During the 11 a.m. ET hour of the October 4 edition of MSNBC News Live, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman falsely claimed that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) “admitted” to “running a prostitution ring out of his townhouse.” Host Norah O'Donnell failed to correct Blakeman's accusation, which he made during a discussion about the current scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL). In fact, a House investigation determined that Frank “did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment.”

In August 1989, Stephen Gobie reportedly told The Washington Times that he ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's Washington, D.C., apartment and that Frank was aware of his operation. While Frank admitted to paying Gobie for sex several years earlier and to later hiring Gobie as an assistant, Frank denied any knowledge that Gobie allegedly ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank maintained that he fired Gobie upon being told by one of his landlords that Gobie was using his residence for his prostitution business. As The Guardian reported on August 30, 1989, Frank actually “asked the House ethics committee ... to investigate his relationship with” Gobie. According to The Guardian:

In his letter to the ethics committee, Mr. Frank wrote: 'Questions have been raised about my employment of a personal assistant during a period between 1985 and 1987. I have publicly responded to these questions and I have expressed regret for the mistaken judgment involved. In order to ensure that the public record is clear, I hereby request that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct [CSOC, commonly known as the ethics committee] conduct an investigation into these matters.'

The House ethics committee launched a 10-month investigation, ultimately finding, as The Boston Globe reported on July 27, 1990, “that Frank had violated House rules by writing a misleading memo that was used in an effort to end prostitute Stephen Gobie's probation on felony charges and by allowing his House privileges to be used to waive 33 parking tickets that Gobie might have received while driving Frank's car.” The report recommended Frank be reprimanded for the infractions, and the House voted for such punishment on July 26, 1990.

But, contrary to Blakeman's assertion, the House ethics committee absolved Frank of allegations that he was aware that Gobie was allegedly using Frank's D.C. apartment for prostitution. As the July 20, 1990, CSOC report concluded (Page 18):

Based upon information obtained under subpoena and sworn testimony, the Committee concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that Representative Frank did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment. ... Representative Frank's landlords ... submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion. ... The Committee, therefore, further concludes that no further action is warranted.

In fact, the report did not conclusively determine whether Gobie was even using Frank's apartment for “prostitution activities.” The report repeatedly notes that Gobie's purported evidence that he had been conducting a prostitution ring collapsed under scrutiny. The committee noted that several of Gobie's claims were “repudiated by sworn testimony” from other individuals (Page 18). For example:

Not only have Representative Frank's landlords, Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty, submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion, Mr. Gobie's assertion has also been rendered questionable by the fact that his claims of call-forwarding service were contradicted by the telephone company.

Gobie had claimed that Frank allowed him to forward calls from his “escort service” to Frank's apartment.

Also, members of the committee repeatedly asked Gobie if he had “any knowledge whether any of the clients that you arranged to engage your escort service in fact were involved or participated in any sexual activity at the Congressman's residence” or whether Gobie himself engaged in such activities at Frank's apartment. In each instance, Gobie answered, “Not that I can recall at this time” (Page 7).

The ethics committee concluded “with Respect to the Credibility of Stephen L. Gobie” that:

While much has been said, written, and speculated with respect to Representative Barney Frank's relationship with Stephen L. Gobie, it is clear that most, if not all, of such media attention has been the product of assertions made by Mr. Gobie. As has been discussed in detail in prior sections of this Report, the Committee went to great lengths in seeking testimony or other information relevant to the assertions. In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself (Page 37).

From the October 4 edition of the 11 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC News Live, featuring a discussion with Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway:

BLAKEMAN: Let me tell you the difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats, when they had these types of scandals, like [former Rep.] Gerry Studds [D-MA], who admitted having sex with a male page, what did the Democrats do? They re-elected him. And what'd they do with Barney Frank, who still serves in Congress, who admitted running a prostitution ring out of his townhouse? They re-elected him. He's still serving. What about President Clinton, who took advantage of an intern in the White House? When the Republicans tried to get to the bottom of it, all of a sudden we're picking on him. So there is a double standard here, for the Democrats.

HATTAWAY: There is no double standard.

BLAKEMAN: There is a double standard.

O'DONNELL: You know, Brad, I'm always struck by that argument because it's kind of like when two little kids fight, and they hit another kid, and they say, “But Mommy, my sister hit somebody, so it's OK to do it.” It still doesn't excuse the moral behavior of how the -- Republicans have governed as the guardian of moral values and of family values. They have said, “We're more responsible when it comes to governing, period, and when it comes to national security, period.” Let me get Doug in here, if you will, Doug. If you -- as a consultant, would you counsel Democrats to use more of the political advertising, use Foley in more of the television advertising, such as is already being done in that one district?