Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Showbox Rumor | The Morning News »

Monday, November 26, 2007

Larry Flynt Statement on Trent Lott

posted by on November 26 at 21:42 PM

Larry Flynt just posted this ambiguous statement on his website:

HUSTLER Magazine has received numerous inquiries regarding the involvement of Larry Flynt and HUSTLER in the resignation of Trent Lott. Senator Lott has been the target of an ongoing HUSTLER investigation for some time now, due to confidential information that we have received.

BigHeadDC crows that this statement confirms his scoop about Lott’s alleged involvement with a male escort. Not quite. Flynt has been gunning for GOP hypocrites and as Lott’s already stepping down, well, why not insinuate that he’s got something on Lott? It’s telling that Flynt doesn’t confirm any details—there’s no mention of an escort, male or female, just an “investigation.” For his part, the escort named by BigHeadDC is adamant that he’s never met Lott.

At some point someone involved in pushing this—I mean BigHeadDC or Flynt, not the escort (who hasn’t done anything to push this, so far as I can tell)—needs to put up or shut up. Don’t be coy, Larry. If you’ve got something on Lott, out with it. If you don’t have anything, don’t tease us. And stop overselling this, BigHeadDC. Nothing’s been confirmed by anyone.

RSS icon Comments


Wasn't Flynt working with Deborah Jeanne Palfrey (DC Madam) ??

Posted by Shawn Fassett | November 26, 2007 10:00 PM

Dan, I have thought that Trent was a closet case since I saw pics of him in his Ole' Miss cheerleader outfit. I have a greater tendency to believe a blog than someone whose living relies on his discretion on sexual matters. Heck the kid might be afraid of being the next Chandra Levy (I don't necessarily believe that Condit had anything to do with her disappearance; but the kid might). Who knows what goes through the mind of a hustler when a major lobbing firm and the Senator they just secretly hired start exerting pressure.

Posted by Jay | November 26, 2007 10:59 PM

Jay, what you think and what you can prove are two different things.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 26, 2007 11:23 PM

As much as I would like to hear that Lott has been orally servicing Teamsters for pocket change, I think there are several reasons for Flynt to remain coy.

First of all, he doesn't want to libel someone if his source does not pan out. Second of all, I would think such ominous but vague pronouncements might increase his aura of menace in the minds of the Republicans he targets. That itself could prove useful in the future if someone merely suspects the noose is tightening, they might bolt, even if in reality Flynt has nothing solid.

Posted by Jim | November 26, 2007 11:25 PM

The person that needs to be explaining is Trent Lott. He was reelected by his district who expected him to carry out his term. Yet he is walking off the job and cutting and running less than a year after his constituents put him there. He needs to tell them why he is choosing to fail on the job.

Posted by Tommy | November 27, 2007 1:13 AM

Hi Dan,
Even if the (scum bag) Lott turns out to be a Republican-hypocrite-closet-pole-smoker, it is great you haven't jumped on the band-wagon w/o more info/proof.
If this guy is indeed homo, it is the most positive thing I could tell about him...

Posted by Joy | November 27, 2007 3:17 AM

All I can say is that if this is true, then Lott gets my respect for having damn fine taste in escorts.

Posted by Gregg | November 27, 2007 3:47 AM

First, I agree that the BigHeadDC story is not credible. (Yet?)

Now, what statements has the escort made that says “he’s never met Lott.”
I have only read the BigHeadDC story so there may be other quotes out there, but the quotes from the escort at BigHeadDC were amusingly vague to me. I would NOT categorize any of those quotes as denials!

The escorts quotes that I have seen:

“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,”
(The word “CURRENT” sure seems odd to me in this quote!)
“All I can say at this point is no comment.” “It’s the professional thing for me to do.”
“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,”

Posted by Markpat | November 27, 2007 5:12 AM

Never Mind, SORRY!

I just came across the Huffington Post story on this with outright undisputable denials from the escort.

Posted by Markpat | November 27, 2007 5:18 AM

I like how the Hustler press release is phrased like an FBI release: "numerous inquiries", "a HUSTLER investigation". That's hilarious.

Posted by Judah | November 27, 2007 6:44 AM

@8 - I agree that the escort's comments were odd. All of the words seemed too carefully chosen for someone who had never met the Senator.

I can also see why Larry Flynt is being discrete. If Flynt indeed has lots of dirt on other people, the last thing he should do is damage his credibility by running with a speculative story. One false story, and anything else he says will be hand-waved away as a lie.

Posted by Mahtli69 | November 27, 2007 7:38 AM

Let's assume for the sake of argument that sex and sexuality have nothing to do with Sen. Lott's decision to resign his post. What other reason(s) might drive him to make this move?

Perhaps the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, signed into law by Bush and enacted on 9/14/2007? New provisions in this law greatly affect the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Now the LDA has some teeth: civil penalties to the tune of $200,000, along with criminal penalties. Now there will be filings under the LDA every three months. Currently lobbyists listed by their employers as holding legislative positions were only required to file for the last two years. It will now be the past 20 years. Perhaps most damning for the revolving door employment track of senior position legislators/high-level executive jobbers to lobbyist is the new two-year waiting period.

If Sen. Lott becomes Citizen Lott before the New Year, he will escape all of this and more. There may be many more skeletons in the Lott closet far more damning than a tryst or two with a hunky escort.

For the sake of argument, mind you...

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 27, 2007 7:49 AM

RE: "If you don’t have anything, don’t tease us. And stop overselling this..."

Perhaps you should speak to Mr. Feit about the post on the Showbox right below this one, Mr. Savage.

Posted by elenchos | November 27, 2007 7:53 AM

"If this guy is indeed homo, it is the most positive thing I could tell about him..."

and why would that be a positive? neutral yes but positive?

Posted by whatever | November 27, 2007 8:07 AM

"the escort named by BigHeadDC is adamant that he’s never met Lott."

Has he?

According to the Cleveland Leader, he's said: “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.” (emphasis mine)

No "CURRENT?" What could that POSSIBLY mean?

Posted by Mike | November 27, 2007 8:40 AM


should've read your post first, markpat.

Posted by Mike | November 27, 2007 8:43 AM


this is the same escort that spoke out against Ted Haggard's boy toy, Mike Jones, for breaking the Escort Code OF Silence.

and, as the CL says, "consider this: who, after spending millions of dollars seeking re-election, leaves in the middle of their term for any reason other than a scandal, health condition, or personal situation?"

and he's so far mentioned NO medical or family situation.

Posted by Mike | November 27, 2007 8:55 AM

Probably just another GOP Autogynophile, so its not that newsworthy. Lott's not really gay.

Posted by max solomon | November 27, 2007 8:58 AM

Tommy, please consult a US civics book. Lott is a US SENATOR, so he isn't elected by a "district," but by the entire state. It's a statewide position. So he's bagging on the entire population of Mississippi, not just a "district." I do hope the rumors are true, because he's been a particularly nasty, homophobic, racist scumbag during his years in office. Next up, Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham?

Posted by Chilton | November 27, 2007 9:00 AM

No one has ever been hounded out of government on the basis of mere rumors and innuendo.

Damn hippie Communists.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | November 27, 2007 9:08 AM

I've been the subject of bigheaddc's attentions, and I can assure you that their method seems to be "state first, clarify with truth only when challenged." I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Posted by Princess Sparkle Pony | November 27, 2007 9:31 AM

@13 is right.

But doesn't this apply to this whole Lott thing, too?

"someone involved in pushing this...needs to put up or shut up."

Et tu, Slog!

Posted by unPC | November 27, 2007 10:04 AM

Now might be a good time to come clean about the relationship I have been having with Lou Dobbs. He calls me his little Chimichanga. I call him my big beef burrito.
Watch him tonight on CNN, he will be wearing the special Made In China buttplug I got him for our aniverseria.

Jack Jett

Posted by Jack Jett | November 27, 2007 10:18 AM

There's something behind this resignation. What it is we may never know. My guess is that money changed hands.

Posted by CCSea | November 27, 2007 11:35 AM

I think he's leaving because of the new law about lobbying, not a sex scandal. He wants to make more money sooner than he would if he waited until the end of his term. Not a choice a man with integrity would make. Politics and integrity rarely mix, so I'm not too surprised.

Posted by SpookyCat | November 27, 2007 11:39 AM

Someone somewhere else posited that there may be VECO-related indictments coming soon.


Posted by NapoleonXIV | November 27, 2007 11:41 AM

Have you read the latest denial released by the hooker, "There (sic) are falsely pieced-together quotes that serve no purpose other than to sensationalize a completely fabricated scoop"?

There's no way he wrote that. That's inside-the-beltway-ese. Someone wrote that for him, probably Lott's communication director.

Posted by unpoetaloco | November 27, 2007 11:53 AM

Sadly, Belevue Ave, as the "swiftboat vets" demonstrated, there is no need for proof in today's political discourse. Much less in the comments on a blog.

Posted by Jay | November 28, 2007 9:28 PM

nhwbxkg kifjtoru lyomagq qgyumtda qtvwsex xonkzmiv tpfe

Posted by igzkp sbutrm | December 2, 2007 2:23 PM

vohrklng vjtzixmg pjwtaxnkh qbcvryul zsocdrki mzpjuqigv sdbpuwh

Posted by nfqzmxyh gclompjf | December 2, 2007 2:23 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).