BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
Accused Las Vegas 'Madam' Claims She Only Did Makeup for Bill Clinton
June 19, 2007 11:24 AM
The lawyer for an accused Las Vegas "Madam" says she did work for Bill Clinton but only to provide makeup, not girls.
Alleged "Madam" Esperanza Brooks told undercover officers her clients "range from 'Shaqille [sic] O'Neal to Bill Clinton,'" according to a police report obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
In the report, Brooks is quoted as saying she employed 40 girls who were "very discrete and only go with upscale people."
"These are not your average girls," Brooks said. "Some of them have worked with Bill Clinton."
In his first interview since his client's arrest, Brooks' attorney Michael Sanft told ABC News his client did indeed work with both Bill Clinton and Shaquille O'Neal, but only in her professional capacity as a makeup artist when the two men made public appearances in Las Vegas.
Brooks was working as a volunteer "cheerleading coach" for the Andre Agassi Academy for underprivileged youth in Las Vegas when she was arrested on charges of operating a "prostitution out call operation."
Attorney Sanft denies Esperanza was operating a prostitution ring, saying she has no prior arrests and never had 40 girls working for her.
"Her judgment was blurred by her eagerness to make a quick buck. She was misread and misinterpreted as a 'madam' as she tried to play herself up as something that she wasn't," he said.
A spokesman for former President Bill Clinton declined to comment to ABC News, but last week told the New York Post, in which the arrest was reported, "Apparently, total fabrications that get made up in Vegas don't stay in Vegas."
The Las Vegas sheriff now says a subsequent investigation found Brooks' statements to undercover police were "made in an attempt to inflate Brooks' claim that she was a madam with high end clientele." The sheriff concluded that the statement was "not true at the time it was made, nor is there evidence that it ever was true."
The sheriff's department spokesman said he did not know if the Clintons or O'Neal had contacted them or prompted the sheriff's statement, saying only that the volume of calls about the arrest report prompted them to issue the statement.
Attorney Sanft says he plans to examine the full undercover tape recordings and evidence before advising his client on how to plead.
Esperanza is out on bond and is scheduled to appear in court on July 9.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
June 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (44)
Who really cares?
Posted by: Jazz | Jun 19, 2007 12:01:03 PM
Can't hardly wait for the character assassinaters/theory experts start posting.
Posted by: Roy | Jun 19, 2007 12:08:09 PM
It figures...Shame on you, ABC...always trying to associate sex with Bill Clinton. A cheap shot..seeing that the story is really not about him. Hate when the media does that, with ANYONE.
Posted by: rglines | Jun 19, 2007 12:18:16 PM
Why is ABC associating this woman with Bill Clinton? I do not like the media always associating BC with illicite activity. It's wrong, using it for attention.
Posted by: rglines | Jun 19, 2007 12:27:04 PM
This headline is totally misleading, which I think was intentional on the part of ABC. You should check facts before you print misleading headlines such as this. Most people don't take time to read through the articles before forming opinions. I've noticed this to be a trend not just on this particular story, but on most all of this site's stories. ABC - get it together please. You don't need to imply slanderous material to hook an audience. Just give us the facts. If I wanted gossip and innuendo I would read the Enquirer or tune in to E!
Posted by: headlineobjector | Jun 19, 2007 12:50:03 PM
It's sooo refreshing that you can't associate President Bush with these unsavory caracters like Bill Clinton did. The Clinton's will never see the White House again and you democrates need to realize that, it's off limits to them, the public will not tolerate them back. The Clintons', please let's just move on....I'd prefer to see Michael Moore as president and I'm a ultra conservative republican.
Posted by: ruben | Jun 19, 2007 1:00:17 PM
Well, the nice thing about Bill Clinton is you always knew he was not gay :)
Posted by: Sherman59 | Jun 19, 2007 1:02:08 PM
Don't worry Hillary will just pay her off like she does all of Bill's women.
Posted by: Flander Anapolis | Jun 19, 2007 1:06:17 PM
ABC is cheap and unprofessional
Posted by: bb | Jun 19, 2007 1:17:28 PM
I agree that most "news" organizations including ABC (unfortunately) and AP willfully and purposely use misleading and inflammatory headlines not for the purpose of informing the public but moreover for entertainment value disguised as news to further keep and promote a greater following. Instead of "keeping up with the Jones'" it's "keeping up with FOX News!" Gross!!! Where is the oversight and accountability? With the public? Then perfectly positioned they are...
Posted by: libratine | Jun 19, 2007 1:19:50 PM
The headline, perhaps should have read, "Make up artist that worked with Bill Clinton is accused of being Las Vegas Madam".
Makes a big difference on who the focus of attention is on, doesn't it?
Then again, I'm not pulling down a salary as an editor, so really, what could I possibly know about it.
Posted by: Zach | Jun 19, 2007 1:20:22 PM
I do not understand all this fuss about this girl. Men are supposed to have fun and if necessary pay some cute girls for a nice time. There is no difference between paying a beautiful chick to provide a nice time to a guy and payin a tip for a waitress in a restaurant. Tell the prosecutor and the police to arrest drug dealers, the Vegas mob, corrupt politicians who endorse killing abroad and in Iraq.
Posted by: evcj | Jun 19, 2007 1:22:47 PM
We need a change. Please not another Clinton as president. Bush/Clinton/Bush......please please not another Clinton.
Posted by: a2fly | Jun 19, 2007 1:25:19 PM
Wow, the neo cons are really getting desparte. They are trying to dig real deep of course I think that they should just give it up becasue we didn't care when he was President and a good one at that.
Posted by: ant | Jun 19, 2007 1:27:25 PM
First it was exposing U.S. secrets regarding a secret war w/ Iran. Now, this article trying to insinuate that Bill Clinton has improper relations with another woman, when it is clearly stated that it was for makeup before an appearance. ABC News is really stooping low nowadays and this is quite upsetting.
Posted by: American | Jun 19, 2007 1:29:07 PM
I'm a conservative Republican, and I also agree this is just a cheap shot at Bill Clinton. Where is the newsworthiness of this article?
On the other hand, maybe you had to run it or be faulted by my conservative brethren for "covering up" something.
I guess you just can't win.
Posted by: Fred Goodwin | Jun 19, 2007 1:39:19 PM
If ABC is soooo interested in Madame's (etc.) why didn't they EXPOSE THE NAMES ON THE DC MADAME'S LIST????? Huh ABC???? What gives????? Who are you trying to cover up for?????
Posted by: artist22 | Jun 19, 2007 1:39:40 PM
My post refers to the first five on the comments section. Each post is right and says something about interactivity in upholding standards. This is a non-story or one that needs thorough follow-up before dissemination. I think ABC in showcasing a user-friendy, informative, interactive news site in constant need of updating is forgetting why people navigate here--including journalism school directors like myself--and that is, alas, to read the news. When ABC has documentation that a madam is connected with Bill Clinton, by all means, disseminate it; but not when story content seems to be based on quotes rather than facts. It's a disservice to all involved--the readers, the quoted, and to ABC itself.
Posted by: Michael Bugeja | Jun 19, 2007 1:43:27 PM
ABC? Check facts?
It is to laugh.
Posted by: Apprentice to Darth Holden | Jun 19, 2007 1:44:32 PM
Seems like people don't like it when it hits a Democrat in the head. Hey here is a twist on it. It is all Bushs fault. If his father had caught her then this would not be happening today. Grab a Havana and live with it.
Posted by: ArmyRetiredSFC | Jun 19, 2007 1:56:43 PM
ABC is weird.
We don't care what Bill Clinton has done, did, didn't do, is doing anymore. He is no longer president thank GOODNESS!!
People, watch Fox News instead.
Posted by: SomeonefromLA | Jun 19, 2007 2:34:12 PM
This is nothing more than a vast right wing conspiracy by those out to damage the former president.
Besides, there is no apparent semen stained blue dress (or is there)?
Posted by: RWingConspiracy | Jun 19, 2007 2:39:36 PM
Look everyone - its another bright and shiny object! I guess this is supposed to take our mind off of the lost war in the middle east, the price of gasoline, no healthcare for millions, New Orleans in ruins....well I could continue to list items but your short, little attention span has already wandered to Paris.
Give peace a chance!
Posted by: NakedEmperor | Jun 19, 2007 3:00:07 PM
Ruben
Did you read the article? I don't see how a conservative republican who supports Bush can criticize anyone. Of course, typically, Ruben obviously didn't bother to read anything before he shot off his mouth. He's a republican. What do you expect? Stupid comments that are completely void of fact or even thought. And Bill has something Bush can only dream of. World respect and people who like him.
Posted by: jason c | Jun 19, 2007 3:03:35 PM
RWingConspiracy.
I really don't believe the RW cares anymore. They have better things to worry about than our former president.
If this is a RW conspiracy I would be very concerned.
Its just the media frenzy still out to pick on P. Clinton for his past mistake.
I wish they would get over it. Really.
Posted by: GOPperson | Jun 19, 2007 3:12:08 PM
A make-up artist is accused of providing girls to Bill Clinton? Next thing you know, ABC News will be reporting that Star Trek's Nichelle Nichols was operating a brothel in Pahrump!!!!
Posted by: J. Neil Schulman | Jun 19, 2007 3:48:20 PM
I feel bad for the democrats having to watch their former president being associated with words like sex, lying, stealing ect, instead of phrases like "fighting terrorism", "securing our borders", " tax credits" ect. Maybe next time.
Posted by: JONCON | Jun 19, 2007 3:53:01 PM
Hey a2fly, I guess I missed whatever made BC a "good" president. ? Al Queda was planning 911 long before Bush came in and he sat on his heels, taxes were on the rise and interest rates ? Medicade/Medicare reform was at a standstill. If this was Bush in the news or some other Rep. you would be whoopin it up cheering the press ! Wake up Dems! morals will save this world
Posted by: EW in Texas | Jun 19, 2007 4:41:53 PM
Can't you find anything better to report on than Bill Clinton? I am like most people, shame on ABC. We don't need this when we have so much other wrong in our government. Get over it and move on!!!!
Posted by: Vicki | Jun 19, 2007 4:59:25 PM
Just imagine Bill did it!
The effect of his act is in his own personal life.
But how about Bush!!
more than 650000 people have been killed just in Iraq! and it is going on yet!
Posted by: mardtanha | Jun 19, 2007 6:17:45 PM
Just imagine Bill did it!The result of his act is going to effect his own life.
But how about Bush!!
More than 650000 human being have been killed in Iraq, yet, it is not ended!
Posted by: mardtanha | Jun 19, 2007 6:23:37 PM
WHY? Why would you even bother to print such wasted words. SHAME - SHAME on you ABC NEWS... it is NOT newsworthy.
Guessing writing about GW Bush and his pack of liars and thieves was boring.
But leave it to Christian Conservatives who insist that everything is the Clintons fault. Cant you blame the liberals who are at fault for everything too. May just as well.
Posted by: Bob Hutchison | Jun 19, 2007 6:24:30 PM
Yeah, at least Clinton gets caught with women. Whereas Bush gets caught having late night rendezvous' at the white house with Jeff Gannon and others(yeah, mainstream media was pretty quiet about that-go figure). Clinton has a few more things straight than W. However, please no more Bush or Clintons in office anymore!
Posted by: verklempt | Jun 19, 2007 6:58:28 PM
If Bill did it, nobody died!!!
Posted by: lakeaustinman | Jun 20, 2007 12:15:59 AM
So if the tabloid New York Post has a lurid story, then ABC News must give it prominence? Who decides what is a story and what is not?
Tell us about George Bush's extramarital afairs, or his father's, or his daughters', or Reagan's or Eisenhower's.
Posted by: keith | Jun 20, 2007 12:36:17 AM
I find it funny when it comes to stories about Madame's, it all depends on which polictical party is involved. When the DC Madame was in the news, the Libs were hoping for the names of Republicans. Now their defending President Clinton. I wonder why the DC Madame only gave out her phone list that covered the Bush Administration and not the Clinton Administration. I think when it comes to President Clinton, his conduct with woman has long since be established, an actually is not news anymore. As far as misleading headlines, the AP does it all the time, an so does the NYTimes, or I can assume most do it. Its not a new tactic to get folks to read the full story. Reporters today need to wear out some shoe leather instead of just sitting at a computer. Name names an lets get rid of un-named sources.
Posted by: homjett | Jun 20, 2007 9:37:59 AM
Imagine my complete (lack of) shock on this one. ABCNEWS, come on now... Bill Clinton is not the president anymore (I personally thought he was a much better president than what's his name... oh yeah Bush) I voted for him in '96 and I swear this country was much better with him as president... I also know for a fact that he was always associated with sex scandals throughout his presidency and was supposed to be impeached for that? Look at Bush... an unpopular war in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture scandals and coverups, Libby's awaited "pardon", very low approval rating etc. the list goes on and on... ABCNEWS, get over BC and focus your stories more on Bush and Co. Trust me, you will get more approval ratings and the public WILL be on your side again
Posted by: Steven A Smith | Jun 20, 2007 11:32:25 AM
Imagine that...Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman. Define if...
Posted by: redbud | Jun 21, 2007 9:43:15 AM
Again Bill "did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Posted by: pat | Jun 21, 2007 9:52:47 AM
Since BC was using the prosecuter's definition of "sexual relations" (which did not include anything he and Monica did) he was not lying. A judge later ruled that, either way, it was immaterial to the Paula Jones case and therefore could not be perjury or obstruction of justice. But you will still hear many conservatives today say that BC was guilty of perjury--Gingrich, Bennet, Limbaugh, Jack Cafferty, etc. The media will not correct them. Sometimes the media does not even know which is true---repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
Posted by: keith | Jun 21, 2007 8:07:26 PM
Funny that the media never talks about the one thing that changes your whole outlook on history and politics and life:
that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated to kill and shock us into blindly saying yes to war, then martial law. The White House has no god. If you think war is great, wait until martial law, people.
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
Posted by: allen russell | Jun 21, 2007 9:13:15 PM
Yeah!!! And the Holocaust never happened.
Posted by: Jeremiah | Jun 22, 2007 1:43:05 PM
Soignons serieux ABC,Bill est un vrai homme et Hillary une vraie femme.That's it (Let's treat this seriously, ABC, Bill is a real man and Hillary is a real woman.)
Posted by: sekou | Jun 29, 2007 12:10:13 PM
Now what?
Posted by: sekou | Jun 29, 2007 12:13:33 PM
Post a comment
