WWW--There's no need for help on Jack Burkman Jr., the card's a kind of a red-herring. Mr. Burkman called Pamela Martin & Associates (no "LLC" like Jack) from his personal residence over several years on repeated occasions. It's literally irrefutable.
Through a variety of search engines and corroborations, I've isolated the fact that Jack Burkman Jr. did in fact call PMM in November of 2003, January of 2004 (twice on the same day), and the final one everyone knows about on January 15th, 2006. For some reason, others haven't gone into this kind of detail and published it. They should, but I'd imagine this will put things to rest insofar as Jack's denials.
Call me stupid, but I thought trophy wives and gold digger girlfriends were the best surrogate for "paying for it." Like the hookers say, "You always pay for it baby, always." Yep, unless there's something real there, which is rare in a materialistic America.
Jack's in there alright, it's not a mistaken contention--a wrong number--he's in there and it wasn't a misdial. He called an escort service run by a woman who was ultimately convicted of being a pimp, with complications. Coupled with the possible incident of the two girls at the gay pride parade (and, allegedly, the Mayflower hotel), Jack likes to get it anyway he can, he pays, and he's willing to pay a lot according to the two girls. Palfrey confirmed that he was a client herself. In one of my first pieces I hit the nail on the head when I subtitled it, "Whores seeing whores." That would describe the world of lobbying in Washington D.C., literally. They're all whores.
Keep in mind that these are calls that can be isolated to his personal residence and its number at the time. Burkman could have called from other locations, but he appears to have been wise enough to keep it away from the office--not that ordering out from home is exactly a wise thing to do, but that's Jack for you. But I can state here with the utmost certainty that the "Burkman responds" comments he posted right after the revelations of his presence in the phone records went public are factually incorrect, and that it can be easily proven with an Intelius search within just a few quick searches. Corroboration with the late madam's phone records were easy. He's in there, and while he no longer uses 703-524-3209, it was his number during those calls and he wasn't ordering out for pizza.
The gay pride parade incident from June 2006 just corroborates what is likely an impulse control problem that could be coupled with what I suspect are common practices on the Hill in obtaining contracts ala the style of a Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and a Brent R. Wilkes. You know, I'm a breast man too, but Jesus Christ. You become an attorney, lobbyist, and deal maker, just so you can get laid? Surely, there are easier and more direct routes to eros in life, but perhaps Mr. Burkman knew his personality was that finest of birth control methods? Like the Founding Fathers, I hold that these truths are self-evident. I have to at least like a woman to be truly attracted to her, ferchrissakes.
My question is this: since truth is a defense in this nation (I know the law), why did Wonkette, Crooks & Liars, and other progressive web sites pull their stories on this? I'd imagine they were threatened and stupidly believed whatever threats might have come their way. The fact is that Jack Burkman Jr., the well known pundit and lobbyist, protector of the vile Ann Coulter, corporate shill, and an all around GOP hack, called Pamela Martin & Associates on multiple occasions. What happened after that, I cannot say, but one's imagination tends to run (laugh) riot after that. At the very least, this should be investigated by those on the Hill, it's improper behavior by a lobbyists--or is nothing improper behavior for a lobbyist if they have enough money behind them? Welcome to life in a plutocracy where everyone's reified, objectified, a commodity to be bought and sold.
Do I expect them to do anything about it or the outcome of the Palfrey prosecution? Not without some prodding, no. Considering that Burkman was a Bush-Cheney campaign staffer, it makes you wonder. This one's going straight to the president's brain...except that it's empty of reasonable thought. You'd think there had been no elections last fall with so little change, no willingness for real accountability...unless it's someone like ACORN. Accountability only matters when the target is weak enough to be held-accountable, a perverse twist on the rule of law that echoes the attitudes of the Bush II administration. President Obama isn't merely screwing-up, he's part of the overall problem.
One final thought: ABC had to know Burkman was in the phone records and lied about it. When Brian Ross said, "Our viewers won't recognize many of the names," he was probably saying it under extreme pressure from his producers who were having their own arms twisted by influential players.