Monday, March 24, 2008
Vitty-cent not out of the woods yet
In today's
column at Bayou Buzz, intrepid Vitterologist Christopher Tidmore writes:
With the trial of the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey now scheduled for April 7th, local news reports circulated the possibility throughout the weekend of whether Senator David Vitter could be forced to testify.
Not mentioned locally was that if the US Senator admitted under oath that he was guilty of solicitation, he could still be prosecuted for the crime under Federal law or a relevant state law.
Tell us more.
According to Newsweek magazine, federal prosecutors have based their case against Deborah Jeane Palfrey on a provision called the Travel Act, which prohibits use of the mail and interstate travel to promote gambling, unlawful distribution of narcotics and prostitution.
...
Vitter, by telephoning Palfrey over state lines could also be prosecuted under the Travel Act, according to legal experts that Bayoubuzz.com has consulted, putting the Senator in a similar legal position as [resigned former Governor Spitzer], and potentially silencing critics who have said there were no parallels between the cases.
The statute of limitations is 10 years for violating the Travel Act, leaving Vitter open to prosecution even today.
Perhaps I'm blinded by my unhysterical, non-nativist approach to issues like immigration, but it seems like Vitty-cent's
"enormous difference", has suffered significant shrinkage.
As I said
before, Vitter should have restricted himself to the local talent.
Labels: immigration, Tidmore, travel, Vitty-cent, Wendy Cortez
5 Comments:
It seems unlikely that Vitter will be forced to testify. It's also hard to imagine what he could possibly testify to that could help the defense. It seems a transparent ploy help Palfrey cut a deal but threatening him and more likely other prominent people who have not yet been publicly named.
If he is called he could always plead the fifth.
I'm sure he will plead the fifth, if called to testify.
Now that there potentially is something to charge him with, I am sure he will plead the 5th as well.
What I can't figure out is any good reason for the judge to make him testify.
If called by the defense he will surely object and the defense must have some plausible question he might conceivably answer that might help them. If he is to testify, "Ya I did it" or "I'm taking the fifth.", that ain't gonna help Palfrey. He'll essentially confirm she was in the business. Even if he says "I never talked to her." It doesn't help her at all either.
She could call me and I could say the same thing, but that doesn't mean she's not guilty.
I just can't see any advantage to her except to force a better deal for a plea.
From your lips to the beringed ears of those fickle, fickle Fates, m'dear. I'd say Karma, but she's been damned unreliable lately, like Dumbya's 12-step program...
It sure would be a refreshing change of pace to see somebody actually PAY for CRIMES ACTUALLY COMMITTED, as opposed to putting an elderly man in prison via entrapment to no good end.
And yes, I'm still pissed about Edwin, and REALLY pissed that fucking Leo Honeycutt got my lifelong dream gig, ghostwriting the autobiography. NOT FAIR.
