From: Michael Rogers - PageOne
Date: Nov 27, 2007 3:21 PM
To: jeanepalfrey@_______.com
Subject: Jeane...

Jeane...

Can you let me know if this article is accurate and whether you have any on or off teh record comments about it?

Thanks!
Mike

From: Jeane Palfrey
Date: Nov 28, 2007 12:32 AM
To: Michael Rogers

Mike… the Radar article is correct.
-Jeane

MESSAGE ONE:

from Rob Capriccioso
to escort@benjaminnicholas.com,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:08 PM
subject From Big Head DC
mailed-by gmail.com

Hi Benjamin,

I’m an editor with Big Head DC in Washington. A commenter on the site recently said that you and Sen. Trent Lott happened to be vacationing together at the same place on a couple of separate occasions. Could you clarify whether you know Sen. Lott in any way?

I appreciate your help.

All the best,
Rob
Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC

Hmmm someone wants to move a story: Write comments which may or may not be factually correct. What, I wonder, is the IP address of that comment? Did Mr Nicholas himself write it? Someone he knows?

MESSAGE ONE RESPONSE:

from Benjamin Nicholas
reply-to Benjamin Nicholas ,
to Rob Capriccioso ,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:18 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by benjaminnicholas.com

No comment
—–
http://www.BenjaminNicholas.com
http://www.15MinutesMore.com

Classic. People THINK that "no comment" means more than "no comment." Bottom line is "no comment" means just that, nothing more.

MESSAGE TWO:

from Rob Capriccioso
to Benjamin Nicholas ,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:21 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by gmail.com

Totally off the record, can you explain why you have no comment?

Rob

MESSAGE TWO RESPONSE:

from Benjamin Nicholas
reply-to Benjamin Nicholas ,
to Rob Capriccioso ,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:23 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by benjaminnicholas.com

I’m a blogger as well, so I’m well aware that nothing in this world is ever truly ‘off-record.’

Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don’t want to add to it. All I can say at this point is no comment. It’s the professional thing for me to do.

This is also a classic. Never claim to know the person, but mention them on a first name basis give the IMPRESSION that the person knows the subject of the inquiry. As a prostitute, Benjamin gets it right, it is "the professional thing" to not comment on clients, whether actual or perceived.

MESSAGE THREE:

from Rob Capriccioso
to Benjamin Nicholas ,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:29 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by gmail.com

I definitely understand what you’re saying about commenting into the blogosphere, Benjamin, and have had it happen to me before. I’m just trying to establish whether you personally know Sen. Lott. A couple of people tipping Big Head DC suggested I contact you, so I thought I’d take a shot. I’m definitely not asking whether you were ever in a relationship with him. Have you been contacted by others about knowing him?

Rob

MESSAGE THREE RESPONSE:

from Benjamin Nicholas
reply-to Benjamin Nicholas ,
to Rob Capriccioso ,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:37 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by benjaminnicholas.com

Yes. I was contacted by Gawker this morning ([Nick] Denton is a friend of mine). He’s hot to get an exclusive interview about the possible relationship between the two of us, but I politely declined. As I said before, Lott has quite a bit on his plate right now and I don’t really want to add fuel to the embers.

BN
—–
http://www.BenjaminNicholas.com
http://www.15MinutesMore.com

Well, we all know Lott has a lot on his plate, he's a US Senator. That does not mean that he ever met this guy. The whole fuel on the embers line? Brilliant... keep 'em wondering.

MESSAGE FOUR:

from Rob Capriccioso
to Benjamin Nicholas ,
date Nov 26, 2007 2:42 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by gmail.com

How did anyone get it in their heads that you even knew Lott?

NO RESPONSE FROM NICHOLAS

Hours later, after we did much more investigating and our piece ultimately went live, Nicholas sent a final message:

from Benjamin Nicholas
reply-to Benjamin Nicholas ,
to Rob Capriccioso ,
date Nov 26, 2007 5:32 PM
subject Re: From Big Head DC
mailed-by benjaminnicholas.com

Off-the-record, eh? Sheesh.

Here’s my public comment, on-the-record: Sen. Lott and I have no current affiliation with one another. I’m sure he would appreciate no further scrutiny.

There’s no story here Rob.

BN
—–
http://www.BenjaminNicholas.com
http://www.15MinutesMore.com

So, not only does the guy flatly tell the blogger at BigHeadDC that there is no story. He says they have no "current" affiliation. GREAT use of language to throw people off. When someone says "have no current affiliation with one another" it does NOT mean that they once had an affiliation.

Many of his clients greatly appreciate his professionalism. In fact, according to one 66-year-old patron who reviewed him on a gay escort site, he is “a very reliable escort who keeps you informed.”

The boy happens to be real, and his “stage name” is Benjamin Nicholas. One of the politicos Big Head DC has learned he’s alleged to have been involved with is the married Sen. Trent Lott, 66, who unexpectedly announced his retirement on Monday. Lott is well-known to have been against a plethora of gay rights issues throughout his terms in Congress. He was also good friends with Sen. Larry Craig throughout his time in Congress.

Nicholas told Big Head DC today via e-mail that he didn’t want to go on the record to talk about his dealings with Lott, because, said Nicholas, “Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don’t want to add to it.” However, e-mail and other records confirm that the two have met on at least two occasions.

A San Antonio-based gay male escort categorically denied Monday that outgoing GOP Sen. Trent Lott had ever procured his services, putting to bed one of the more stunning rumors to emerge following Lott's announcement earlier in the day that he was leaving Congress.

The charge was first published by the Washington DC blog Big Head DC, which claimed to have emails where the escort, Benjamin Nicholas, allegedly playing coy, declined to go on the record because "Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don't want to add to it."

But in an email message, Nicholas himself said the item was false.

"There's nothing to be said, as Lott and I have no connection whatsoever," Nicholas wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. "How these 'quotes' have been fabricated are beyond me. The Senator is someone I have had no personal dealings with, ever."

Rob Capriccioso, a Washington, D.C., blogger and sometime (now former) Radar freelancer, reported on his own blog, bigheaddc.com, last evening that Sam Donaldson's phone number appears on the D.C. Madam's supposed client list—the record of outgoing phone calls that Deborah Jean Palfrey made while operating the high-end-hooker operation that serviced Sen. David Vitter and other D.C. potentates. (Radar mentioned the Bigheaddc story here.)

What he didn't report is that Palfrey told him, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that her single telephone call to Donaldson had nothing to do with prostitution.

In case you can't read Rudy's caption under Picture B, it says: "Long time friends Senator & Suzanne Craig. Suzanne is the pretty one on the left, Idaho's Senior Senator Larry Craig on the right, Rudy in the Middle at Sun Valley, Idaho Banquet."

There really wasn't an ability to meet in the middle, because how can you when one effort requires that you lop off a piece of the community in the name of progress? Yes, the ball moves forward but at what cost, looking from the 30,000 foot view? I don't know.

As the result of a complaint from an unnamed citizen, the Commonwealth of Virginia has ordered David Phillips, the man who recently claimed to have a sexual encounter with scandalized Senator Larry Craig, to turn in his vanity license plates, reports the Washington Post's Marc Fisher Sunday. The Washington Post article does not connect Phillips with his earlier claim.

PARIS--A French court has ruled that Wikipedia could not be held responsible for content posted by its users in a landmark ruling for the Internet giant, officials said Friday.

Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000 euros ($100,000) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed on the website, which is written and edited by thousands of anonymous contributors.

But a judge rejected their demands in a ruling reached on Monday, arguing that 'the Wikimedia Foundation's responsibility ... has not been clearly established,' a decision welcomed by the foundation.