US Attorney (loyal Bushy) tries to help Vitter cover his ass

This dude Jim Letten, a "loyal Bushie" (appointed by W and confirmed in 2005) is trying to create "plausible deniabilty" for Vitter when it comes to the Canal Street Madam. Just another example of our Dept. of Republican Justice at work. And what a crock of an attempt to "set the record straight": the fact that Vitter's name never surfaced in their investigation of the Madam means jack shit--the FBI's task was not to compile a complete list of her clientele but to make a case that she was running a house of prostitution. Letten, like all Bushies, thinks we're stupid. And isn't it interesting that this "typically circumspect" US Attorney is all of a sudden a loudmouth?



http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/07/us_attorney_vitters_name_never.html

U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said Wednesday that his office never came across Sen. David Vitter's name in their probe of the Canal Street brothel in 2002.
The typically circumspect Letten gave the comment Tuesday afternoon in response to media inquiries about Vitter's alleged patronage of the prostitution house, saying he wanted to "set the record straight" after Tuesday's comments from the brothel's madam, Jeanette Maier, who said Vitter patronized her prostitutes.


To experience the full rhetorical effect of Letten's unethical intervention into the story, you need to check out nola.com's homepage, where it's being run as the lead story. It will undoubtedly feed the repuke spin, which will be that Vitter admitted sinning several years ago but is not in fact a habitual whoremongering hypocrite

http://www.nola.com/




http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/lae/usattorney/index.html

But why would a john use an assumed name?

whether he also opposes changing the traditional definition of prostitution.

;-)