rights investigation. Clinton lied under oath about it, not just for the usual reasons, but to evade legal consequences. That's why conscientious people couldn't just let that slide unpunished; it was an impeachable offense.

Posted by: Leo | May 1, 2007 12:58:29 PM

Liberals love it when conservatives don't live the life they encourage all to do. A lot of us have probably cheated on tests before so does that mean we want elected officials to say "go ahead and cheat everyone does it!" In the liberal world hipocracy is having standards and trying to maintain them and not always being successful. i.e. we're all human, but we still need some standards to try to live by.

Posted by: LEO2 | May 1, 2007 12:59:20 PM

What is happening to this country,im only 23 and can see that america is corrupt for the inside and they raise money off all of us hard working americans by taxing and prosecuting those who dont even have enough money to pay there bills. Why arnt we going after the millionaires who pay off people and launder money? All we are doing is making the poor more poor and giving upper class america our shirts off our backs to walk on when theres puddle!

Posted by: whats going on | May 1, 2007 1:06:14 PM

Prostitution will persist regardless of any attempts to stamp it out. I'd much rather see "madams" who actually keep an eye on their employees and give them advice. Certainly better than the risks the independant girls take. Palfrey certainly sounded a lot better than the pimps who sample their employees or get them hooked on drugs. Too bad there is no system to regulate the industry in D.C.. It would probably help a lot of men and women working as prostitutes who have corrupt employers. Making it legal is of course the first step..

Posted by: PM | May 1, 2007 1:14:30 PM

She forgot the newsletter tip that DC is the best known city with four different house-numbering rules, based on quadrant. Takes some getting used to, if you're from a Chicago or Dallas or LA, all of which have just two.

Posted by: Joseph Combs | May 1, 2007 1:16:35 PM

How are you equating rape with prostitution? Rape is a theft of power and often including severe damage to the victim. Prostitution is a trade. An exchange of services for money. Both sides get what they want.

Posted by: PM | May 1, 2007 1:28:38 PM

These men were only trying to help stuggling young women get ahead in Washington. Why do you want to punish them???? They were trying to do a public service. Imagine how many of them had small children at home and they needed to buy milk and bread to feed them! A couple of $300 nights a week goes a long way to pay for food and tuition!

Posted by: reallygone | May 1, 2007 1:29:09 PM

Release the John's names! Both the prostitutes and the johns are involved in illegal activity. Why protect the men?

Posted by: Equal Justice | May 1, 2007 1:52:35 PM

Now you see thats I-mans down fall he doesnt know when to stop crossing the line. I Think he might have been fired as the meter maid perhaps thats why he is so hostile.

Posted by: whatsgoingon | May 1, 2007 2:12:46 PM

This is another result of Global Warming. So we must increase gas prices again!

Posted by: Vi | May 1, 2007 2:22:58 PM

Unless there was an arrest, photo or video of the transaction how can they prove who the prostitutes and johns were? She can say someone was a client but if he chooses not to dignify it with a response what can they do? I wonder how many lawyers are on her list. You know they will all lie. Why do people always believe the worst about women but want to give men a break? LMAO I can't wait for Friday!

Posted by: Just wondering | May 1, 2007 2:27:10 PM

Palfrey was running an illegal business, on which she most likely did not pay taxes.
Posted by: karen | May 1, 2007 10:23:03 AM
======================

I thought in America it is "innocent until proven guilty." You not only have already convicted her, but you've added a brand new charge: Tax evasion.

Nice.

With all my love,
Aunty Em

Posted by: Aunty Em Ericann | May 1, 2007 2:29:55 PM

I do believe that this is related to the "Abromoff Scandle", and that he is trying to get his term in prison reduced by revealing all of his conduits in his crimes. Should Ms Palfrey be snet to prison, every one involved should be punished for Knowingly participating, despite who they may be. If it goes to the "White House",then so be it. If " Scooter Libby "takes the fall" , then so should they all.

Posted by: Al Saunders | May 1, 2007 2:32:24 PM

Gee, I'm in the wrong business...

Posted by: Malcolm | May 1, 2007 2:48:21 PM

That's correct. A blonde with medium sized cans, a tight rump, and a sweet smile...oh, yes, does that come with fries?

Posted by: Tim | May 1, 2007 3:00:19 PM

"Clinton was impeached for a consensual act not involving prostitution. If not for Tripp and Goldberg pushed by the Republican dogs, he would not have been and 911 would not have happened. He did a great job as President. " Yeah, keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Teenage and pre-teen girls now think that BJ's are not really sex. Cause Willie said so. Yeah, he was a great one.

Posted by: Noodles Noodlemann | May 1, 2007 3:11:28 PM

Question: Why is prostitution still illegal?

Question: Why do men continue to hire illegal prostitutes?

Just goes to show you that men only want what they can't have.

Posted by: Kelly | May 1, 2007 3:24:17 PM

This is woman is brilliant. The prosecution of sex workers is a highly biased affair. If she is going to be tried for offering her services, shouldn't the men who partook be treated to the same scrutiny? I can't wait to find out who was involved, regardless of party.

Posted by: Shelley | May 1, 2007 3:36:46 PM

Let's do a little review here, shall we?

1. The media loves sex, because sex sells.
2. See #1.

Got it? Now as for who will be on the list, the answer is plain -- whomever has a difficult time mastering their sexual urges. Me myself, I don't care who it is. All those people need to get out of government.

I will say this in closing, that it is better to hold a high standard even if you miss it from time to time, than to hold up no standard at all. In other words, a moral man who screws up 3% of the time is better than the knave who never screws up. Isn't this obvious? If you aim for beautiful absolutes you will miss them sometimes and therefore become a hypocrite. That is much preferable to never aiming, never trying, and then congratulating yourself because you are the perfectly consistent knave.

Posted by: InRussetShadows | May 1, 2007 4:03:07 PM

In most western countries including Canada and much of Europe, no one would care what consenting adults did in private regardless of who was paying cash for services. It wouldn't even be illegal. Only in Puritanical America could this be a national news story.

Posted by: Alex G | May 1, 2007 4:16:13 PM

So, what are they going to do about the other 345 escort services?

Posted by: nocomplaints | May 1, 2007 4:18:07 PM

Curious how many news outlets show "reluctance" to publish her client list... But had no problem at all jumping on Dan Rather's doctored papers...

Posted by: Storms | May 1, 2007 4:34:53 PM

First of all, if she, or her girls were so 'bad' and so successful at their trade, they would not accept a client willing to pay less than 1,000 a night. 10,000 clients? Thats way too many who aren't credible enough to get a taste of an authentically elegant sexual service.

"In one issue, Palfrey even gave a product endorsement. "Victoria's Secret," she wrote, "is the only place a Pamela Martin girl shops."

And Pamela Martin has proved itself as unelegant,... Victoria's Secret!, um, okay. Again, if they were so on top of their game, the only places they would be shopping are La Perla & CHANEL. I'm still actually quite appalled by the rate and the amount of clients because most of the (escort) agencies on the east coast are much more selective of their girls and clients. In my opinion, its too many clients, too little money being paid, and not enough couture elegance being tossed from client to client.

Posted by: Mariya | May 1, 2007 5:54:15 PM

Who these guys pay to have sex with them is between them and thier families,
but it's the hypocrisy of those who were so outraged that Clinton had sex with another consenting adult and threw this nation into unbelieveable chaos trying to remove him from office that just makes me so mad.

Posted by: betty | May 1, 2007 6:22:18 PM

Bill Clinton - 1993-2001. But someone still had to through Bush's name out there.

Posted by: Sam J | May 1, 2007 6:37:34 PM

This is why STDs are rampant in America, but the news media ignores that story.

Posted by: THawk | May 1, 2007 7:06:34 PM

I remember when Wilbur Mills and Fannie Fox enjoyed the tidal basin together, dates me but let the good times roll.

Posted by: Timerman | May 1, 2007 7:56:12 PM

John Stossel is wrong to repeat the hackneyed sentiment that "Victimless crime hurts no one." Men who are married, have spouses at home, and have dependent offspring -- or even grown offspring who came into this world through their actions & who by rights should inherit from their fathers -- really should not be diverting their leisure time, financial means, and intimate affections from the people waiting for them at home. Porn & prostitution severely undermine the family structure. If you want to abolish the family as such, say so & work that way. But if you actually feel there is merit to the concept of Home & Family, you had better not be taking the easy route by getting sexual favors for money, and then blaming the mate you are neglecting or the children who probably could have benefitted from (a) that wasted money (b) that wasted time and (c) a better relationship between the spouses for your own profoundly corrupt, dishonest behavior.
These are the reasons, Mr. Stossel, why most advanced societies have had laws punishing both extreme pornography & the sale of sexual encounters. The "clients" (primarily men) who keep this "business" going are taking the easy way out of having to try to become a suitable companion for a voluntary sweetheart; alternatively, they are thrill-seekers of a certain kind, hedonists determined to prove themselves by their extravagant adventures with strangers.

Posted by: Maria | May 1, 2007 9:46:52 PM

If you expect to have the privilege of making the law, you should at the very least be willing to uphold it.

Give us the names on the DC Madam's list, please.

Posted by: L Miller | May 1, 2007 10:18:32 PM

Who cares what she did? Every city in America has their prostitutes and madams. If the married or otherwise "spoken-for" men used her services, they deserve to be outed as the scum bags that they are.

Posted by: Diane | May 1, 2007 10:40:00 PM

response to aunty em: Palfrey is a madam. She knew it, her girls knew it, the clients knew it.... she will have failed to pay taxes on the money she earned from the prostituting that occurred. My assessment does not jump the gun. When Bush etc. declared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction I said "Hey, we need more proof." But, we don't for Palfrey.

Posted by: karen | May 2, 2007 1:01:19 AM

I suspect the reason the list is not being let out is that it's studded with members of the Main Stream Media, and other liberals as well. At least we know Barney Frank has nothing to fear.

Posted by: penny | May 2, 2007 1:03:22 AM

Her newsletters are the clearest evidence that she believed she was running a prostitution service.

She is a pimp. Plain and simple. She should go to jail.

The Johns should go to jail too. They broke the law. Period. If they are NOT prosecuted, it is clear evidence that crimes by powerful white men are not taken seriously.

Maybe in Russia you get to buy and sell women to powerful government officials. But NOT in the U.S.! That is NOT what we stand for. Women are people, not cattle that you can casually buy or rent!

These men need to go to jail! Why haven't they been arrested yet? Is the justice department showing them favoritism because they are powerful white men in D.C.?

Arrest the johns!

Today!

Posted by: sign | May 2, 2007 1:27:47 AM

I just did some quick math. Either the Feds have way underestimated PM's gross sales over the past 13 years or she's not nearly as good a business person as some of you seem to think.
$2,000,000.00 / 13 years = $154,000 per year gross income????

15000 clients x $200 = $3,000,000 for one time only. She boasts 65% repeat and 132 employees.

132 x $200.00 x 3 nites per week x 52 weeks x 13 years =$ 54,000,000.00 Now we're talking real money.

Who's zoomin' who here?

ABC will make more money off of this one television show than was ever made by PM and all her "girls". And, Paltrey, if she has a brain, can now retire and write her memoirs.

Oh how we do love a sexy scandal.

Posted by: mixon, m | May 2, 2007 3:40:37 AM

Why are you all assuming it was only men? I'll bet when the list is revealed, we will be surprised by a few women's names as well. And, sign, I'll bet the list won't include only white people's names. Heck, maybe even the good Reverand Jackson made a few calls.

Posted by: K Dog | May 2, 2007 6:28:19 AM

I'm nor assuming its only men. However, I think that the percentages favor men seeking out "companionship" in this way. I would never believe that someone like Condi Rice would use this type of service....would you?

Posted by: Drake | May 2, 2007 8:45:53 AM

Well, I for one am shocked, shocked. And I hope, hope the Senator I disagree with the most is on that list. But I have to wonder how such aged politicans and professional paper pushers summon such erotic vigor?

Posted by: Patsy | May 2, 2007 8:56:42 AM

Someone once commented: When balding, droopy-faced, old men get elected to Congress and cross the Beltway, they suddenly look into a mirror...and see Brad Pitt!
"What good is GREAT power without access to GREAT and good sex?" these geezers must rationalize.
Mirrors do lies, you hypocritical elected freaks!!
Brad Pitt doesn't have to pay $200.00 an hour for sex! You ALWAYS will!


Posted by: Bway1ner | May 2, 2007 9:01:43 AM

the buyer is always as guilty as the seller - sooo...if something hinky was going on, by the books, they are all guilty. Release the names of the clients as well as the names of the independent contractors providing the services. Confirm via telepgone records & credit card numbers. Let the games continue!

Posted by: stormygace | May 2, 2007 9:55:59 AM

Did you catch an oh-so-sympathetic Sean Hannity talking about this?

He was all on about these poor poor "lonely guys just wanting someone to talk to . . ."

Posted by: John | May 2, 2007 10:04:24 AM

Bill Clinton was not impeached for a consensual sex act. He was impeached because Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment and the Supreme Court decided the case could proceed while he was President. In the course of that case, he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The articles of impeachment included perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case and not a consensual sex act with Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton was subsequently found in contempt of court for not testifying truthfully in the harassment case and was fined $90,000 and ultimately lost his Arkansas law license for 5 years, even though he did prevail in the sexual harassment case. But only because Paula Jones never proved that her job situation suffered as a result of her supposed rebuff of the then-governor, not because it was concluded he had never exposed himself to her.

Posted by: MaryAnn | May 2, 2007 10:19:16 AM

All those who call loudly for the legalization of prostitution, kindly practice what you preach and and be the first to stake out your own street corner instead of advocating deviancy as a career option for someone else's daughters!

Posted by: Mrs. Grundy | May 2, 2007 10:32:24 AM

There is a double standard operating here. This is nothing to brag and joke about. These men are crooks. I want to know who they are and not just the politicians. I would not patronize a lawyer, doctor, etc. who participated in this criminal activity. If they are this unethical in their personal lives, I would not trust them to be ethical in their services to me as a client or patient or believe anything they say.

Posted by: GO ABC!!! | May 2, 2007 10:32:57 AM

And I have lost all respect for women...why? None of those women were forced to do this at gunpoint.

Posted by: tim | May 2, 2007 10:35:32 AM

I don't think she has been charged with failure to pay income taxes - she has been charged with running a prostitution ring. She is much too smart not to have paid income tax. She had independent contractors - meaning a contractor who could provide similar services to other companies as well - who did contract work for her for a percentage of the revenue that she arranged. This seems like a perfectly acceptable business to me. Whether she suspected that her independent contractors were performing more than the contract provided is none of her business. They will have to go after the independent contractors if they are unable to prove that the contractors were restricted to working only for Pamela Martin. If they find that they were restricted to only working for her, then she will have nullified the independent contractor claim - and then she should have collected - and paid social security, medicare, etc. for each of her now defined "employees".

Posted by: Sharkie | May 2, 2007 11:01:25 AM

My grandfather had a saying that politicians fall into one of two catgories : prostitutes or criminals (or maybe both).

My rhetorical question is: maybe the current administration is both?

Posted by: John | May 2, 2007 12:29:01 PM

It appears that all the democrats were busy in homosexual affairs.

Posted by: justice | May 2, 2007 12:48:41 PM

This is going to be interesting. This will cut across party lines. How much do you want to bet that 50% of the customers are Democrats and 50% are Republicans? Although the Republicans will have a much higher hypocrisy issue they will have to deal with because we all know they dislike sex the most!

Posted by: Chuck | May 2, 2007 3:33:35 PM

I have no problem with the release of all of the phone numbers / names. I do have a problem with release or "leaking" of selected names that ABC wants to embarass or harm politically.

I suspect that her "customers" were both conservative and liberal, republican and democrat. It will be interesting if only members of the current administration and conservatives are outed.

Posted by: George | May 3, 2007 9:43:03 AM

Really, only the last four years? I bet if you go back to 1993 old Slick Willie would have made many calls to the service. But then again that will only make him more heroic to his supporters on the left. Get them all out there or you will be guilty of once again selective reporting which is standard practice for Brian Ross and is one reason you are losing viewership.

Posted by: Michel de Latour | May 3, 2007 11:31:44 AM

If ABC news whimps out on the broadcast of this story on Friday evening it is just going to drive more people away from network news and infotainment.

Perhaps Federal judges are on the list as well and that's why they are trying to shut this information down.

Posted by: RM | May 3, 2007 12:26:05 PM

Some facts:

1. Brian Ross said on the air that the records go back 13 years. So there's a good chance there are johns from both parties on the list.

2. Prostitution is illegal for a couple of reasons.

a. As public policy the people of this counry have taken a stand against the buying, selling, of human beings. Human beings are not hamburgers.

b. Prostitution hurts everyone involved. Do you want your daughter to grow up to be a prostitute? Why not? Is is because you can imagine it might be a horrible thing to have multiple strangers with her for money, calling her names, slapping her? Prostitution is not pretty people! However bad you can imagine it is, it is worse.

Women who have been prostitutes often suffer all the symptoms of traumatic stress, plus they have to live the rest of their lives in fear their past will catch up with them which makes it difficult to have a relationship and raise children of your own.

Try to separate fantasy from reality here. There is no NICE prostitution. ALL prostitution is about using women as objects. It's not good for the woman and not good for the user.

Pos