D.C. brothel bust: Where's the client list
In a swing district in the Virginia suburbs, something interesting happened on election day yesterday: Democrat Susanna Gibson, who had been caught posting videos of her sex life on a pornographic website, calling for 'tips' for particular sex acts from the public, didn't win her election for a seat in the Virginia statehouse. During her campaign, she attempted to brazen it out, not apologizing for her disgusting activity, and laughably calling the news of her very public doings an 'invasion of privacy,' as if knowledge of her activity, and not the activity itself, was the bad guy.
After all, isn't it just sex? Isn't it just consenting adults? Doesn't everyone do this?
Isn't that the conventional wisdom ever since the Clinton era?
The voters didn't think so, and while many didn't care that what this person does in her internet-is-forever bedroom, they sure as heck didn't want someone with her values representing them in the statehouse. So, in a wave year for Democrats in Virginia, she didn't win her seat. All the same, many Democrats still voted for her, unconcerned about her values.
Which brings us to the next scandal rocking the Virginia suburbs -- that a huge brothel network full of trafficked Asian women got rolled up by lawmen after operating a brisk business in the area. The brothels had been operating in Boston, and the D.C. suburbs, all very wealthy areas full of government money and lots of Democrats.
According to Reuters:
BOSTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors on Wednesday charged three people with running a high-end brothel network out of apartment complexes in greater Boston and northern Virginia whose customers included elected officials, tech and pharmaceutical executives, lawyers, professors and military officers.
It suggests there's a lot of demand, which goes alongside the lot of money it takes to frequent one of these higher-end brothels. And sure enough, prosecutors have revealed that the clientele list is pretty influential.
But somehow, they don't want to release the client list. Unlike what Gibson did, there was a crime here, with foreign women being trafficked, possibly against their will. But as in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the client list is being protected?
Why the heck should they be protected? Shouldn't the public know which members of Congress, the Pentagon and other places of power think it's just about sex? As Gibson demonstrated, there is no shame in that. With that the new low bar for morality in the suburbs, maybe the public has a right to know just how bad the background checking process is going, just how many secrets are vulnerable to being spilled or have been spilled as a result of this activity and just how hypocritical the Democrats, and probably some Republicans have been as they support the human-trafficking trade while telling us in public that they are against it. It's hypocrisy cubed.
Yet the only thing we are seeing for these prosecutors is protection for this political class. If they're going to go bring a case like this, every player and beneficiary needs to be named. Otherwise, it's just laying the blame onto the least important players.
Who indeed were these fancy clients? And why should they keep their jobs after going against their oaths of office by supporting this nasty kind of crime?