Great job, Aaron!

Gannon asks the question of the hour:

Do Democrats really want the White House to investigate reporters?

I support Jeff Gannon's right to be a conservative, to be gay [if he is], to write news stories, to use a pseydonym, and to answer or not answer any personal questions posed to him. I'm impressed that he's dusted himself off and appears to be ready to resume his career. If he continues writing, I'll hold him to the exact same standards as any other "journalist."

Excellent work, Lifelike Pundits. I found you via Lucianne.com

Best regards, Jeff. All the best on your book-- can't wait to read it.

Kudos. Aaron!

Well, having followed this saga in various venues, I am impressed with how much more civil is Mr. Gannon than his detractors. Reminds me of Grammaw, "What we say about others reveals a lot more about us than it does about them."
I am particularly annoyed with those who try to make an issue of irrelevant items such as his different names. Many in the information business or show business or other public venues use them. Geraldo Rivera = Jerry Rivers, for instance. Or those who would pile on him for being gay (whether he is or not); especially those of the allegedly "tolerant" persuasion. Or those who would conflate "Day Passes" with "Hard Passes", just to inflate the issue. Or those who would insist the White House get into the business of censoring reporters, by making it sound like Gannon was a "plant", or at least "not thoroughly checked out". After 2 years of him being around these eagle-eyed "reporters" they are finally coming to this conclusion? Gimme a break!

Lol, certain gay lefties do seem to protest too much. Gannon seems to have integrity, which would mystify an opportunist like Brock

From this set of responses, it's clear that whatever his hame is has a much better understanding of writing in plain English with correct grammar than most OLD Media guys do. I'm impressed. Do they insist that Mark Twain no longer use a pseudonym?

I know that the question about Jeff being gay or not had to be asked because the left bloggers made such a big freakin deal out of it, but seriously, this is disturbing that a reporter, who is not an elected official or a celebrity should be asked such a personal question.

One question that might clear up many of the conspiracy theories might be, "Many blogs accuse you have having access to the White House before Talon News existed - how do you explain this?"

Hey Rightwingsparkle! Adorable name! I'm sure you are "all man"....

Well, I wanted to ask him in such a way that wasn't accusatory--thus the "hypotheticals." What I was trying to get at was the left's main issue with him is that if he is gay, how on earth can he be conservative.

I don't see any conflict with being gay and conservative.

I am as interested in hearing that Gannon "found God" about as much as I am in hearing about death row inmates finding God. That is, not at all.

The issue of his sexuality is also a non-issue. Who cares?

The real issue with Gannon is not that he was allowed into WH briefings, but that he was allowed in supposedly under another name. It takes *real* power to allow this given the Secret Service background check that "all journalists" are given before they are issued credentials.

Uhhh...miles...I'm a girl.

Thanks for the comment, Susie.

[please note that she questions the situation without name calling and swearing; I don't want the comments to decend into the depths of DU chatter].

Keep the questions coming and I might hit Gannon up for a round two with the top 10 questions from readers.

"this is disturbing that a reporter, who is not an elected official or a celebrity should be asked such a personal question"

I agree. I understand why Aaron asked the question in light of everything that has happened, but I'm pissed off that the left used the issue as a bat to beat Gannon over the head with in the first place. It's ridiculous and absurd. I also respect Jeff's right not to answer out of principle. It's the same thing with Bush and his allegedly "wild" youth and pot smoking escapades. Who cares? Pot should be legalised anyway. In fact, who amongst us would turn down an opportunity to share some reefer with "w"? Not me.

There is a huge number of libertarian Republicans (so-called South Park Republicans) who couldn't give a rats ass WHO Jeff was entertaining in his bedroom, as long as it was consentual. This is something leftwingers can't figure out. When the rightwing blogosphere came out swinging on behalf of Jeff Gannon's right to privacy they called us "hypocrites". They obviously thought we're all just a bunch of evangelical "values voters". Hope they learned something.

Susie, the white house and Jeff have made it clear that he used his REAL NAME to get his credentials.

That's a good question, Susie, and I dont think for a minute they didn't check his creds and his name came to light. Then the question is 'so what?' Lots of journalists walking aroung with other names, like Geraldo and Wolf.

Susie

The name issue is a non-starter. There are many, many journalists who write under an assumed name.

I would be surprised, and then angry, if those vetting Mr. Gannon were not aware of his alias. I would be willing to bet good money that they were.

One of these days, Jim, you won't be afraid to admit who or what you are. And that's when your life will start to be a lot happier.

I'm just saying...

OOPs! That.."I'm a girl comment" should have gone to Lavender Demon.

MisterPundit, you might be surprised to learn that many of us Christian conservatives agree with you as well. It is no one but Jeff's business who he entertaining in his bedroom as long as it is consensual.

Kudos for an interview where no questions were fully answered? What a joke.

If this story [male prostitute playing a journalist under an assumed named with acces to the WH and fronting for the administration) had happened under Clinton (or "President" Kerry), you would all be calling for their impeachment.

Hypocrites.

Impeachment of a reporter?

Hey, not a bad idea.

PLEASE! If anyone is being a hypocrite it is the leftwing bloggers spreading rumor and gossip about someone's sexuality because that person asks a question the bloggers don't like.

My, my, with a name like 'OpenMind' you sure make a LOT of assumptions, like:

-- male prostitute
-- fronting for the White House
-- calling for Kerry's impeachment

Left-wing bloggers posting nude photos that are as yet unverified to be of Mr. Gannon, along with the male prositution witch hunt (aka 'bounty' on activities) Well....we couldn't plumb the depths of that left-wing hypocracy if we had a bathosphere at the end of a ten-mile drilling rig in the Marianas Trench.

MisterPundit, you might be surprised to learn that many of us Christian conservatives agree with you as well.

Very true. It's amazing how much more ideologically diverse and open minded the Right is, compared to the Left.

I know that the question about Jeff being gay or not had to be asked because the left bloggers made such a big freakin deal out of it, but seriously, this is disturbing that a reporter, who is not an elected official or a celebrity should be asked such a personal question.

I thought the question was not about his sexuality, but whether prostitution (aka escort services) was appropriate for a person with easy access to the White House. Or whether posting naked pictures of yourself (still available today) is appropriate for a reporter (albeit one who graduated from a 2 day seminar, not journalism school)? By the way - how many other WH correspondents have a dual identity? How many find it difficult to pronounce the almost phonetic g-u-c-k-e-r-t? I don't - do you?

Left-wing bloggers posting nude photos that are as yet unverified...

So why hasn't Jim Guckert denied they were of him then?

Please describe your relationship with God. Again, supposing that you are gay, how would you reconcile that with your religious beliefs? Do you believe a person can be both gay and religious? Do you believe a person can be gay, religious and a conservative?

Gannon: Again, you are asking me to comment on a hypothetical.
Jeff: Why not take the opportunity to answer the part of the question about your religious beliefs - are they also hypothetical? That was a golden chance to tell us how your spirituality informs your professional life. I find it sad that you passed it up.

Is Helen Thomas a plant? She certainly asked Clinton very soft questions, as I recall.

dashie, I am sure you do find that sad.

You wanted to make fun of his religious beliefs and you didn't get to.

Too bad.

How many find it difficult to pronounce the almost phonetic g-u-c-k-e-r-t? I don't - do you?

Who cares? I don't find Larry Z-e-i-g-l-e-r all that difficult to pronounce either.

Gee dashie, so you're saying that the only acceptable reason to change your "stage" name is that it's difficult to pronounce? That sounds a bit racist to me. I like the name "Jeff Gannon", it sounds like a tough reporter name. We all can't be blessed with a cool name like Britt Hume.

He seemed reasonable yet evasive. I guess when the left wing blogs are looking to attach him to the president they fall woefully short. This is my estimation is a story whose legs have been extended way to long. Let the man be. Move on, how much more flesh is there left to give

should have asked him if he ever visited the president in the white house without being logged by the secret service..

or if he can provide information about his parents, and if he can provide any information to disprove the speculation about him being johnny gosch..

ah well.

No - I didn't say that he had a difficult to pronounce stage name: Mr Guckert did. I think that if the White House knew his real name (as on his driving licence, which is all he says he needed to provide to get in every day), why shouldn't we? I just don't get it. Is Guckert more or less difficult to say than Fleischer? or Lieberman?

It has been said that many journalists alter their names. However, they tend to print and publish with the same name as they go about all their other business, right? They don't have two identities - one for solicitation, and one for reporting. If any other reporter, in any field, publishes on the internet nude pictures of themselves with an hourly rate attached, that is in itself a news story. That it was a White House reporter, who was in the briefing room even before the existence of Talon News, makes it a story of much greater import.

Get all the facts on the table - we're not afraid of the truth.

dashie, how do you know some reporters don't have alternate names? I think this is a first. Investigating a white house reporter for asking a question you don't like.
You yourself might be amazed at the "secrets' you might find in any reporters life. I would think most of them might be deleting some pictures as we speak. But is it our business? I don't think so.

Yes Helen Thomas is a plant. A mushroom from the looks of it, well past spore time.

OpenMind:

Yeah, like ProfShade said!

Take a deep, cleansing breath, and you might realize how silly the Left's made itself look on this matter. Who gives a crap if he's gay, or a gay for hire? Only the left. What security implications does that have? Zero, from the standpoint of everyone but the left. We apparently didn't get the memo that all of a sudden, alleged gays were verboten and threatening.

Finally, and perhaps most offensive, the assertions that Mr. Gannon was "playing" a journalist are laughable on their face. His only sin appears to be not being part of the main stream press; he certainly wrote stories and had them published, which is the actual criterion you should use to judge such things.

The hypocrite is in the mirror.

Dashie, I said to ask your questions. No one here is trying to hide anything. I will ask Jeff for a follow-up interview and if he says yes, i will pose the other questions to him.

Who gives a crap if he's gay, or a gay for hire? Only the left.

Really? Whatever my politics, or yours, do you think that decriminalisation of prostitution is a good thing (I do)? Even if you do, do you think that Mr Guckert should have waited for the repeal of the law before advertising his services at $200/hour (£1200 per weekend)? I do - I don't think that I would risk the exposure, until it was legal in my area (eg, DC, where all prostitution is illegal).

Do you think that gays then should get equal treatment to straights in all aspects of society (I do, by the way)?

Thanks Aaron - this is a great service, and a great scoop. Well played!

Aaron, your questions were so disengenious that I'm half-convinced Mr. "Gannon" wrote them himeself.

Since neither of you have any experience in asking a real or honest question, here are a few suggestions if you ever speak to Mr. "Gannon" again.

*** "In your October 2004 interview with Joseph Wilson, you reference classified doucuments that refer to his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Who gave you access to those documents?"

*** "You claim that you wrote over 500 articles for Talon News, but the majority of the content of that site (until it was shut down) was taken directly from government press releases. Can you produce five examples of articles you published that are NOT, in whole or in part, plagerized from such press releases?"

*** You called Talon News "news service that published 5 days a week to a national audience in the hundreds of thousands." Since Talon had no subscribers, carried no advertising, had no business plan, and recycled the majority of it's content from press releases, in what way is it a "news service?" Can you produce any evidence that your readership was in the hundreds of thousands?"

*** "You are the only reporter in the press room to be given a day pass on a nearly-daily basis for over two years, even after the Captial denied you a press pass. How did you acheive this feat?"

*** "You operated under an assumed name. Which name did you log into the White House under? Did you submit to any security checks before you were issued your day passes, and if so, under which name did you volunteer informatio? Which White House employess knew you operated under an assumed name?"

*** "Did you ever submit your questions to someone in the White House before you asked them, and if so, who? Conversely, were you ever assigned questions, or topics of questions, by anyone in the White House? And if so, who?"

For all the good you've done, Aaron, you might as well have asked him what his favorite color is.

Wolf Blitzer is actually not named "Wolf."

Don, that is fine to ask those questions. But what is the POINT? What is the worst case scenerio yall are hoping for here?

I just don't get it.

Don,

1) It was public knowledge by then.

2) So he reported what the White House said.

3) Can CNN?

4) A day pass is easy to get.

5) So did Wolf Blitzer.

6) Ridiculous question.

You guys still call him a journalist, but it has come out that pretty much everything he and the entire GopUSA (Talon) staff has writtin was entirely plaigerized from other sources. How can you continue to call him a journalist??

Wolf Blitzer is actually not named "Wolf."

Does he have two identities, though? In other words, does he use another name, on the internet or otherwise, with or without illustrations, in order to hide from the public eye any activity which might be embarrassing?

Connections to the White House? Well, Bobby Eberle, who hired a so-called "journalist" (with ZERO credentials and who had never published a thing) on his GOPUSA website thanked Karl Rove for his "personal friendship, guidance and assistance". Guckert first accessed the White House under GOPUSA representation.

Prostitution is aginst the law. It is illegal. Guckert has never said that he is not a prostitute. Aren't journalists interested in the truth? If it isn't Guckert himself on his websites, representing himself for sale as a hooker, wouldn't he care to clarify the "truth"?

It is also a violation of law not to pay your taxes (owed to the State of Delaware, to the tune of $20,000). Don't "conservatives" believe in paying their taxes??

Have there been police reports filed in regard to the supposed "threats" and "harrassment" against his family?

Why would a "legitimate" news organization scrub ALL of a "reporter's" articles and close a website, just because ONE "reporter" quits? If he is as legitimate as he pretends, why did he quit, anyway?

The White House was well aware that Jeff Gannon had another name. He told them.

Gannon: I was a reporter for a news service that published 5 days a week to a national audience in the hundreds of thousands. I wrote over 500 articles for Talon News. The basic news story answers the questions: Who, what, where, when, why. My stories did that.

Uhh...you had NOTHING before being a WH reporter. The 500 articles dont count. Thats after you were already in the White House. Where did they decide you were a "reporter" you had only written about 5 things, and none of it was "Published"

"Well, having followed this saga in various venues, I am impressed with how much more civil is Mr. Gannon than his detractors. Reminds me of Grammaw, "What we say about others reveals a lot more about us than it does about them.""

Funny. When I hear Rush Limbaugh call people names or Sean Hannity yell at guests to "shut up" or hear that our Vice President tells people he doesn't like to "F*ck" themselves on the floor of a Congressional chamber (regardless of the situation)... I think exactly the same thing. Do you?

Here is the problem I find with all of your complaints regarding people discussing whether Jeff is gay and how hypocritical. I don't think ALL Conservatives/Republicans think being gay is some sort of crime that the rest of society needs to be protected from. However, I consistently hear a significant number of people on the right who DO believe that and who consistently vilify the left for embracing so-called immoral lifestyles.

And those people, in this same situation under a Democratic administration where all of the characteristics were reversed--left-leaning partisan organization covering news, two years of getting into the White House under an assumed name (whoever mentioned Mark Twain wasn't serious, right?), having found possible explicit photos of that person on websites with his/her name attached to them using patriotic themes to advertise homosexual services for money... There would be an uproar in conservative circles the likes of which we haven't heard since Monica blew Bill in the Oval Office annex. There would be discussions of how Democrats just don't understand security post 9-11 and how peoples' personal lifestyles can make them subject to coercion, etc, ad nauseum.

This guy isn't a villain, but for crying outloud, he's not a hero either.

Do I care that Jeff is gay? Not a whit. Do I even care if he is a prostitute? Yeah, not so much. What IS notable is that people who don't hesitate to make anti-gay comments about anyone (sheesh, Tinky Winky and SpongeBob for crying outloud) have nothing to say here. And the ONLY reason they don't is because of partisan politics. That's it. Maybe not you folks, but others in your party, and that's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

I thought Bill Clinton was a disappointment and frankly, scummy. I think Gore was wooden and in his head and Kerry makes me want to throw things because he would never stop trying to be a part, instead of a person. In this ridiculous two party system, I'm a Democrat. But I don't feel the need to defend everything the party does (or almost anything they do, lately) because I am one.

Yet I sit back and watch friends who've lectured me for years on fiscal responsibility defend the current economic situation in this country, friends who've told me about the importance of having served in the military service tell me about how there is no question that Bush was a full member of the armed forces while Kerry was a traitor... and it makes me sad. Because a party should have to EARN your allegiance.

Democrat and Republican alike--the country is so steeped in pointing the finger at the other side that we don't objectively look at the actual issues any more. How can we have an informed, logical discussion about issues when we all simply immediately assume that our side is right and the other side is wrong? That our side has extenuating circumstances for things that seem off, but the other side is evil? When what determines the position we take on an issue is who is under scrutiny?

Thanks for the chance to express my opinion. I really mean all of it with respect--this group of conservatives who posted here seemed potentially more interested in listening than a lot who I read online slamming the left. Hope that I may I was right (correct).

Dashie,

Wolf Blitzer uses "Wolf" because his name is Jewish and difficult to pronounce -- the same reason Gannon did.

As for whether Wolf is "hiding" anything -- well, how can we know until we investigate him and every other journalist?

By the way YOu say democratic blogs are pushing the gay angle, but its not true. That is what the conservative blogs tell you the liberal blogs are saying, so you believe it. Take the blinders off and actully take a gander at dKos or other blogs. At dKos the gay angle was actually found by accident. It was not being searched for, however when it was found, that is what the MSM and Conservative blogs picked up on. After that portion of the story broke, that angle was basically left alone as other more important angles came to light. The only reason The conservative sites are hitting on this angle is because it is the best way they have found to make the left look bad, as the rest of the story is indefensible

Anon,

There is no angle besides the gay angle.

Without that, the only story is that he's a (gasp!) conservative reporter who asked softball questions.

Wake up sir. You just seem to ignore the portions you do not want to hear

Minnie,

Even if all those are true, they have little to no bearing on anything Guckert did as a reporter. So maybe he did some things wrong before he became a reporter; are you arguing we should investigate reporters' personal lives?

And what difference does it make anyway? Look at all the illegal things Hunter S Thompson bragged about doing. Should he have been banned from covering the political campaigns?

Anon,

Name one that has anything to do with him being a reporter.

Wolf Blitzer uses "Wolf" because his name is Jewish and difficult to pronounce -- the same reason Gannon did.
Talldave:
Why did he change his first name to Jeff - is Jim difficult? You say Guckert is difficult? Really? I don't think so, honestly. If anyone believes that, well, that's their choice. I may have questions about someone's literacy skills, there.

As to the jewishness of 'guckert' - I was unaware of it's origins, and anyway, that is irrelevant. Plenty of difficult to pronounce jewish names are in public life. Few are as easy to say as guckert. His excuse simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Defense Guy:

The name issue is a non-starter. There are many, many journalists who write under an assumed name.

Please name three that were regularly in the White House press briefings, and provide some evidence or documentation. Thank you.

There is no angle besides the gay angle.

Without that, the only story is that he's a (gasp!) conservative reporter who asked softball questions....who got a daypass for two straight years on the trot, having started in the WH before Talon news existed, and therefore before he had published....under an assumed name....with his escort pictures only now being taken down...advertising his prostitution services....whilst having a court judgement against him for back taxes.

It isn't a gay angle. It's an integrity angle. If he was a female escort, with all the other details exactly the same, the core issues would be the same.

I find it amazing that some of you are calling this interview a "scoop". Sure is. A scoop of nothing, I'd say.

As for Mr. G's sexuality, I think it's clear that the right, not the left, are pushing that angle for all it's worth. Coming on the heels of the Armstrong Williams (and others) "journalists-for-hire" scandal THIS one really takes the cake. And they nedd to deflect from the REAL story.

The more Mr. G speaks, the more he digs his own hole. Many on the left are PRAYING this guy sues for slander/libel so they can get him in a court of law.

Those on the right would be better served if they just shut up about the whole mess and let it die away.

It's obvious this guys was (and still might be) a male prostitute. (The eyes don't lie). But *that*, as embarrasing as it is to the "family values" WH, is not what the story is all about. It's not about SEX! (Remember that? Ahh, the good ole days...)

It's really about how he got to where he got and who got him there. That's not a pretty picture. Plus: Lack of standards. Lack of morals. Lack of ethics. Lack of security. Lack of integrity.

OM

Aaron, congrats on asking the tough questions. I hope your wrists doesn't hurt from lobbing such softballs. Maybe next time you can ask these questions:

1.)When and why did you start using the alias Jeff Gannon? Was it before you started writing for GOPUSA?

2.)If someone advertises themselves for $200.00 an hour/$1200.00 a weekend does that constitute as someone's private life or business life?

3.)You said you are contemplating suing people for political assassination. Why can you not sue for libel?

4.) If you and Talon News had nothing to hide then why have all your articles been scrubbed and why has Talon News been shut down?

5.)You have suggested that a Wall Street Journal article was your source for the government memo when you interviewed Joe Wilson. Why then would you have to protect this as a source when you were supposedly interviewed by the FBI?

6.) Are you auctioning some of the pornographic domain names you own for thousands of dollars?

7.) You have said that you are a jounralist because you have written 500 articles for Talon News. How many articles had you written when you were first allowed into the White House?

8.) Have you ever been in the military? Do you believe openly gay men should be allowed in the military, or should they have to hide their sexual orientation?

9.) Now that you are back, will you go back to the White House? If you did go back, do you think the White House will continue giving you unlimited day passes, or do you think they will not let you back in?

10.) Finally, are you really 8 inches cut?

Kerry used the f word in a Rolling Stone interview. I've heard little about that in comparison to the Vice President. Don't get me wrong, I think all gutter talk is unnecessary, but it is heard on the left side more then the right. I think if Gannon has done the protitution thing that is rumored, than it takes away from him in my eyes. It is illegal. I do think that we all have something in our past or present that we are not proud of. I sure do, so I'm not judging, really. One observation during the Monica & Clinton time, the left kept saying that what is personal is none of our business. I don't agree with that, if a person chooses to put themselves in the spotlight, then the light will shine on them for good or bad. I have the right to not trust someone who will cheat on his wife, or someone who lies. That's not being judgemental, it's being discerning. We do the discerning thing everyday. Do any of you walk up to every person you see & try to get close to them, or do you look at them & say, maybe I should keep my distance?

Dashie,

Guck-er. GOOck-er. GOOck-ert. Guck-ert. Could have been pronounced any of those ways. Gann-on. One way.

Regarding his "integrity" issues: Hunter S Thompson openly bragged about illegal substance use. Not to mention the fact we only know these things about Gannon because he was investigated; who knows what skeletons are rattling around in the closets of thousands of other journalists. I repeat: do you really want to start investigating every reporter?

OM,

"That's not a pretty picture. Plus: Lack of standards. Lack of morals. Lack of ethics. Lack of security. Lack of integrity."

Why'd you have to bring Dan Rather and Mary Mapes into this?

Talldave:

Like I said earlier, he had written maybe 5 Op-eds before getting into the White House. Other than that, he had written NOTHING. The other 500 came AFTER he was in the door. You dont find that fishy. EVERYTHING Talon/GopUSA writes is either plaigerized from press releases or other sources such as Fox News etc.....They are nothing more than a right wing xerox machine echoing the president acting as reporters.

Is that enough angles that have to do with being a REPORTER??

Don,

Here's a start:

"Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner — aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell."

http://www.anncoulter.com

Anon,

No, that's a non-issue. There are left-wing hacks with no following and no journalistic experience in there too.

Anon:

Talldave is not going to answer your questions. His only defense is to bring up Dan Rather and John Kerry.

Sorry, you just don't 'become' a report, and 5 days later begin reporting from the White House. ANd then continue your charade for two years without anyone noticing. It just doesnt work that way. I may be partisan but you are being blind

TallDave:

Name them.

I did answer the questions. I only bring up Dan Rather to point out how silly it is to attack Gannon for asking softball questions and having a checkered past, when Rather tried to bring down a President with documents he should have known were forged.

Larry Sigovern. He writes for a left-wing wesbite that, among other things, claims the US military built a secret pipeline under Iraq that is stealing their oil.

Why do you say that Jeff Gannon only had a checkered past. Some of his escort sites were still online while he was in the White House. And he is auctioning of some of his domain names (the pornographic ones) for thousands of dollars. Sounds present to me.

HIs main escort site was shut down AFTER he was in the White House (YES, we have proof)

I didn't realize auctioning domains was illegal.

I just googled Sigovern and nothing came up. Show me when this guy was in the white house press room

Let's see that proof. I haven't heard anyone allege he did anything illegal while being a reporter.

J-i-m.
J-a-m-e-s.

Why change what works?

What a shock, Sigovern is too small to be noticed! I bet "Jeff Gannon" didn't get a lot of hits before recently either.

The reference came from Jim Pinkerton on Fox News Watch. You'll have to ask him, but I'll stand on him as a reliable source.

Dashie,

I don't know, ask Ze-ev Barak.

Oh, someone from Fox News said so. Well, I can't argue with that.

CNM: Cheney told Leahy to "fuck off." I tell people to "fuck off" at least once a day. Cheney did not post what he believed were nude photos of Leahy on the internet or repeat proven lies ad nauseum.

And while I'm on the subject of repeating lies, what's with the LLL? They repeat this false name/identity lie over and over and over again. It's a lie. Do you think by repeating it, it will make it true? When I hear someone contintue to repeat it, I can only surmise there is something seriously wrong with the person.

we only know these things about Gannon because... he put his pictures on the internet. There was NO invasion of privacy.

However, he was investigated because he was not acting like a reporter, but like a shill. You bet the same would have happened in a democratic WH.

Is that from the same Fox news roundtable where the majority of the panel refused to call Jeff Gannon a journalist.

TallDave---please see my replies below.

Don,

1) It was public knowledge by then.

Good point! Let me rephrase the question:

"In your October 2003* interview with Joseph Wilson, you claim to have seen classified doucuments that refer to his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Although these documents have been mentioned in the press, they have not been released or declassified. If you indeed have seen those documents, who gave you access to those documents?"

* correcting a typo on my part. OOPS!

2) So he reported what the White House said.

He didn't report. He didn't quote. He PLAGERIZED. Do you understand the difference?

3) Can CNN?

Probably, but you cannot aanswer a question with a question. Can Mr. 'Gannon' back up his own statements with evidence, or not? I've got 5 bucks that say 'not.'

4) A day pass is easy to get.

I didn't ask if it was easy. I asked how Mr. 'Gannon' got his, after being turned down by the Congressional press office.

5) So did Wolf Blitzer.

No, he didn't.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/7343

http://www.americanprofile.com/issues/20021110/20021110_2574.asp

6) Ridiculous question.

To you, maybe, but I'd like to know the answer. I'm probably not the only one, either.

Julie:

the bloggers did not post nude pictures of Jeff Gannon on the internet either. Jeff Gannon posted those pictures. What you want to say is that bloggers linked to nude photos of Jeff Gannon on the internet.

Feb. 25, 2003: Guckert video evidence in White Hosue, no question - 30:11 on CSPAN RealVideo archive

May 8, 2003: Last recorded date at which usmcpt.com was active. (Warning: link not work safe AmericaBlog)

Don Myers:

I didn't ask him your questions because those questions had already been answered. Case in point: documents referenced in 2004 interview. The documents were discussed in a Wall Street Journal article earlier that week and he simply brought them up for his interview.

I was not asking him questions thought up by black helicopter type folks. I mean is this like when Barbara Walters interviewed Hillary Clinton asking, "Are you a saint?"

C'mon. These were discussion oriented questions geared toward answering questions that have NOT already been answered. David Corn (hardly a right wing extremest) answered all of your questions. Why repeat them for tabloid value?

Seeing as Patton has disappeared, I'll repost my comment from upthread -
Who gives a crap if he's gay, or a gay for hire? Only the left. - Patton.

Really? [Here's a few questions for you:
1. Whatever my politics, or yours, do you think that decriminalisation of prostitution is a good thing (I do)?
2. Even if you do, do you think that Mr Guckert should have waited for the repeal of the law before advertising his services at $200/hour (£1200 per weekend)? I do - I don't think that I would risk the exposure, until it was legal in my area (eg, DC, where all prostitution is illegal).
3. Do you think that gays then should get equal treatment to straights in all aspects of society (I do, by the way)?

Any takers?

No one seems to want to answer TallDave's question of what Gannon did as a reporter at the white house that was illegal.

And no one seems to want to answer my question.What is the point? What is the worst case here? What are you hoping for?

It only seems to be that you feel we would be acting differently if it was a democrat in the white house. Actually, I don't think we would care at all.

TallDave:

You failed to answer my question. Larry King, George Orwell, Michael Savage, and Geraldo Rivera don't work the press room. Also, can you cite any articles published by Mr. Blitzer under an assumed name? Just because Ann Coulter says so doesn't make it true.

Dashie,

No, the bankruptcy stuff was not posted on the internet. Also, no one can claim to know how many other journalists have their own escort sites until we investigate them all.

Fritz,

So, you're reduced to Fox-bashing. LOL I bet it kills you that Fox outdraws every other cable news network put together -- and is still gaining share. I suppose you find Ted "I married a Communist shill!! Fox News is Hitler!!" Turner's CNN to be far more credible (at least to its rapidly dwindling audience).

Jim Pinkerton works for Fox for half an hour a week; it's not his main claim to being a journalist.

I just LOOOOOOOVE moonbat feasts!!!

Bottom line to all conspiracy theorists, regardless of your leanings regarding charges that Jeff Gannon did anything illegal: got proof?

And don't try the old prove the negative B.S. Got proof he was a prostitute when he was in the WH? Got proof he received preferencial treatment in getting a day pass? Got proof Karl Rove rules the world?

The latest weirdo theory on the DU is that Gannon is somehow involved in a satanic baby-snatching-killing ring that has been covered up by the WH. I'm dying here, I tell ya! You can't write stuff this funny.

The DU is angry that the right has a semen-stained dress, and all they got was a blurry pic from a gay porn site of a low-level reporter.

Considering the rest of the contents of Rolling Stone, I'm not sure that I would liken that to someone of the stature of VP saying it on the floor of Congress. I didn't actually mean to imply that no one can swear, either--if Dick Chaney wants to swear while hunting or anywhere else, I don't care. I just think it didn't reflect well on him in this case. And since Kerry was likely saying it to make himself look more "tough" and less ivory tower, I think it's pretty unflattering on him as well.

Of course, I think that you're wrong when you say "it's heard more on the left than the right"--for every hateful thing that comes out of Michael Moore about conservatives, there's an equally disrespectful and outrageous comment from Ann Colter about liberals. And by giving them all the attention, we end up losing the issues for all the vitriol.

For the record, I didn't say that you should like Clinton. But I also don't think that simply because President Bush has a successful marriage to a graceful and gracious woman like Laura Bush means that he is beyond reproach.

RWS:

Is a blowjob illegal? Nope. Immoral yes. So what is YOUR point here?

Don,

Well, gee, let me just pull out my list of press room people that I always keep in my pocket. Oh, gosh, I forgot it today. I guess that must mean you were right.

My point was, the fact such well-known journalists used pseudonyms proves it's not unusual, in the WH press room or anywhere else.

And just cause you don't want to believe it's true doesn't make it not. I'm going to believe Ann (whose books generally have 30 pages of footnotes) unless you can prove she made it up.

Firtz: Either way, they widely distributed them in an attempt to embarass the administration. Still not equivelant to telling someone fuck off.

The issue was never about whether Gannon/Guckert likes to smoke pole. The issue is that he CHARGED MONEY to do it. Note to GOP (Gays on Parade): PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL. Would you folks be more comfortable if Gannon was an arsonist, or a drug dealer, or a shoplifter (gay or straight really doesn't matter). Would you still be comfortable having him in the same room as the President of your country? Your leaders play up the gay angle (like they did during the election) to blind you lemmings to the real issues at hand. SOMEONE in the White House PUT him in the Press Room, under an assumed name (WHY?) to foster, create and disseminate propaganda. THAT is also illegal.

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!!

The right has been so spoonfed on this entire story. You've been fed half the story, intricately manicured, as usual. You continue to swallow what Gannon/Guckert is feeding you (I hope you enjoy THAT visual!!)

What has Bush and Co. said about this, even to this point? What would be the reaction if this happened while Clinton was still in office?

Aaron:

I didn't ask him your questions because those questions had already been answered....These were discussion oriented questions geared toward answering questions that have NOT already been answered.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

No one has asked him why he resigned Talon? No one has asked him what his credentials are? I'm sure he rarely gets a question as leading and self-serving as number six, but the rest are pretty familar...as framiliar as Mr. "Gannon's" answers. They ones he doesn't refuse to answer, anyway.

Actually, you probably SHOULD ask him "What is your favorite color, and why?" THEN you could claim that you've asked "discussion oriented questions geared toward answering questions that have NOT already been answered."

David Corn (hardly a right wing extremest) answered all of your questions. Why repeat them for tabloid value?

Not that I've seen. Can you cite an example?

Is a blowjob illegal? Nope. Immoral yes.

LOL No, a blowjob between two unrelated consenting adults not in supervisory positions over each other in and of itself is hardly immoral. When it involves abuse of power, perjury, and suborning perjury, it's immoral and illegal.

RWDB: first off, it wouldn't have anything to do with Clinton, just as this has nothing to do with Bush. But you so dearly want it to be. With all your heart. I can tell. You'd probably pay about $200 an hour for it to be about Bush.

Love the lingo, SHEEPLE, Bush and Co...doesn't get more original than that...

Again, ANYONE have any PROOF of illegalities? Someone?

what Gannon did as a reporter at the white house that was illegal.

Nothing. There - that was easy.

All my other question stand. As a citizen, if you can separate his voluntary job (I seem to remember he didn't get a salary as a reposter of GOP press releases) from his other existence, he failed to pay taxes and advertised as an illegal escort.

TallDave:

I don't like Fox News or CNN. What did Gannon do illegal? Sell his body for sex. He offered himself and his 8 inches cut for $200.00 an hour/$1200.00 a weekend. That's not a conspiracy theory.

RightWingDimBulb:

Hunter S Thompson.

Drug abuse is illegal. Or, as you would put it:

DRUG ABUSE IS ILLEGAL!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

Fritz:

So what? That has what do with his reporting?

The answer is NADA.

Sigh. Cheney's swearing was hardly my point, but whatever.

I guess if you were holding the second highest office in the land, Julie, in a party whose representatives frequently blame the other side for unilaterally lowering the level of civility in this country...I might not think too much of you for telling people to "F*ck off" while standing in a serious place of governance. As you are not, I don't really care.

Of course, the conservative groups that threatened complaining in overwhelming numbers to the FCC which could end up bankrupting PBS stations that wanted to air the uncut version of that Frontline episode where the soldiers were swearing might. Be careful.

Seriously. You tell people to "f*ck off" EVERY DAY? Wow.

TallDave---

You're trying to be clever. You are not succeeding.

Well, gee, let me just pull out my list of press room people that I always keep in my pocket. Oh, gosh, I forgot it today. I guess that must mean you were right.

Fortunateky we have these things called "public records." Many of them are posted to something called "the Internet." You should look into that.

And just cause you don't want to believe it's true doesn't make it not. I'm going to believe Ann (whose books generally have 30 pages of footnotes) unless you can prove she made it up.

First of all her books have endnotes, not footnotes. There is a difference.

Secondly, I asked if you could support your statement with verifiable fact. The answer is "No, Don. I cannot support my own statements with verifiable fact."

Well, cool, dashie, and I agree. IF he did those things, he stands to lose big time. And answer for those things. I'm still not entirely convinced he ever was a prostitute. Haven't seen any real proof yet. But like you say, if he did, those are crimes he has to answer for.

THEN let's look at what he or didn't do as a reporter as a separate issue.

Thank you dashie, you've cut to the core of why this is a non-issue: Gannon did nothing illegal as a WH reporter.

That's all for me, thanks to all for a fairly decent debate!

TallDave:

Prostitution is illegal. You asked what he did illegal as a reporter. Well, he was offering his 8 inches cut for sale on the internet at the same time he was "reporting." Just because no one may or may not have been buying doesn't make it any less illegal.

a blurry pic from a gay porn site of a low-level reporter. - ProfShade

It wasn't a porn site: it was his own, self-posted, self-registered, personally owned website for professional services.

Which he lied about (he said they never went live: I see that you disagree with him there).

'Prostitution is illegal. You asked what he did illegal as a reporter. Well, he was offering his 8 inches cut for sale on the internet at the same time he was "reporting."'

So by this standard, anybody who, say, smokes pot and is a reporter is doing something illegal as a reporter? Like, Hunter S. Thompson maybe?

Hey Julie:

I think you are missing the point. Jeff Gannon posted those pictures on the internet. Jeff Gannon sold himself on the internet. Just because bloggers found these pictures and websites does not make Jeff Gannon a victim.

Jeez, dashie, you just contradicted yourself, if he never went live, who the heck was mucking around even looking for this stuff? And I'd have to ask Jeff if he even copped to that, because it's the first I saw.

Great thread, time for dinner.

Thanks Aaron and Jeff!

The big difference between Jeff Gannon and Hunter Thompson is that Thompson admitted what he did. Jeff Gannon is too much of a chicken to even admitt he was a prostitute. And Ganon did not do anything illegal as a reporter because he was not a reporter, he was a prostitute.

That's right ProfShade. Just listen to what you want to hear. Jeff Gannon had several websites, some never went live while others did. Jeff Gannon had big dreams, big dreams.

ProfShade:

Whaa?

He - Mr Guckert - said they never went live. No-one else. He said it after it was discovered that he owned the domains. He claimed there was nothing there - now, he and many others, including posters on this thread, acknowledge that his pics were there. Where did I contradict myself? I pointed out his lies, when he was caught out. Do you get it now?

He lied. Do you want a liar reporting the news?

THIS IS THE THING HERE. If Jeff did anything illegal, then he should be arrested and tried for it. If ANY white house reporter or any garbage man does anything illegal he should be arrested. The White house can not possibly know if someone has naked pics of themselves on the internet and even if they did, does that pose a danger to the President? OF course not. And that is why someone would be denied, if they were a danger, not because of their lifestyle. I am SURE that if the white house knew of any prostitution angle they would not have let Jeff in, they obviously didn't know. This wasn't a white house appointment you know, it was JUST a reporter!!!!

I don't know what you guys are trying to prove. But it sickens me that the party of "tolerance" is so bent on making some sort of statement about Republicans being hypocrites for defending this guy, that you are willing to destroy a man's career, humiliate him, trash him, and make his life a living hell. He isn't running for office, he didn't deserve this.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

dashie,
"Do you want a liar reporting the news?"

Is that really a question you want to ask after the Dan Rather thing?

Of course we don't. We just don't want him to be publically OUTED and trashed.

I wonder how many journalists have used prostitutes? It's illegal both ways. I've read so many inacuracies or exaggerations in articles written by so-called journalists. I think that most of them are so egocentric. Being famous does not make them right or good. I have never read anything by Gannon, but it can't be any worse then the stuff you see in the New York Times. They put forth their views, whether true or not & rest on their past fame.

The proper question should be not "are you gay?" but "Were you a prostitute?"
Being gay is not illegal at the moment, but being a prostitute is, and having criminals as white house reporters is just bad form!

Rightwingsparkle:

You are right. The people on this board represent the Democratic party. In fact, everything the party does has to go through us. We (the half a dozen people on this board) ordered every Democrat to make this guy sell his body on the internet for $200 an hour/ $1200 a weekend, put pictures of this guy on the internet of him urinating, all because he asked a question we didn't like. Talk about a conspiracy theory.

And just so you know, this guy never had a career. He was not a reporter, he was a prostitute.

Hey connie:

What I want to know is if any journalists, politicians, or any political operatives used Jeff Gannon as a prostitute. If this guy wants to make any money he could sell his client list.

Fritz, so you're saying that you all are just a small minority of the democrats that just HATE THAT THIS GUY WAS LET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE! HATE IT SO MUCH YOU WANT HIM TO SUFFER!

Hey, I hope so.

Aaron, thanks for posting this interview and keeping the comments section open even to people with differing viewpoints.

If you do get to ask followup questions, I'd love to see answers to these:

1. How did you come to be connected with GOPUSA?

2. Did you see the classified documents referring to Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, mentioned in your October 2003 interview with Amb. Joseph Wilson? If your only knowledge of these documents is from the previous WSJ article by David Cloud, then why didn't you start referring to this story earlier?

3. Did you have the scoop on the beginning of the "shock and awe" campaign four hours before it started, and if so, did you share that with any other journalists?

4. You mentioned that you helped Harry Reid get his promotion. In what way did you do so?

I'm so much looking forward to finding the truth on these questions and a number of others.

It's even worse than that.

There are serious issues with the fact that he was allowed to enter the WH in the first place, and moreso, a Presidential Press Conference, which isn't an everyday event.

A good question for Mr. Guckert would be: why did you pull all your former stories offline? Why is Talon News offline, and why did the domain registry change earlier this month to an LLC in Houston?

Somehow I doubt he'd answer those questions....

We just don't want him to be publically OUTED and trashed.

Posted by Rightwingsparkle at March 1, 2005 06:14 PM

He was already out, by his own hand, as a gay man, and as an escort. It was just a question of time before he was linked to the pics on his own websites.

The guy lied, and showed complete lack of judgement. He committed tax crimes. He sold his body.

He is being defended here not for his behaviour, but for his political affiliation. We all surely can be adult and acknowledge that. Just as other recent scandals have forced partisans to defend the indefensible (eg, lying Presidents), Mr Guckert is being defended by his fellow republicans.

Though I doubt that will be the case in 6 months time: he'll likely be dropped, and find himself in the position of many other (non-criminal, tax-paying, truth-telling) gay people: unwelcome in the party of Family Values. If he was at home, his dad would kick him out; if he was at college, they wouldn't pay his tuition; if he wanted to marry, he'd be denied a licence.

Mr Guckert, I expect that you have had unfair treatment before now. I hope you never again get discriminated against for your sexuality. This affair is not about that: I hope that you can see that.

Everyone is missing the point completely. This has nothing to do with Gannon's sexuality, about White House hypocrisy, nor about priveledge and national security. This was all about WMD. Yes. WMD. It was all a silly little typo.

This is all about a non-journalist/prostitute's WAD - Weapon of Ass Destruction.

The problem is that this guy will not answer any serious questions. That is why he comes to softlob throwers like Aaron for an "interview."

Rightwingsparkle:

No, I am saying that there are four or five people on this board who control the entire Democratic party and we decide everything that goes on in the left blogosphere and the liberal media. We are such etlitists.

Sheesh. Personal responsibility, anyone? Jeff made his own choices (from posting photos to asking openly partisan questions--call Helen Thomas a liberal mole if you like, I never remember her calling Lott et al "divorced from reality") and he's obviously OK with them, RWS. You have to have a pretty good sense of yourself to put yourself out there the way he did. The victim mentality is not highly recommended.

There are larger issues associated with this and not just partisan ones, although I know you will not accept that. The only way that you'd realize it was if the situation was reversed. Of course, then half the other people on this board would be going crazy deploring you and defending him, so what's the point?

Why not ask: Have you ever broken the laws of this country regarding prostitution?

Of course he broke the laws of prostitution, but don't expect him to answer that question, as he cannot answer any questions pertaining to his complete conflict of interest, being a gay prostitute living an alleged Christian lifestyle.

His conflict is similar to BTK.

Christians are not prostitutes, let alone gay ones, and they do not kill people, period.

I read some of the comments from Gannon's customers or Bulldog, as he is known in his business, this guy is not a Christian.

According to the comments pertaining to him, he has engaged in sinful sexual acts and that is not acceptable in a Conservative Christian lifestyle. I refuse to buy what he is selling, it is blaspemy.

Thanks for the interview. Jeff claims he wrote 500 articles, but there is no evidence that he published a single article prior to gaining access to the White House as a journalist. He is intentionally deceptive when he references the 500 articles.

And by the way, Jeff advertised his 8 inch penis ("cut"). I think this is the largest of the White House press corps, but I am not sure, because he is apparently the only journalist who posted pictures of himself peeing with an erection.

I've always stated that the fact that "Jeff Ganon" is NOT, I repeat, NOT important.

What it is, is funny. I mean, c'mon---the blatantly homophobic GOP, the people actively trying to enshrine second-class citizenship for GLBT Americans in the Constitution, hire a gay hooker to be their shill in the press room.

The jokes practically write themselves!

Please, why ask JGannon to show any PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Like George Bush, he had an "accountability moment" and now he is not longer subject to any ethical responsility. Don't you understand the Christian concept of forgivemess?

Okay, well, not the most insightful interview, but it's both foil for his book and precursor for hostile interviews he'll have to face. Kind of a wash, but good for you for getting him to talk.

About the name thing (with apologies if anyone has said this): I worked in journalism, much of which is conducted by phone - often, if you don't get the call back, you don't get the info; you don't have a story. Call-backs often throw away your message (and you have to leave a lot of messages) without returning the call if they are confused by your name. Can you imagine Guckert?!? Heck, I changed my phone name to "Pam Allan" because that's what people heard me say. Not even close, but I picked that up to make it easier, and I got far more call-backs. People respond to easy, generic names.

This is an outrage. Just because Jeff Gannon wrote anti gay diatribes doesn't mean we should take it our on poor James Gukert.

They are not the same person!

James Gukert's private professional life as a military-theme gay escort is his private business and it has nothing to do with the anti-gay pro-military writings of Jeff Gannon.

Aaron thinks that Rightwingsparklepony did a good job arguing against the "moonbats." Sure she did. Especially when she comlpained about how the moonbats ruined Gannon's career, as a prostitute. Poor Jeff, such the victim.

Mary Poppins, you are hilarious.

Didn't CLARK KENT use a pseudonym when he was a reporter, even though his real name was SUPERMAN.

I have no problem with Jeff Gannon using a psuedonym when his real name is Bulldog the gay escort.

Gannon/Guckert's reply to question #1 was meaningless. He had never worked as a journalist not received any training (LI doesn't count) before working for GOPUSA.

Gcukert's reply to question #2 is also meaningless. Guckert wasn't a reporter.

That's right Steve J., G/G got daily passes into the White House even though a simple web search would indicated that he had NEVER previously published anything as a journalist.

Being a journalist is not a PRIVATE matter. Your credentials are publically available on the web.

Question #4 seems pointless. Guckert was a whore and still was offering his services as of last month.

CNM: You were the one who brought it up, so don't try to dismiss my responding to it by saying it “was hardly [your] point.“

Guess what: what you think really doesn't matter. I look at all the lies and crap Cheney has had thrown at him and my only question is why did he wait so long before telling at least one dem to fuck off.

And now, on to your next obfuscation: Do you believe everything you read on DU? It was up to the affiliates whether they wanted to show it edited or not. There was no outcry of conservative groups. You have now lost all credibility with me. You be careful.

Seriously. You tell people to "f*ck off" EVERY DAY? Wow.

Lucky for you, I've already reached today's quota.

His only credential on the web were his "8 inch" erection, while he was peeing.

I repeat.... This is an outrage. Just because Jeff Gannon wrote anti gay diatribes doesn't mean we should take it out on poor James Gukert.

Gannon and Gukert ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON!

James Gukert's private professional life as a military-theme gay escort is his private business and it has nothing to do with the anti-gay pro-military writings of Jeff Gannon.

tee bee:

That would be a good defense if Jeff Gannon changed his name when he became a "reporter" but he changed his name first when he became a prostitute. Of course Gannon is much easier to pronounce while having sex than Guckert, so I guess you are half right.

Fritz: I understood you the first time. Obviously, you didn't understand me: The leftwing nuts linked, circulated, tried to make something out of nothing, for the sole purpose of attempting to embarass this administration. It didn't work. It only made them look slimy, not Gannon.

Julie, Julie, Julie,

YOu think the leftwing nuts look slimy, not Gannon. Hmmmm.... have you had a good look at all the pictures, and there are many, of Mr. Gannon peeing with an erection on the internet?

The leftwing nuts simply followed the story where the story took them, to the photos that Mr. Gannon decide to post for all the world to see. It was reasonable for them to wonder, who is this guy asking these silly questions at the White House and posing as a journalist?

I'm not saying that Mr. Gannon is slimy, because maybe you like his type of sexual business, but I think you are being a wee-bit harsh on the leftwing nuts who have avoided posting pictures of themselves weeing with their weenies.

NOTE ON WH DAY PASSES -

They are meant for out-of-town reporters who have a particular, approved need to cover the WH that day.

Guckert got a day pass for almost 2 years without demonstrating that he had a particular need.

Hey guys leave Julie alone, she's right. Posting pictures of yourself spreading eagle and urinating isn't slimey. Neither is selling your 8 inches cut for $200 an hour/$1200 a weekend on your website. What is slimey is linking those websites. Jeff Gannon is the victim.

It's funny. At least Clinton did not have to pay for a whore. But Rove certainly was clever in getting his trick easy access. Pretty sneaky sis.

http://BitchAboutBush.com

Oh well.

That last comment signals the end of proper debate. Thanks for the space, Aaron, hope you get a chance to put some of our questions to Mr Guckert, but I'm not holding my breath awaiting his replies.

No dashie, I think the debate ended when sparkles, jules, and the rest realized they were defending a $200 an hour prostitute pretending to be a reporter and had to go wash their hands. I also hope Aaron wiil ask some better questions next time, but I doubt it. On the brighter side Aaron, with questions like that you could easily become the next Talon News White House correspondent.

I will ask the questions posed in the comments.

I just love all this venom coming from defenders of Clinton. Clinton was the PRESIDENT; Gannon is a man who worked for a partisan news site.

Again, I am very fair and will ask the questions, but you have to keep in mind, I've read just about everything on Gannon and I wasn't about to ask him questions that everyone already knew the answer to.

Many of the questioning and complaints about my interview come directly (if not cut-n-pasted) from extremely, EXTREMELY partisan sites. If you don't believe the DU is partisan, you're definitely a moonbat. But many of these questions raised (legitimate at the time) have been answered. Again, the "Valerie Plame" issue was answered.

Other questions, however, have not been answered. Sometimes you have to do a Barbara Walters before you do a Tim Russert. I asked him very politely to do a second interview--which I hope/believe he will do--but if you all keep the nasty tone, you're going to make that difficult.

AND WHAT I REALLY LOVE IS ALL THESE "QUESTIONS" I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FROM MANY WHO ARE NOT JOURNALISTS THEMSELVES. I am not a journalist!

Terrific interview---cut to the heart of things.

I'm impressed that you went straight to it and posed the questions regarding sexuality---this is, after all, what the Left is nattering on about. Kudos to Gannon for refusing to answer them as well.

Actually, Aaron, he hasn't answered the question about the secret Plame memo: he says, in response to that, that the WSJ published a reference to the memo days before he interviewed Ambassador Wilson. He does not say whether or not he saw a secret memo. He evades the question, as he often does with direct, well formed enquiries. He will call them hypotheticals, or sub judice, or some such.

OK: that's one thing. But it is not an answer to the question 'did you see a classified memo?' There's a question for you

Here's another: 'when you first attended a WH briefing/press conference, before Talon was established by GOPUSA, how did you establish your journalistic credentials?'

Another: 'when you said that the websites never had material posted to them, was that entirely true? If so, how come various archives have identified pictures of you on those sites in solicitation of escort business?'

Finally, 'as a journalist, when you stated that ayoung woman had recorded an interview in which she claims to have had an affair with John Kerry, and that was demonstrably an untruth, did you consider publishing a retraction or correction?'

Ahh.. the more this gets discussed the more questions get raised. That's the danger. I would think that those on the right would want to drop this ball and quick. This incident is probably the best thing to land on the left's lap in four years. And we haven't even gotten to the monetary payoffs yet!

Behind it all is the man behind the curtain himself, KR. It's got his fingerprints all over it. (He's gay too, BTW, not that there's anytthing wrong with that!)

OM

P.S. Did TallDave actually cite *Ann Coulter* as a reference? How lame can you get?

Hey other julie: After you posted all those photos on the beastiality websites of you and Spot in flagrante delicto, I defended you, too. It will be the last time, though. There is a big difference between two consenting adults and you and your pet. Get help.

Send me the references to questions about the Kerry affair and where the ghost websites actually had pictures. I will ask him about those.

I don't want to see just any websites with his picture (I've seen them all). I want to see the sites listed on Wonkette where she said they were registered by Gannon and never used, that actually had pictures on them.

Also, send me the article about the Kerry affair. I will look at them. If they are as you describe them--then certainly I will ask him.

I am not trying to cover up for ANYONE. I think if you read the questions without the short answers they were very thoughtful. I mean, the basis for much of the slam against him is that he was a conservative plant--meanwhile gay and turning tricks. I asked questions asking him to reconcile that.

I knew he would not say he was an escort for legal reasons, but I asked the questions the best I could--and I also asked questions that weren't being thrown around chat rooms. Don't you remember when Connie Chung spent 20 minutes of the 30 minute interview with Condit to admit he had an affair? He said over and over again: I will not answer that question.

And just because you say it's an issue doesn't make it one.

Had he answered all the questions, it would have been a very different interview with a lot of meat for buzzards (both left and right) to pick at.

When Mr. Gannon is ready for that, I hope we will do that interview here.

Fritz: Yes, posting all those links with the intent and purpose of trying to embarrass the administration was/is slimey. You seem really fixated on this guy's penis. But, hey, that's your business.

No, fritz, I was criticizing your continued slimey tactics to embarrass this administration. You lost the election and you lost this round, too. It's the slime factor, fritz. You and your ilk just ooze too much slime to be effective.

frist, I know you may not be use to civil discussion. But I did not call you or anyone else "moonbats." Making fun of my screen name is immature and frankly silly. I am not defending what Jeff did (if he did) If he did, then yes, that was wrong and immoral in my opinion. If he was a Bush appointee or on the white house staff I could understand all this a bit better. But this is a guy with a regular job. Why don't you want to investigate EVERY white house reporter? I am sure we could find some interesting stuff that you and I would find immoral. I am sure you could find it at your office as well.
Just so we are clear, we are not defending his behavior, we are defending his right not to be smeared just because he asked a question you didn't like.

The guy is a friggin prostitute who had his "equipment" plastered all over the internet. Are you people insane? tGuckert isn'tg a journalist. Hes a two bit whore. Get a CLUE.

Um, does that mean Madonna is not a musician? She had her slut ass all over the place...

What say you?

RightWingSparkle: you are right. I'm calling them moonbats, not you. Plenty of people on the left are not afflicted. Those that see conspiracy behind every corner are.

It all comes down to this: got proof? And of what?
Otherwise, it's DOA.

As to this supposed 'right wing hypocrisy' of defending Gannon just because he's conservative...mmm...so, what if we ARE? Really? Is that a big deal? You should be doing the same thing. Innocent until proven guilty...now, you just have to decide what he's really guilty of, please, decide that.

Like I said, show up with some trousers with Bush's semen/DNA on 'em, and maybe ya got something. (and isn't that where you really want this to go????)

Cmon Aaron.....everything was plaigerized.....the whole company plaigerized EVERYTHING. He was NOT a journalist. He was a copycat. At least Madonna can sing while slutting around

Oh....and prof...Im not saying there is proof to any of gay sex/whitehouse angles (although there might be). But there IS more behind this from other angles, and it will come out over time. You will see. Im out for the night. Cya

As a reader from a different country, I have never seen so many Republicans here fawning all over a man who sold his body on the internet and saying his "gayness" is not an issue. I take it then all of you will decide the next time that being gay and wanting to enter into a loving relationship via a marriage contract is fine and you will remember how you stood up for Guckert because he was one of your own and not a Liberal.
I found Mr. Guckert's answers to the questions, not totally truthful. He said on my satellite TV coverage that he worked for Talon news with a circulation of thousands. However, Talon news was only invented after he had been attending the Press Briefings for a month and he had written nothing. He said he had no problems getting into the briefings, yet they refused him entry into the Congressional briefings. I find it funny that your secret service is willing to protect its congress and senate representatives more than your President. How easy it would be for some nice looking white man to pretend he was a conservative plant to gain access and then do harm to your President. Ever think of the safety and terrorsit issues that could happen here?I also read several stories from some of your small town papers, especially one about a little league team that was playing T-ball and the paper wanted to go cover it. They had to make numerous calls for two weeks to get a one day pass to be on a lawn with no President even nearby.
For those supporting Mr. Guckert in all his "stories", please remember how you have crucified Dan Rather as if he himself wrote those allegedly false documents. You know I have always wondered why a republican website was able to totally debunk them within a couple of hours, almost making me feel they had been either pre-warned of what was coming or being cleverly used in a manner to get the heat of Bush's National Guard.
So, it is nice to know that Republicans no longer care that anyone is gay, got access that most legitimate papers couldn't, took part in what I think are still illegal activities in your country, owes back taxes, and is now your new hero. It is such a blessing to see such a valued reporter in the republican midst who is crowing like a rooseter as to his part in bringing down one of your seated Senators. My how people's morals change when they see who they have to defend or crucify.

"My how people's morals change when" Ahhhhhhh! Blissful! Thanks for taking the words right outta my mouth, visitor!

My morals haven't changed...sorry to disappoint you, but I've been a Republican for 30 years and NEVER had a problem with gays. I do have a problem with blind hypocrites, however. They stumble too easily in front of moving traffic.

ProfShade:
Gannon is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but not in the opinions of the general public. I thought OJ was guilty the second I saw him driving his Ford Bronco, and I think Gannon is guilty of prostitution the second I saw his websites charging $200 and hour/$1200 a weekend for his "escort" services.

Julie:
You're right once again. I am just mad because I lost the election. After all, I am really John Kerry. This has nothing to do with a prostitute pretending to be a reporter in the White House. Jeff Gannon is the victim.

Aaron:
When Madonna posted naked pictures of herself on the internet, did she pretend that those pictures were not hers? Did she also sell her "escort" services for $200 an hour?

ProfShade, see, that is the whole problem right there. We are not fitting into their homophobe redneck mold and they can't stand it.
WE have friends and relatives who are gay. Being against gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gays. That is what they don't seem to understand. Heck, I know gays who are against gay marriage.

Having a personal standard of morality does not mean one is judgemental as much as you on the left would like to believe that. Why don't you try and get to know some of us a bit better instead of throwing around general insults and sterotypes.

I'm sorry Rightwingsparkle. In order to get to know you better, please explain to me how prostitution fits into your personal standard of morality. Would that be in the yea or nea category?

(Comment removed. Please avoid abusive language.)

Wow - I've read the interview (kudos Aaron for getting him - not so difficult as it may have been a week ago, but kudos nonetheless).

Of course he didn't answer the questions - because he 1) is potentially legally culpable for his prostitution behavior, 2) has been caught in at least 2 lies (that he continues to either ignore or lie about again, like in this interview), and 3) if the truth comes out, whatever that is, his 15 minutes might be up, and he's not rich yet.

Seriously - he quit talon and went into hiding for 4 & 1/2 seconds out of fears for his family, then pouts because no one in the media is chasing him down for interviews (after he said he wouldn't do anymore interviews), and then goes back into the foreground completely with interview after interview and rebooting his website?

What in the world are you people thinking wasting any time at all defending this guy? He has, inarguably (look up the evidence - it's ALL OVER THE PLACE - just try to pull your head out of the sand for 15 minutes) at least TRIED to break the law by being a prostitute, lied about his status as a 'reporter' before getting a daily pass to the white house, lied about the existence of the prostitute websites (which he conveniently will no longer answer), lied about the Kerry affair (***Note to Aaron - I don't recall that he said that he'd interviewed the supposed mistress - he simply sent Sean Hannity an e-mail stating that she had taped an interview with a major morning talk show disclosing the affair with Kerry - the right-wing republican noise machine went into overdrive on that one before the woman finally came out and disclosed that it was ALL a lie - there's a nice long article about the entire 'affair' which she either gave an interview for or wrote herself).

So - Gannon/Guckert defenders - just stop. You want the interest to go away? Wait for the story to pass.

By making ANY attempt at defending JJ/GG, you simply expose yourself as deliberalely intellectually dishonest partisans.

Sorry for the book :)

but, but, but julie gets to say it everyday, why can't i? and here it is another day, and i like it so much, i want to say it to her once again. .but you'll just remove that, too.

oh well, won't be back here. i spent all that time reading through the comments, trying to find SOMETHING that made sense from a 'conservative' perspective. the ONLY credible comments came from the 'moonbats'.

tj:
Don't tell them to stop, it's fun watching right wingers defend hookers pretending to be reporters. Remember, Jeff Gannon is the victim.

from hookergate's own website:

"But the last time I looked, the daily briefings are still populated by NBC's David Gregory and Nora O'Donnell, ABC's Terry Moran, CBS's John Roberts, CNN's Dana Bash and Jon King, NYT's David Sanger, Richard Stevenson and Elisabeth Bumiller, the Washington Post's Mike Allen and columnist Helen Thomas."

some names for you to investigate what their 'real' names are. Moran really should change that name, it could be pronounced a couple different ways. And Bumiller, well that just doesn't look good; she should also make a change.

New career for J-Ho: name changes for 'real' journalists :)

ImpeachBush, I looked carefully at Julie's posts before deleting yours. As far as I could see, she did not direct an "f-off" to anybody in particular. That's the difference I'm trying to enforce here.

fritz:

While I ventured onto this site expecting _some_ knee-jerk defense of the indefensible, I wasn't expecting it to be the vast majority of the posting.

I came to be entertained (I find all political disagreement entertaining - NOT informative - were it so for the majority of the listening/watching public), but instead, I am saddened.

I simply cannot see the good in simply responding so ridiculously because of partisan affiliation (be it conservative, libertarian, republican, democrat, green, liberal, communist, socialist, Bugs Bunny, whatever) over _any_ issue.

To put it most bluntly, the majority of people on any side have fallen into both the 'my side - right or wrong' stupidity and the generic idiotic cheerleading that equates political discussion to rooting for a team at the superbowl.

Hence, rather than waiting for either all of the 'guckert' facts to come to light or for the story to die off, the people on this site are merely juxtaposing their political affiliation with non-defenses of Guckert's offenses - regardless of the remaining issues (although they tend to apparently find the remaining issues the easiest stomping ground for actually posing an argument, and completely ignore the facts).

It has to be deliberate.

Please ask Gannon to comment on the authenticity of this extremely explicit review, apparently written by a very satisfied customer of his.

(tj bends over backwards trying to be ultra-fair to Gannon by saying he "at least TRIED to break the law by being a prostitute." However, the review above tends to demonstrate that Gannon did far more than just "try." Anyway, although I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure the law prohibits not just the act of having sex for a fee, but rather even just offering/soliciting to have sex for a fee.)

Also, please ask Gannon why domain-name records for certain of his naughty URLs were updated in 11/04, after he had been at the White House almost two years. Also ask him why registration fees for those URLs were apparently still being paid. This seems to be inconsistent with his claims that he had left that life behind.

No - Don't ask him any questions. Don't interview him.

He's a liar, and he's not going to do anyone any good if interviewed - not even himself.

You did the interview, you asked reasonable questions, mostly.

Waste any more time talking to Guckert, Aaron, and you will have to be counted amongst the intellectually dishonest partisans.

This has nothing to do with a prostitute pretending to be a reporter in the White House.

That's right, fritz/john, once again, it's only about you trying to embarrass the administration. Which, by the way, you have failed miserably at. Keep repeating your lie, and I will keep countering it with the truth. And, fritz, it's even more fun watching you guys foaming all over the place. You all are sort of cute when you're this ineffectual.

jukeboxgrad: Don't practice law without a license.

Aaron: Wow, tj, is telling you who you can, and cannot, interview! LOL!

Julie:

You know what, a prostitute pretending to be a reporter should embarass this administration, but I guess it doesn't. I guess the only way Jeff Gannon could embarass this administration would be if him and Scott McCellen wanted to concemate their love in marriage. It's a joke, please stop foaming at the mouth. I actually don't find that attractive.

Gannon's PENIS PROVES HE WAS A WHITE HOUSE PLANT.

... er ... SOMEHOW.

And... ONLY GOOD MORAL PEOPLE WITH GOOD MORAL VALUES SHOULD ASK QUESTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. Or else everything would be all... higgledy piggledy! Dogs and cats lying together!

People should be good and decent and well-established in this society in order to have any rights or protections under our laws. You can't just allow the dirty masses to participate in our systems of government because some of them might look at dirty pictures on the internet, or ... POST dirty pictures on the internet, why they might even go so far as to sell their bodies or solicit oral sex from interns in the highest building of power in our fair land. We must stamp out moral decay before Judgement Day!

Way to go, fritz and company. Keep all this outrage up and pretty soon you'll lure Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell over to your side. Hell, you've got Pat Buchanan already, why stop attracting the worst parts of the right wing now?

Hypothetical question:

If Helen Thomas were charged and convicted of beastiality, would that be an embarassment for the Clinton Administration because she asked softball questions in the press room?

Help me to bridge the vast logical divide that lefty lemmings are leaping into here.

The only foamer is you, fritzie. And the only one who should be embarrassed is you. But, hey don't stop -- the entertainment value you and your friends supply is immeasureable.

Sortelli asked: "If Helen Thomas were charged and convicted of beastiality, would that be an embarassment for the Clinton Administration because she asked questions in the press room?"

Answer - if she got daily passes into the press room for a non-news, pro-democrat website before she'd ever had an article published by any 'news organization', you can bet your bottom dollar the right-wing noise machine would shout about it from the rooftops in an attempt to embarass the Clinton Administration.

No less than the alleged murder victims of the Clinton Administration were touted as absolute trush by so many (Rush Limbaugh not being the least of them).

As for bridging the 'vast logical divide', Sortelli - there is no help for the argument you've presented - it's not an attempt at a bridge, but a smokescreen.

And julie: I am not 'telling' anyone what they can and cannot do. Pathetic try on your part - and direct proof of my argument against partisan side-picking stupidity.

Well speaking of Helen Thomas, The Right Wing can be proud, their skinny troll has spoken yet again - and put more of our troops at risk. You all are careless and Godless.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=59777&d=2&m=3&y=2005

Is "trush" a typo for "truth" or "trust" - or "trash?" Libs are SO-O-O unspecific. I'm a right-wing gay guy who has had a blast trolling the leftie websites. They're take on Gannon/Guckert is basically that there's nothing there except the HYPOCRISY (!) - Oh, no, wait, that's their fall-back position in case they can't prove he's tied right in with Karl Rove and confidential documents exposing Valerie Plame. Not,of course, one teentsy bit of evidence for that. Their rhetoric consists of "let's tar this faggot to the administration!"

Don't get me wrong. I'm by no means a whiner. I like my life just fine. I have nothing but contempt for people who view themselves as my savior when I didn't ask to be saved.

"Their" not "they're." I'm embarassed.

Direct proof of tj's partisan side picking stupidity:

No - Don't ask him any questions. Don't interview him... Waste any more time talking to Guckert, Aaron, and you will have to be counted amongst the intellectually dishonest partisans.

Who's pathetic? Bwahhhhhhhhhh!

Hey, Trevor, your white sheet is showing. And, your concern for our troops is about as sincere as your outrage over Gannon.

"Keep repeating your lie, and I will keep countering it with the truth"

We're waiting very patiently for you to provide an iota of proof to support your apparent assertion, that Gannon (when he first showed up at the White House) was a reporter, and not a prostitute.

"it's only about you trying to embarrass the administration"

We're not embarrassing the White House. The White House is embarrassing itself.

"Right-wing noise machine." Heh. This from the guy who declares he's against "partisan side-picking stupidity."

JUKEBOXGRAD TRAMPLES ON THE TRUTH; HERE'S PROOF:

Here's a thoroughly documented example of how Jukeboxgrad lies even when the truth is right under his nose:

I said: "Keep repeating your lie, and I will keep countering it with the truth"

Jukeboxgrad then made up the following lie: We're waiting very patiently for you to provide an iota of proof to support your apparent assertion, that Gannon (when he first showed up at the White House) was a reporter, and not a prostitute.

Nowhere did I make such an assertion. Jukeboxgrad is a liar! A LIAR! I have limited my discussion to what is the true issue, in this matter, which is: "it's only about you trying to embarrass the administration"

Then jukeboxgrad the liar, uncharacteristically told the truth: We're not embarrassing the White House.

Correct, you're not.

Then jukeboxgrad made the the highly questionable assertion: The White House is embarrassing itself.

The only person embarassing himself, is you, jukie. Now, I must go post my expose of jukeboxgrad as a liar on every blog in the internet. Repeatedly.

/Hope everyone enjoyed jukeboxgrad, blog troll. Written by jukeboxgrad, blog troll.

Mr. Gluckert seems to be ashamed of his homosexuality, as are many conservatives. He could just have kept it on the DL, like David Drier, and Ken Mehlman for example. For some odd reason he chose to express his sexuality as an escort/prostitute, and not by entering into a healthy type of love relationship. This could be because he is not comfortable being gay, but is comfortable being "gay for pay". His stellar example of being just another screwed up homo, really sheds a negative light on the many gay people who are actually in healthy and loving realtionships, or seek one.

I love it when conservatives or closet conservatives (like so called 'libertarians') defend gay prostitutes who pose as reporters. The average right-winger has the intellectual capacity of an amoeba. My God...Mr. Military Stud aka Conservative Reporter didn't answer one single question directly.
But hey, who expects anything else from people who think SpongeBob is a gay activist? I guess there would be outrage though, if a gay White House reporter would marry his lover in Massachusetts.
Julie, I think you might do very well as a North Korean government spokesperson. They need propaganda chicks who try to sell lies like 'truth'.

I wonder why Mr. Gannon chooses such a schizoprenic existence. I'd say his life would be easier if he'd make a choice:
a) tell the American public Democrats will ban the Bible and force you to marry homos if they don't support the President's plan to give the social security trust fund to Wall Street, or
b) make a living in the oldest profession in the world...judging from those website pics, he seems to like it and he looks hot. it's illegal, but isn't gay marriage much worse?
c) try reparative therapy
any combination of two seems too complicated.

Frist, If you have been reading my posts you would already have the answer to that question. But I will repeat it. If Jeff did anything illegal he should be arrested.

What I was referring to was the gay angle. Yall seem to think we are hypocrites for defending him in that way. Saying that isn't any of our business. And your wrong.

200 (I just had to be that post)

"Nowhere did I make such an assertion"

I guess for some mysterious reason you have trouble scrolling up, so let me help out.

At 1:12 AM, you said "keep repeating your lie," in a post which you began by quoting fritz: "this has nothing to do with a prostitute pretending to be a reporter in the White House." (fritz was obviously being sarcastic.)

I think the obvious interpretation of what you wrote is that you're claiming that fritz's statement is a lie. In other words, you seem to be asserting that Gannon was not "a prostitute pretending to be a reporter in the White House." Still, I acknowledged this was just my interpretation by referring to your claim as an "apparent" assertion.

I realize you're used to throwing around words like "lie" and "liar" without backing it up, and without even being clear about what you're referring to. I also realize that now you're trying to use your own vagueness as a defense, in what seems to be a lame attempt to distance yourself from your own words. I also realize that instead of backing up your unfounded accusation that fritz is a liar, you find it easier to simply repeat the same unfounded accusation against me. Nice.

Anyway, if your claim still is "nowhere did I make such an assertion," then please explain what "lie" you were talking about when you said to fritz "keep repeating your lie."

Hopefully this time around I made this simple enough, even for you.

"TRAMPLES ON THE TRUTH; HERE'S PROOF"

When you copy, without quotes or attribution, an exact phrase you've seen me use at another site (a phrase that Google can find nowhere else, by the way), that's called plagiarism. You're apparently a graduate of the TalonNews School for Ethical Writing.

"If Jeff did anything illegal he should be arrested."

Good point. There's ample reason to believe he engaged in prostitution (vivid evidence of that can be easily found, including at sites I've cited), yet I've heard nothing about any effort to investigate or prosecute him in connection with that. This tends to add to the impression that he has one or more powerful people watching out for him. It also tends to add to the impression that one or more powerful people would prefer that details of Gannon's life as a prostitute do not come to light.

I guess our government would like to make gay marriage illegal, but at the same time seemingly has little interest in enforcing existing laws regarding gay prostitution. The message seems to be that homosexuality is OK as long as it involves money but not love.

Jerry: Maybe you would be more comfortable having sex for money since you and the others seem obsessed with it. Just don't tell me about it.

Ken: The credit should go to jukeboxgrad. I just copied and paste his words. Neat idea, huh!

201

What I was referring to was the gay angle. Yall seem to think we are hypocrites for defending him in that way. Saying that isn't any of our business. And your wrong. - Rightwingsparkle.

Where? Where is there anyone attacking him for being gay (as opposed to a gay prostitute - you do see the distinction, right)?

I see lots of people attacking him for being incompetent, or hypocritical, or conflicted, or being a prostitute, or a shill, or... well, lots of stuff.

Where is he attacked for being gay?

Where is anybody attacking him for being gay? How about Kos himself:

In case this isn't clear enough, those last three are gay sex-themed names. Suddenly, his picture looks appropriately in character.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Kos commented:

"If that's what it took to really bring attention to him, it's one of those unfortunate facts of reality in the way we operate today. It's sex that really draws attention to these things."

"JUKEBOXGRAD TRAMPLES ON THE TRUTH; HERE'S MORE PROOF"

I guess for some mysterious reason you have trouble scrolling up, . . .

Not at al. But I see that you have trouble with reading comprehension because as you later are forced to admit, those are fritzie's words, not mine.

I think the obvious interpretation of what you wrote is that you're claiming that fritz's statement is a lie.

It doesn't need an interpretation, jukie. And certainly not by you.

I realize . . . I also realize . . . I also realize . . .blah blah blah.

Let's see. According to MW: Realize: 1 a : to bring into concrete existence : ACCOMPLISH -finally realized her goal- b : to cause to seem real : make appear real -a book in which the characters are carefully realized - 2 : to conceive vividly as real : be fully aware of -did not realize the risk she was taking.

See the problem, jukie? Just because YOU want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

When you copy, without quotes or attribution, an exact phrase you've seen me use at another site (a phrase that Google can find nowhere else, by the way), that's called plagiarism.

One, if you can't find all the crap you have left all over the interet, it is only a reflection on your poor search skills. Two, it's called parody. And, I certainly did give you attribution -- several times. Lord knows, I wouldn't want people to think that junk originated from me.

dashie, before the pics of his advertising came about (which I have not seen, nor wish to, but I will take your word on it) HIs being gay was ALL that the bashing was about. I kept seeing things like "The party of "family values' has a gay reporter and thats ok??? Yeah. right." ect.
It wasn't for a few days that the 'prostitution' thing came about.

You forgot to ask him whether or not he wrote his investigative articles, given that he copied his news reports from press releases. Pick any straight news report he wrote and you can usually find the press release he copied.

And if he answered "yes" to that question, you then forgot to ask him why anyone should believe him about the provenance. Once a plagiarist, always a plagiarist.

Then you might want to ask him if he actually went to South Dakota. If not, who did the interviews?

Then ask him why Talon and GOPUSA began deleting articles from their site in early February and then, finding that people were using the Internet Archive and caches, purge as many of those as possible too. Was he involved in that in any way?

One might think, reading your interview, that you were feeding him softball questions. Surely, if we all can't agree on what a journalist is, we can agree that it doesn't involve plagiarism?

Some of you aren't quite clear on details, so here's a few more

Rightwingsparkle:

So you do think that Jeff Gannon should be arrested? Uh Oh, sounds like you are becoming a moonbat.

Pat Curley:

Sounds to me in that interview that Kos thought it was unfortunate that sex is what brought this story to attention. And what was that story that Kos was talking about? Was it that Jeff Gannon is gay? Or was it that a fake reporter had been in the White House for two years? I think what you're missing is that Jeff Gannon had no journalistic experience. He had no previous published articles. The Hill wouldn't give this guy credentials because he was not a reporter. GOPUSA was not a news service. The fact that this guy is gay is just what you and people on this board only chose to read.

I have a calculator.

Oh, sorry. I was only asking about this thread - where are people in this thread attacking him for being gay? I didn't, and I'm only responsible for my comments. I can't defend anyone for attacking him on those grounds, so - can we stick to the substance as outlined above?

Here you go Aaron, the dailykos people (moonbats, moonbats) have created a list of questions for Jeff Gannon.

I've heard several people attacking Gannon claim that being a prostitute is a crime. It is not. Engaging in an act of prostitution is a crime. So, assuming that people have found websites of Gannon advertising himself, they still have no evidence of a crime.

And let's assume for a minute that Gannon was not a real reporter (setting aside the fact that Gannon was real, and he was reporting the White House's press releases). If true, then the White House let a private civilian into the press room to ask questions of his own. Oh, the horror! And yes, right now Gannon was either a reporter or a private citizen; you can't legitimately claim he was anything else without some kind of real proof.

Ok, guys, question him all you want. but what do you really think will come out of all this? If he had done something illegal, he would have been arrested by now. And besides that, he was JUST A REPORTER, nothing more. A job like you or I might have. I know yall aren't worried about the security, and I still haven't figured out what exactly yall ARE trying to prove. Even if everything you say is true it just isn't important.

Really. Drop this and leave the guy alone. Geeze, get back to being critical of the war, at least you weren't trying to destroy one indiviual's life then.

sparkle: hasn't guckert made it clear he doesn't want to be left alone?

Here is a website where a news publication attempts to get a day pass the same way as Gannon and was denied. I don't understand, I thought it was easy, I thought anyone could get a day pass.

Rightwingsparkle:
People do illegal things all the time and don't get arrested. And this guy was not a reporter. You can call him a reporter all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Look, I'm a doctor because I call myself one. Now I'm a lawyer. Now I'm a mechanic. Now I'm a teacher. It's fun playing make believe.

fritz, Fine. Have your way. He wasn't a reporter.

Ok, now what?

A big fat nothing, that's what

I take it you can't find any homophobia by me anywhere in this thread, then, RightWingSparkle, seeing as you have posted but not replied?

Is it fair to characterise your accusations of homophobia in the anti-Gannon contingent here as lies?

dashie, no. I thought you were truly apologizing for misunderstanding me. My bad. I should have known.

No, there isn't any homopohobia here, that is why I said it was all about the gay thing before the "escort pics" came out. Go read Kos and the others and see for yourself.

Are you deliberately misreading my comments?

I have refuted the charges of homophobia hurled by yourself in this thread. You consistently attempt to misdirect by bringing up other sites (not links to them, either, just vague references. No matter that the commenters there are, in the words of many a great blogger, not the responsibility of the site owner).

Who cares what has been said by anonymous posters on the DKos site? Let's stick to the evidence, to the arguments made here. Neither you, nor the anti-Gannonites in this thread, are being overtly homophobic. Lets lay that to rest, OK?

"Right-wing noise machine." Heh. This from the guy who declares he's against "partisan side-picking stupidity."

Attila Girl: If there were a left-wing noise machine (and, no, pathetic assertions against the so-called 'liberal elite media' qualify for that distinction), I'd call them out, too.

Facts are facts - many nut-bag conservative organizations tried to pin the deaths of numerous people on Bill Clinton. One religious org, I think it was Jerry Falwell's group, actually made a video which they sold to their followers (oh, yeah, they were 'donations). And the 'right-wing-noise' machine promoted those allegations quite a bit.

Rightwingsparkle:

First you admit that Jeff Gannon was a prostitute. Then you finally admit that he wasn't a reporter. You better watch out, Aaron might start calling you a moonbat. Now did you click on my previous homepage which shows you a real online news service that has been denied a day pass for two days now? If you did, then you can answer me why did a prostitute who was pretending to be a reporter get a day pass into the White House for two years if the White House does not let just anyone into the press room. That will answer your question "So what?"

oops - the un-named post above is mine

I guess that all the gay people who are pissed off at Mr Guckert right now must be self-hating internally conflicted homophobes? Applying Occams razor, I'd guess that actually they are more likely to be pissed off because this guy, in his alter-ego as a 'reporter', recycled talking points from GOP press releases, many of which attack notions of full equality for all. Many gay people in the GOP have to reconcile conservative political beliefs with the anti-gay prejudice and discrimination common in their fellow party members. It's a difficult square to circle.

It is not homophobic to refer to a person's sexuality, as the Cheneys seemed to be arguing after Kerry noted Mary's lesbianism last autumn, or as some on this thread seem to think when Mr Guckert's orientation is referred to. What's homophobic is the negative attitude and draconian actions which are taken by those who act against people for private (non-commercial, legal, affectionate) activities. Even to the extent of (at election times, anyway) promoting the first discriminatory constitutional amendment in US history.

BTW, Aaron: the intro to this thread has changed, without an *Update* marker, so now I'm commenting in a thread where dissenters - like me - from the general position of the site owners are labelled 'moonbats'.

Nice one. Thats real conducive to rational debate. I don't know if that's actually what you want though - it's hard work sticking to rational arguments, rather than hurling playground epithets around.

Gannon asks: Do Democrats want the White House to investigate reporters?

Dude. For most of us, they already do. That's why, in applying for a day pass (and probably a hard pass, too, although I have no direct experience with that) they ask you for your full name and SSN. That goes over to somebody, Secret Service or FBI, to see if you're a security risk.

Maybe YOU didn't get investigated because you have connections, but the rest of the press does.

Please, Jeff, for the love of God, shut up before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

Well said, Smitty.

Smart, fritzie, we're all suppose to be mind readers and find your invisible link to your stupid story. These people call Monday and never really talk to anyone and then just show up the next morning at 8:30 a.m. They, and you, sound like unrealistic, demanding little kids. Are you really an adult?

Smitty: Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth! You obviously don't have a clue as to what a background check entails. Do you think by giving your name and SSN they can run you against some secret list to check your sexual preferences? Have you ever had a background check? What kind? Have you ever done a background check on anyone else? If not, you are really not qualified to give an opinion.

Anonymous: I like your post. Most of them will never get it and just keep yelling a crime has been committed.

Fritz, what don't you answer the question? Since it was first directed at you.

Dashie, I never accused anyone here of being "overtly homophopic." So I have no idea what your talking about.

ProfShade asks: Got proof he was a prostitute while in the WH?Why, yes, it's a website where he advertises his services for $200/night. You don't have to prove the exchange of money or performance of sexual services to prove prostitution.[From FindLaw: Prostitution laws make it a crime in most states to offer, agree to, or engage in a sexual act for compensation. Depending upon applicable state law, the stages of a typical prostitution "transaction" can involve charges against the provider of services (for "prostitution"), the customer paying for the services (for "solicitation of prostitution"), and any middleman (for "pandering" or "pimping").]Now, it might be a tough case since he never did explicitly offer sex for money. Just like those "My Actual Photo" ads in the back of the Weekly or those Oriental Massage parlors offering "full release" massage. So I apologize, I have no proof of "prostitution", only an "escort" offering his nude shaved body with 8+ cut as a "top". Typical liberal moonbat, I suppose, with all my assumptions.ProfShade seems proud that he's been a Republican for 30 years and has no problem with gays. Hmm, I'll bet some of your best friends are gay, right? RightWingSparkle insists that being against gay marriage doesn't mean you're against gays, heck, she even has gay friends and family, and knows gays who are against gay marriage.It's nice to see the right wing support homosexuals, as long as they know their proper place -- not at the wedding altar, not on cartoon shows, not in the military, but definitely offering sexual services on the internet and asking softball questions of the Administration.(Who are these gays against gay marriage? Are they affiliated with Christians against Christ? Or perhaps the Black KKK?)Just so I can fully understand, let me see if I've got this brave new Republican world straight:* A person's gay private life is irrelevant.* Post 9/11 security procedures restricting who can be near the president are irrelevant.* Private partisan websites that parrot administration rhetoric are legitimate news organizations.* Plagiarizing prostitutes with pseudonyms are legitimate reporters.* Liberals are intolerant hypocrites for noticing public gay nude urination photos on the internet.* Conservatives are morally consistent when they oppose gay marriage, gays in the military, gayness in movies, cartoons, and TV shows, while supporting the right of someone to be gay in their public business life.Republicans Love Gay Male Hookers - it's a step in the right direction!

Simple answer to "are you gay?" question: "No." Why no "No."? Could it be because Gaynon posted pics of himself not only with a hardon, but also peeing, all over the internets? Those damn liberal freedom-haters, always accessing information that's readily available to the public and then talking about it!

There is not a yoga posture as contorted as the knots into which gay-hating fascist wannabes have to wrap themselves to excuse a gay whore posing as a reporter to blow the administration, which uses its pretend hatred of homosexuals to mobilize the least informed portion of their electorate to vote against their own interests, while simultaneously accusing the "left" of being homophobic. Christ on a cracker, do you guys actually take yourselves seriously?

Julie:
I'm sorry you couldn't find the invisible link. Click on my name and you will find about how they were denied a day pass on day two of trying to get into the White House just like Jeff Gannon did. You are right, the White House wouldn't return their calls to issue them a press pass. It's almost as if you need to know someone to get your call returned. Who do you think Jeff Gannon, the prostitute, knew?

Rightwingsparkle:

I have no idea what question you are referring to. Anyways, seeing as to how you only answer questions when it suits you, are you one to really talk.

reposting this from above since no one seemed to catch it.

Feb. 25, 2003: Guckert video evidence in White Hosue, no question - 30:11 on CSPAN RealVideo archive

May 8, 2003: Last recorded date at which usmcpt.com was active. (Warning: link not work safe AmericaBlog)

So YES he was still prostituting himself WHILE in the White House!

Fritz, the question was So what????

Can you point out a question I haven't answered?

I may have missed something in all this, but I am not avoiding questions.

But I will ask again? What are yall trying to prove?
What is the end game here?
Can someone answer that for me?

Why ya ignoring my comment RWS?

Anon, I am not ignoring it. I'm saying, even if all you say is true, WHAT IS THE END GAME HERE?

Fritz: I read the article. What world do you live it where you can call a gov.office, leave a message, and get an immediate return call? Do you and your friends think these people have no other responsibilities? And, they show up on Tuesday at 8:30 am and are surprised that they can't get in? Do you think a secretary just takes the info and runs a background check? As I already asked smithy, have you ever run a background check? You are deliberately unrealistic. But of course, this isn't about getting a day pass, it's about trying to embarrass this administration. I guess, people who are naive and have never held a job with any responsibility or dealt with government agencies in a professional capacity might fall for today's b.s. Those of us who no longer live with our parents will not.

RWS: What's with this they stamp their little foot and demand an immediate answer bit? You're way too nice. I'll respond to who I want when I want with out the their tantrums.

Rightwingsparkle:

The answer to your question lies within yourself. If you are not angered that a prostitute pretending to be a reporter was allowed into the press room for two years than the debate ends here. If you are not angered that the White House did not have the decency to deny Jeff Gannon daily passes for two passes because he did not work for a news organization, but worked for a clearly political organization then that says something about your standards of journalism. I still believe in the fourth estate, which Jeff Gannon was not a part of. I still believe in keeping the press free from government manipulation, which Jeff Gannon did not help. This is where you and I differ, and I feel sorry for you. So I guess I cannot answer your question. But at least you no longer believe this is a gay issue, and rather a story about a prostitute who pretended to be a reporter for two years with the blessing of the White House.

a story about a prostitute who pretended to be a reporter for two years with the blessing of the White House.

No, it's another cheap attempt by moonbats to slime Bush. It didn't work. Get over it.

a story about a prostitute who pretended to be a reporter for two years with the blessing of the White House.

No, it's another cheap attempt by moonbats to slime Bush. It didn't work. Get over it.

Julie:

You're doing that thing again where you foam at the mouth. You should really try to control that. And for the record I do not live in my parent's basement, I live in my grandparent's basement. I also personally control the entire democractic party down here. I didn't expect them to get an immediate callback. In fact, I bet you this group doesn't get called back at all. I wonder why Jeff Gannon got called back, these people obviously have more experience then Jeff, and they even work at a real publication. Perhaps Jeff Gannon got, dare I say it, special treatment. Like the saying goes, it's not what you know but who you blow.

Er, Julie: no-one's mentioned Bush yet in this thread. It's all about the plagiarizing, prostituting, phlim-phlamming Mr Guckert.

Just so's you know. OK?

So, direct question to Julie, sparklemonkey, all the non-'moonbats' here: it's ok to be a prostitute in the WH press corps, right?

But is it OK to be a married gay?

PS: no avoiding the question, misdirecting, quoting other websites or politicians.

it's ok to be a prostitute in the WH press corps, right?

But is it OK to be a married gay?

"It's ok to be a prostitute in the WH press corps, right?"

No. But do we want the White House screening all reporters' private lives to make sure it never happens again?

"But is it OK to be a married gay?"

OK to "be" a married gay? Who am I to judge? Okay for the government to treat those marriages the same as heterosexual marriages? Not in my state; Massachusetts may feel differently.

Even though 'Jeff Gannon' used his real name to get his daily press pass, he was referred to as 'Jeff' by Scott McClellan. Ari Fleischer said something about avoiding calling on 'Gannon' because of his affliation with Talon News which was affliated with Eberle....

I've always thought the issue of his gayness and escort service advertisements were secondary to his getting a pass while not being a bona fide member of the press corps - which he was not.

So those who disgree here are moonbats. Why - that's almost tender in a sorta cute way.

Julie, yeah I know, I am too nice.

Frist, I do believe this was a gay issue because it clearly was before the left found the "escort pictures." Second, I do not believe for a moment Bush or the white house knew of Gannon's activities outside his job. Rightwing or leftwing, I am not much into conspiracy theories.

Dashi, it is truly 2nd grade behavior to call silly names. Really. Grow up.

Now that I have answered all of your questions. You can answer mine. What is your end game? Must all reporters now be screened for their personal life? Because that could mean the end to alot of careers I am betting.

Why don't you just admit that you truly hoped this would turn out to embarass Bush in some way, but it only ended up embarrassing yourselves.

Bush is kinda busy with a war on terrorism, spreading democracy in the middle east, and saving social security for us younger people, so I'm thinking he doesn't know or care who Gannon is.

This has been fun, very informative of the behavior of the left and makes me forever glad that I am no longer a democrat.

But I shall leave you with a question to ask yourselves. Is it really so important to further a political agenda or try and damage the other side by smearing a man who has no influence or holds no office?

I'm not saying that we don't have people on our side also willing to do and hurt people to further their cause, but is that really how we want to conduct ourselves in this democracy? Throwing insults, calling names, and tearing into someone's reputation is just not the way we need to go to make this a better society, no matter which side of the fence we are on.

A little civility might go a long way.

Aaron -- thank you for your contribution here, it's illuminating to hear both sides of this issue without the Freeper-like forced conformity to the Scaife version of the truth. Hopefully "Gannon" will indeed sue, and have to answer questions under deposition similar to those that are being asked here, particularly wrt classified Plamegate documents.

I don't know what you guys are trying to prove. But it sickens me that the party of "tolerance" is so bent on making some sort of statement about Republicans being hypocrites for defending this guy, that you are willing to destroy a man's career, humiliate him, trash him, and make his life a living hell. He isn't running for office, he didn't deserve this.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

What do you suppose Monica Lewinsky would say about that?

I really want to link to Mr Guckerts previously published articles on Talon news, but I can't. This 'reporter' has had all his articles scrubbed from the site.

Can anyone name another reputable reporter who's had his articles erased from the record?

One in particular I want to
This guy, this reporter for Talon news: why can't I see his back catalogue anymore, RightWingSparkleHorse (I'm asking for you to speculate here - I don't assume you know the *actual* reason)?[http://mediamatters.org/items/200502100008][http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0204/021604-kerry.htm] link [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Kerry+affair.+%22by+jeff+gannon%22+site%3Atalonnews.com&btnG=Search] [http://mediamatters.org/items/200502100008] [http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0204/021604-kerry.htm] [http://www.google.co.uk/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Kerry's%20Alleged%20Intern%20Identified%2C%20Taped%20Interview%20With%20Major%20Television%20Network]to [http://www.google.co.uk/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Kerry's%20Alleged%20Intern%20Identified%2C%20Taped%20Interview%20With%20Major%20Television%20Network] [http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/02/12/20040212_182616_mattjk1.htm] [http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1481] refers to the story on Kerry's affair with a young woman, but it's not available. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22by+jeff+gannon%22+site%3Atalonnews.com&btnG=Search]
[http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/02/12/20040212_182616_mattjk1.htm]
[http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/02/13/20040213_155208_mattjk1.htm]

I totally apologise for the crap formating there. HTML is clearly not a welcome code on this blog.

Gee fritzie, not only are you painfully naive, you lack any originality of thought. You can't even come up with your own insults but have to co-op my descriptive and accurate name for you: Foamer.

Like the saying goes, it's not what you know but who you blow.
And I am sure you learned that saying while down on your knees, fritz! Does grandma and grandpa know?

I'm not saying that we don't have people on our side also willing to do and hurt people to further their cause, but is that really how we want to conduct ourselves in this democracy? Throwing insults, calling names, and tearing into someone's reputation is just not the way we need to go to make this a better society, no matter which side of the fence we are on.

A little civility might go a long way..

*ambulance called, chronic case of the spluttering *

This stuff just doesn't write itself folks - please use the link to the tipjar.

Helen Thomas was a high-priced whore, apparently
by John in DC - 3/2/2005 08:11:00 PM

In addition to be an "old Arab," she apparently is now also a high-priced hooker.

First, I simply love the fact that the most radical right-wing Web sites and rabblerousers are defending a gay male prostitute. We are truly winning the values war in this country when far-right-wingers embrace gay hookers.

Putting that aside, the notion of comparing GannonGuckert's journalism experience to Helen Thomas' is simply bizarre. Gee, let's compare the two.

Helen Thomas: Served 57 years as a correspondent for UPI and as White House bureau chief.

James D Guckert: Worked as a car repairman, as a $200/hour and $1200/weekend high-priced whore, then attended a $50 two-day course in right-wing journalism and waltzed in to the White House, getting inside information on CIA scandals, the war, the Dan Rather scandal, and the Senate minority leader. Is America a great country or what?
Yeah, I can see how the far-right keeps getting the two of them confused.

Seriously, though, this is a real issue. The far-right is now trying to argue not only that mainstream journalists are all liberals (and we can see by their coverage of this story, or lack thereof, that they are hardly liberal-philes), but now the right is trying to claim that journalism doesn't even exist as a profession. ANYONE can join the fun - be a hooker on a Friday and a White House correspondent on a Monday, and no one should bat an eye.

Well, I bat. I got a writing degree in college. I went to law school and grad school to hone my critical thinking skills. I've had to write in all my professional jobs over the past 16 years, including preparing arms control memos for US Senators. I've worked as a stringer for the Economist, and have had articles published in the New Republican and beyond. I've ghost written articles for people you'd all know and love. That's why I'm confident calling myself a journalist and a writer, and it's why I'm confident in saying that you aren't a journalist just because you call yourself one.

No, I don't think bloggers should be necessarily thrown out of the White House as non-journalists. But let's be clear about two things. First, just because you launch a blog doesn't mean you get automatic daily access to the White House or the president of the United States. To suggest that that's the standard is absurd generally, and in a time of war would be simply bizarre.

Second, GannonGuckert wasn't a blogger. He was nothing. Three months before he waltzed into the White House as a "journalist" he fucked a very satisfied client for $200/hour, according to his own prostitution solicitation online. He had no apparent writing experience at all (other than a 2-day $50 GOP course) before the White House accepted his request for a journalist's day pass in February 2003. And at the time he got that pass, he wasn't writing for any media outlet, yet still got the pass.

Contrast GannonGuckert's ease of access to another online publication that just so happens to be a REAL publication.

They've been turned down twice now for the oh-so-supposedly-easy-to-get day pass that GannonGuckert got for two years straight. Now, how is it that a publication that actually exists, and has existed for a while, can't get a day pass to the White House press gaggle, but a male prostitute who doesn't work for a real publication and has no experience in the media walks in the door and not only gets the pass, but they give him the same pass repeatedly for 2 whole years.

And getting a day pass repeatedly is a big no-no. To get that kind of repeated access, you need a hard pass, something that requires a 3-month FBI background check (apparently because you're going to be in the White House so often that you could pose a threat to national security). But GannonGuckert never applied for a hard pass, but the White House still let him, giving him the repeated access you only get once you've passed a 3-month FBI background check.

That's called a security breach of the White House during wartime. And that, my friends, is why GannonGuckert is different from Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas didn't breach White House security. Helen Thomas wasn't involved in a criminal enterprise. Helen Thomas was a journalist.

So the question remains: Why did the White House breach security repeatedly for this one apparently-unknown obscure man?

Helen Thomas was a high-priced whore, apparently
by John in DC - 3/2/2005 08:11:00 PM

In addition to be an "old Arab," she apparently is now also a high-priced hooker.

First, I simply love the fact that the most radical right-wing Web sites and rabblerousers are defending a gay male prostitute. We are truly winning the values war in this country when far-right-wingers embrace gay hookers.

Putting that aside, the notion of comparing GannonGuckert's journalism experience to Helen Thomas' is simply bizarre. Gee, let's compare the two.

Helen Thomas: Served 57 years as a correspondent for UPI and as White House bureau chief.

James D Guckert: Worked as a car repairman, as a $200/hour and $1200/weekend high-priced whore, then attended a $50 two-day course in right-wing journalism and waltzed in to the White House, getting inside information on CIA scandals, the war, the Dan Rather scandal, and the Senate minority leader. Is America a great country or what?
Yeah, I can see how the far-right keeps getting the two of them confused.

Seriously, though, this is a real issue. The far-right is now trying to argue not only that mainstream journalists are all liberals (and we can see by their coverage of this story, or lack thereof, that they are hardly liberal-philes), but now the right is trying to claim that journalism doesn't even exist as a profession. ANYONE can join the fun - be a hooker on a Friday and a White House correspondent on a Monday, and no one should bat an eye.

Well, I bat. I got a writing degree in college. I went to law school and grad school to hone my critical thinking skills. I've had to write in all my professional jobs over the past 16 years, including preparing arms control memos for US Senators. I've worked as a stringer for the Economist, and have had articles published in the New Republican and beyond. I've ghost written articles for people you'd all know and love. That's why I'm confident calling myself a journalist and a writer, and it's why I'm confident in saying that you aren't a journalist just because you call yourself one.

No, I don't think bloggers should be necessarily thrown out of the White House as non-journalists. But let's be clear about two things. First, just because you launch a blog doesn't mean you get automatic daily access to the White House or the president of the United States. To suggest that that's the standard is absurd generally, and in a time of war would be simply bizarre.

Second, GannonGuckert wasn't a blogger. He was nothing. Three months before he waltzed into the White House as a "journalist" he fucked a very satisfied client for $200/hour, according to his own prostitution solicitation online. He had no apparent writing experience at all (other than a 2-day $50 GOP course) before the White House accepted his request for a journalist's day pass in February 2003. And at the time he got that pass, he wasn't writing for any media outlet, yet still got the pass.

Contrast GannonGuckert's ease of access to another online publication that just so happens to be a REAL publication.

They've been turned down twice now for the oh-so-supposedly-easy-to-get day pass that GannonGuckert got for two years straight. Now, how is it that a publication that actually exists, and has existed for a while, can't get a day pass to the White House press gaggle, but a male prostitute who doesn't work for a real publication and has no experience in the media walks in the door and not only gets the pass, but they give him the same pass repeatedly for 2 whole years.

And getting a day pass repeatedly is a big no-no. To get that kind of repeated access, you need a hard pass, something that requires a 3-month FBI background check (apparently because you're going to be in the White House so often that you could pose a threat to national security). But GannonGuckert never applied for a hard pass, but the White House still let him, giving him the repeated access you only get once you've passed a 3-month FBI background check.

That's called a security breach of the White House during wartime. And that, my friends, is why GannonGuckert is different from Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas didn't breach White House security. Helen Thomas wasn't involved in a criminal enterprise. Helen Thomas was a journalist.

So the question remains: Why did the White House breach security repeatedly for this one apparently-unknown obscure man?

RightWingSparkle: Must all reporters now be screened for their personal life?No. Now, what part of solicitations for criminal behavior on the world wide web does the right-wing now consider "personal"?I always thought "personal" and "private" were the kind of things done consensually between adults behind closed doors and not posted on the world wide web, like, say, receiving oral sex in your office.Should reporters be screened, in general? You betcha. They should come from accredited news organizations. They should have been regularly published. They should be giving their legal name to the Secret Service for security checks. They should be checked for connections to partisan hackery.This is just the tantalizing tip of a huge iceberg that includes Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, Michael McManus, "Karen Ryan", Fox News, Robert Novak, "loyalty oath" town-hall meetings, Swift Boat Vets, faked Bush TANG memos (the substance of which were never addressed), a paucity of press conferences, and every other sneaky way the Rove Administration has tried to undermine the press's coverage of Bush. The gay hooker part is just titillating pink chiffon icing on the devil's food cake of Bush's deceit.The sound you hear is that of satire dying and hypocrisy choking on its own vomit. Next you'll tell me Bush admitted to smoking pot while being taped by a guy named "Weed", but we shouldn't hold youthful indiscretions against him because now he talks the Jesus-speak. If only Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton and Monica "can't keep my mouth shut" Lewinsky were held to your newfound sense of privacy and forgiveness, perhaps we'd still have a budget surplus, 1500 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be breathing, Osama would be dead or in jail, and in President Gore's 2nd term, America would enjoy unprecedented support thoughout the world. And George W. Bush could've bankrupted three businesses in that time.Oh, nevermind, I forgot that 50.726% of the electorate think like you do and Democrats couldn't run a successful campaign for dogcatcher if they were opposed by a Vietnamese chef who breeds fighting pit bulls in his spare time.

Now what crappy moonbat blog did this come from? DU? Kos? Americablog?

And which of you moonbat basement living idiots posted this crap – twice?

What's the matter, can't make up your own crap so have to post some one else's crap?

And are you aware that by posting it in total you violated copyright laws?

#1 - This'll be the last time I respond to you, Julie, as you obviously have intense hatred for the truth - no more of my time will be wasted on you.

#2 - If I violated copyright laws, I'm sure Aaron, as owner of the site, will remove the posts.

#3 - Some new multi-post inhibitor has been implemented, which cause me to wind up at an error page and not seeing the post appear - I thought the post failed and attempted to post it again. My apologies - to everyone but julie - for the duplication

The sound you hear is that of satire dying and hypocrisy choking on its own vomit.

Enough of the really bad moonbat prose, already. You lost the election. No one cares about Gannon. Not even the msm. You lost. Get over it.

Julie said "as you later are forced to admit, those are fritzie's words, not mine"

These are fritz's words: "this has nothing to do with a prostitute pretending to be a reporter in the White House." (He was obviously being sarcastic.)

These are your words: "keep repeating your lie."

Nice job sidestepping a very simple and reasonable question. What lie?

"I certainly did give you attribution"

Another very simple question, which I'm sure will generate nothing but more nonsense, drivel and obfuscation from you. Where?

anon said "I've heard several people attacking Gannon claim that being a prostitute is a crime. It is not. Engaging in an act of prostitution is a crime. So, assuming that people have found websites of Gannon advertising himself, they still have no evidence of a crime."

Sorry, but you're revealing multiple levels of ignorance. Prostitution is not just engaging in a sex act for money. It's offering to engage in a sex act for money. Anyway, it's pretty clear Gannon did both. A strong indication of the former is here. So yes, there is ample evidence of a crime, even given your incorrect definition of "prostitution."

"And let's assume for a minute that Gannon was not a real reporter"

It's not necessary to "assume." He said himself that prior to the White House he had never been paid to write.

"he was reporting the White House's press releases"

I realize you think that plagiarizing a press release is a form of "reporting." Some of us have higher standards.

Sparkle said "If he had done something illegal, he would have been arrested by now."

That's brilliant circular reasoning. Sort of like saying "if OJ was guilty, he would have been convicted." Welcome to the real world. Fact is, there is ample evidence Gannon committed crimes, so the burden is on you to explain why he's not being charged and prosecuted. Every day he's not tends to indicate that he has one or more powerful people watching out for him (and making sure details of his sex acts don't come to light). Note that doing business with a prostitute is also a crime.

anon said "So YES he was still prostituting himself WHILE in the White House!"

I pointed out earlier that the domain listings for some of his sex sites were updated just a few months ago. Also, someone has been paying to maintain the registrations. But now it seems he's got the domains up for sale. Maybe that means he's finally getting out of the business. Better late than never.

dashie said "it's ok to be a prostitute in the WH press corps, right? But is it OK to be a married gay?"

The Republican "ethic" appears to be that gay sex is only OK when it's done for money, not for love.

But, tj, you never responded to this:

And julie: I am not 'telling' anyone what they can and cannot do. Pathetic try on your part - and direct proof of my argument against partisan side-picking stupidity.

Direct proof of tj's partisan side picking stupidity: No - Don't ask him any questions. Don't interview him... Waste any more time talking to Guckert, Aaron, and you will have to be counted amongst the intellectually dishonest partisans.
Who's pathetic? Bwahhhhhhhhhh!

#1 - This'll be the last time I respond to you, Julie, One can only hope!

as you obviously have intense hatred for the truth - no more of my time will be wasted on you.

The truth is that you lost the election. You and your ilk are the ones who have intense hatred for the truth. Get over it.

#2 - If I violated copyright laws, I'm sure Aaron, as owner of the site, will remove the posts. What do you mean, if? You did violate copyright laws. First, you boss Aaron around, and then, you expect him to clean up your mess.

#3 - Some new multi-post inhibitor has been implemented, which cause me to wind up at an error page and not seeing the post appear - I thought the post failed and attempted to post it again. My apologies - to everyone but julie - for the duplication.

I note your deliberate failure to apologize for your violation of copyright laws. Now, what's the word you like to throw around? Oh, yes: Pathetic!

Julie -- why are you so angry?

The extreme right wing of the GOP has seized complete power, forget about the quaint notion of checks and balances, you people should be eagerly setting up your brave new world. Yet wingers are angrier and more spiteful than ever. Why is that?

Notice that right-wingers assume these forms: smug, rabid, the victim, or any combination thereof.

Why is that?

Nice job sidestepping a very simple and reasonable question. What lie?

No one sidestepped anything, jukie. The answer to your question was in my original response to fritzie. I'm not going to repeat for you what is already answered.

"I certainly did give you attribution"
Another very simple question, which I'm sure will generate nothing but more nonsense, drivel and obfuscation from you. Where?

And another simple question that was already answered in the original post, jukie. You're so cute when you play dumb! You are playing, aren't you? Now don't tell me you don't recognize your own name! Really, you need to give this little verbal game of yours a rest. Can't you come up with a new way of being obnoxious? I've seen you use it over and over at other websites until you are banned, come back under a different name, banned, come back under a different name, banned. What's next? Restraining orders?

And, by the way, I was not even required legally to give you attribution. But I did because I wanted to make sure everyone knew I was mimicking you and that I wouldn't write something that stupid. And, anyway, didn't you insinuated these weren't really your words? Can't have it both ways, jukie.

So, if you want to sue me, please do. I would love to hear you argue a propriety interest in: "JUKEBOXGRAD TRAMPLES ON THE TRUTH; HERE'S PROOF" That would be a real hoot!

And not to answer for anon, but it appears he is an atty. The only person who revealed multiple levels of ignorance is you. I'm sure this will fly right over your head and you will stamp your foot and make those obnoxious little yapping demands you are famous for, but tough. You want answers, pay a retainer.

Now, I have to do some serious work. NO TANTRUMS while I'm gone.

Moonbat: Who's angry? Why must you project your own feelings on me?

Yet wingers are angrier and more spiteful than ever. Why is that? Why is what? The only really angry, and dangerously spiteful, are you moonbats, moonbat. Again, more projection by you.

Notice that right-wingers assume these forms: smug, rabid, the victim, or any combination thereof. Why is that?

Because they aren't, moonbat. It's just you projecting your own feelings on others. Why do YOU feel smug, rabid, the victim, or any combination thereof?

Sorry I can't be of more help to you, but I'm not a psychologist. Seek professional help is the only advise I can give you.

Julie:

This administration could rape and murder children and you wouldn't care. Your partisan cheering overshadows any personal ethics you might have once have. Too bad Jeff Gannon is gay, you two would be perfect together as whores for the Republican party.

Responding to Julie is like interviewing Guckert - both will lie, keep their head in the sand, ignore the truth, and champion on.

I'd suggest giving neither of them credence.

Being ignored is the best thing that can happen to the both of them - and what they most deserve.

I just love how these discussions tend to devolve into rampant partisanship on both sides as a way of side-stepping the simple, plain issues. And these are the very reasons the MSM is not covering the whole Gannon thing. 'Cause there ain't no thing to be had.

Don't get off topic. Follow very closely.

What did Jeff Gannon do that was illegal? If you can prove he broke a law, he should pay.

Was Jeff Gannon a 'real' journalist? Debate that all you want, and come to some conclusions. I think the whole profession is under enormous pressure and shifts, but that's for my other issue below.

Was WH security lax? How? If so, should we institute deep background checks on every journalist allowed within fifty yards of public officials?

What constitutes news nowadays? What's real, what's fake, what's slanted, what's objective? Who is the final arbiter of objectivity? Is full objectivity even possible in reporting? And if so, what purpose does objectivity serve?

These are the core issues that Gannon raises.

Everything else is speculation. Or conspiracy theories.

Let me repeat that, loudly, everything else is speculation.
_______________________
As to all the commenters making snide remarks about 'yeah you wingnuts only like gays when they are 'in their places,' or 'you defend gays when it suits your purposes' you are walking a very fine line there, bordering on real bigotry and intolerance. You know nothing about us 'wingnuts' on this board, our families or our personal lives. Look up the definition of bigotry, it gets tossed around a lot, but the full meaning of the word needs to be looked up from time to time to refresh our memories.

"The answer to your question was in my original response to fritzie. I'm not going to repeat for you what is already answered."

Given that you've posted here about 27 times, most of which has consisted of repeating the same superficial swill, you've picked an odd moment to become a poster-child for parsimony: just when you're challenged to be accountable for your false accusations.

One more time. You said "keep repeating your lie" (3/2, 1:12 am). What lie? I realize you'd like to confuse the issue by pretending you've already answered this question. You haven't.

"And another simple question that was already answered in the original post"

How interesting then that you continue to hide behind vagueness and puerile insults, instead of simply showing where, when, and how.

"I was not even required legally to give you attribution"

I realize that grasping simple distinctions like "ethical" vs. "legal" is a major challenge for you. Keep trying.

"didn't you insinuated these weren't really your words?"

No. I realize it's hard for you to write a message without simply making stuff up.

"not to answer for anon, but it appears he is an atty"

Right. And it "appears" Gannon is a journalist.

It also appears you were sent here for the express purpose of making rightys look like idiots. Keep up the good work.

ProfShade said "What did Jeff Gannon do that was illegal?"

That question has been answered here several times. Your question creates the impression that you're not paying attention.

"If you can prove he broke a law, he should pay."

Exactly. So it's quite remarkable that in fact there appears to be no effort to prosecute him.

"should we institute deep background checks on every journalist allowed within fifty yards of public officials?"

Significant obstacles have in fact been placed in front of journalists such as Dowd, Mokhiber and Chris Graham. So the question is how did Gannon somehow manage to jump the line.

By the way, a few bloggers were able to get the scoop on Gannon without even leaving their houses. And they didn't have key information the White House had (his real name, SSN and DOB). Not to mention that the White House presumably has some of the best research resources in the world. So it hardly would have taken a "deep background check" to see what Gannon is: a tax-cheating hooker posing as a reporter.

jukeboxgrad, again, get off your soapbox. Quit the sniping. Try to hold an adult conversation.

1) I'm paying attention, most people on this thread are too busy slinging insults to remember the issue. Just a gentle reminder. If he's guilty of something, he should be charged. Any problem with that? And then start a thread on what he is guilty of, what the charges would be, etc.

2)Dowd, etc. wanted a hard pass, not a day pass, read the news. Saying it's so don't make it so.

3) I wonder how much we can dig up on Matthews, Brokaw, Hannity, etc. without leaving our houses? Might require some more work than that. Again, how was the security lax? And if it was, should we be digging into the backgrounds of every reporter? How far do we dig? Real simple question, really. Didn't require a snarky partisan answer.

This whole comments section is an amazing war: Trolls vs. Moonbats. I think that's good, or at least a necessary first step - for one thing, people could have sworn a lot and been much nastier.

Obviously it would be far better if the whole thing was an argument based on facts and reasoning. But 90% of the blogosphere is all right-wing or all left-wing, and the country as a whole is brutally divided on partisan lines.

All I'm saying is this is better than only hearing one side of a debate. But it ain't a debate yet, it's just two sides of an argument. In a debate you have to listen and take the other sides' points seriously. Which is impossible to do if you already know they are wrong.

ALSO-- since the day passes are issued at the discretion of the WH, they'd be absolutely nuts to bend over backwards and issue the allotted number they have to uncredentialed journalists or commentators that they felt would be hostile to them. Damn, you win the WH you have some say over how to divide the spoils. I'm sure Gannon would have been out on his ass in a Kerry administration, and that's to be expected.

Brecht:

Will you do me a favor and list me the valid arguments made by the people defending Gannon. And not the ones that have been clearly shut down, such as "being a prostitute is someone's private life."

ProfShade said "I'm paying attention."

You also said "if he's guilty of something," as if it's not obvious that he is. If that's your belief, you should explain why the evidence presented here doesn't make sense to you. Otherwise you tend to create the impression that you're not paying attention.

"Dowd, etc. wanted a hard pass, not a day pass"

You're right about the "Dowd" part. You're wrong about the "etc." part. Mokhiber and Graham were looking for a day pass, not a hard pass.

Anyway, I didn't make a statement about what kind of pass they were looking for. These three all had the experience of facing significant obstacles getting in. Gannon apparently didn't. That's a problem.

"read the news."

Good idea.

"I wonder how much we can dig up on Matthews, Brokaw, Hannity, etc. without leaving our houses?"

Please point out how many of those folks made the White House press room their very first stop in their career as journalists. Extra credit if they were also using a phony name.

"should we be digging into the backgrounds of every reporter? How far do we dig? Real simple question, really. Didn't require a snarky partisan answer."

As you repeat the same points without even trying to address the many answers that have already been provided, it tends to create the impression that the snarky partisanship is all yours.

"Damn, you win the WH you have some say over how to divide the spoils."

I'm think you're implying this has all been done before. Examples, please.

I realize you think it's OK for the government to try to turn the press into its own propaganda ministry. People like James Madison and Hugo Black had a different idea about this.

I think we should be willing to protect at home the same principles we're telling our kids they should be willing to die for overseas. While we're working overtime ostensibly to export democracy, we should remember to keep some around here for ourselves.

CONSERVATIVES ARE FUCKING IDIOTS. ITS FUNNY TO SEE THEM COME TO THIER SENSES WHEN THINGS HAPPEN TO THEM IN THIER LIVES THAT FORCE THEM TO DEAL WITH REALITY AND NO LONGER LIVE IN THIER RIDICULOUS IDEAL WORLD WHERE EVERYTONE WANTS TO BE A FREE RIDER AND GOD HAS ORDAINED THE US OF A TO SPREAD OUR JOKE OF A DEMOCRACY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

fritz,
sorry I'm so slow, been skimming the comments again.

I did say, "it would be far better if the whole thing were an argument based on facts and reasoning". My praise was more for the mere fact of reds and blues actually interacting on the same blog (and not just calling each other names) than for the Platonic brilliance of the dialog.

I have been following the Gannon story and therefore am much more impressed by the liberals' arguments. Gannon clearly shouldn't have been in the press room, with a pass, before he'd written (or plagiarized) a single story. His other job and his bankruptcy do make him a security risk, and it's pretty outrageous that he was given clearance at a time of heightened security right before the war. And Gannon, after Armstrong Williams, Karen Ryan, 'no scientific evidence of global warming' (etc. ad nauseam) shows that the White House has become a bullshit factory.

So the only real conservative argument which I find persuasive comes, I think, from ProfShade. It is possible that Eberle was just doing this guy a favor and giving him a chance to be a reporter (he clearly loves the limelight & right wing reporting) and that there was no hanky panky between Gannon and Rove or McClellan. He may have got an easy in to the White House because he had one lucky connection, and been given a pass because the WH figured he was one of the good guys. Just politics as usual, nothing dirtier.

Ari Fleischer said he had doubts at first and wouldn't call on Gannon, because of the GOPUSA name, and Gannon had him call Eberle to assure him they were legit. So maybe the left is getting all Rathered up about this. I think not but, as conservatives above argued, unless more proof of wrongdoing is uncovered, there isn't enough of a case against Gannon to make this scandal any bigger.

ProfShade:

What did Jeff Gannon do that was illegal? If you can prove he broke a law, he should pay. Nope.

Was Jeff Gannon a 'real' journalist? Don't know. Never heard of the guy or Talon news before the moonbats hit the fan.

Was WH security lax? Don't think so. I have worked in secure areas most of my adult life.

If so, should we institute deep background checks on every journalist allowed within fifty yards of public officials? Then there would be some howling!

What constitutes news nowadays? Hmm. Can only speak for myself. I get my news from a vareity of sources. It's the only way to achieve some sort of balance.

Is full objectivity even possible in reporting? No. But, any improvement would be a start.

And if so, what purpose does objectivity serve? Hopefully, it would supply the who, what, where, why, how. You are lucky to even find that anymore.

Fritzie: you two would be perfect together as whores for the Republican party
Wow, and the moonbats call me angry! LOL!

tj: Where have I lied? Or is this your way of deflecting attention from the whopper I caught you in? And, tj, when you talk about some one in the third person, you really aren't ignoring them.

Julie,
are you really saying that if it's proved that Jeff Gannon broke a law, he should NOT pay?

Given that you've posted here about 27 times, . . . just when you're challenged to be accountable for your false accusations.

27 times! And you still don't understand? Is english your second language? And saying I made false accusations is a false accusations, jukie.

I realize you'd like to confuse the issue by pretending you've already answered this question. You haven't.

I have. Several times now, jukie. The only one who is confused is you. I've seen you play this game too many times, jukie. You've become rather obvious, aka, a boor. Give it up.

How interesting then that you continue to hide behind vagueness and puerile insults, instead of simply showing where, when, and how.

Who's hiding? Everything is in black and white. I just refuse to meet your demands every time you stamp your angry little foot. Did anyone ever say no to you as a child? I refuse to play your boring games and it makes you angry. However, that's your problem.

I realize that grasping simple distinctions like "ethical" vs. "legal" is a major challenge for you. Keep trying.

Not at all. It is you who has no understanding of legal and ethical concepts. Every time you open your mouth up on the subject, I cringe. Stop trying.

"didn't you insinuated these weren't really your words?" No. I realize it's hard for you to write a message without simply making stuff up.

Sure you did, jukie. Sort of nuts for you to lie about it. But, if you are, it wouldn't surprise me. Nuts, I mean. Lying, too. Both nuts and lying.

"not to answer for anon, but it appears he is an atty" Right. And it "appears" Gannon is a journalist.

Hey, since you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, didn't I predict it would fly right over your head, jukie?

It also appears you were sent here for the express purpose of making rightys look like idiots. Keep up the good work.

And you moonbats need no help in looking like idiots because you do it so well all on your own – especially you, jukie, especially you.

Brecht: No. It's way pass my bedtime. Based on what people have said here, there is insufficient evidence to charge him with anything. There are all sorts of problems with proof.

Brecht:

Nice post. Personally, I don't actually think Gannon was in bed with McCellen or Rove (although I do make jokes about it). The connection probably is with Bobby Eberle and GOPUSA, seeing as how he is the one connected. This in my opinion just makes the story worse. It would imply that the White House obviously knew Gannon wasn't a reporter and let him in anyway. And let me offer you a word of advice. Don't respond or attempt to debate Julie. She lacks any ethical standards, cannot debate without calling someone names, and is nothing more than an attention whore. Pretty much a female version of Jeff Gannon.

Well, it's probably way past most of our bedtimes. And it seems like most of the arguments anyone can think of have been said more than once.

Thanks, everyone, for a vigorous conversation. If you want to see a pretty articulate moonbat argument, check out Frank Rich in todays NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/arts/06rich.html?8hpib

And to all a good night.

The Gannon-defenders above are using an old right wing arguing style from at least the '60s (books such as "Slightly To The Right!", "How To Argue With A Liberal" from American Opinion bookstores). You don't ever respect the other side's points, never follow their line of argument, never acknowledge their truths. You carry all their points to the furthest extreme to try to push them into arguing absurdities. Any reasonable position can be made to look unreasonable if exaggerated enough.

Hence the deep background checks on anyone within 50 feet of any official, etc. The real question, of course, is did the White House follow its own rules? To answer that, I would direct the Gannon defenders to their own Fox News' NewsWatch and their own Jim Pinkerton, who worked in two Republican Administrations. AmericaBlog.com has a link to PschosyBlog.com who has a transcript although others may have it by now. Evidently Fox takes 2 weeks. But Pinkerton says it is a breach and that someone important is behind it.

Why can't the right allow a real debate? I must say that you have omitted any facts from your arguments. You repeatedly place all responsibility for factual content on the left. In fact, you show a marked ignorance of the facts. This is my first time reading right wing blog comments. Can you say anything other than demand proof? If you had read anything about this, you would know that numerous blogs and even news sources have done pretty complete recitations of what is proven and what is just inferred. JeffGannon.com even posts a link to nyu journalism blog--March2, 12:37 pm. For more detail on the prostitution charges, see www.plastichassle.com--entry for Feb. 15th, and of course, www.americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html.

The left did not create this. And we find the possibility Gannon is gay to be the only interesting thing about him(to quote Janeane Garofalo). It is the total hypocrisy. The incessant slurs to gays and to blue states who want to allow them to marry like anyone else (And no not like dogs and barnyard animals). The man had never worked in journalism before, and was still advertising his services against the law. He posted customer recommendations! The republicans have been shouting law and order for decades and now use gay marriage like a boogeyman in the closet. Just last week they tried it again against AARP, because AARP does not want social security damaged. Photo of soldier with an "x" through it, then photo of 2 gay men together with a check mark, like "approved". But to those defending Gannon, the nude pics and prices are his private life now. If you cannot see the hypocrisy in that, no blogger can help you. One question: Is your intellectual dishonesty within your mental grasp? In other words, are you typing with a wink wink, or do you really never think that deeply?

Excellent 'Civil' post Cyninbed. You have pretty much stated how I feel and have done it very eloquently. Lets see if the other side can be as civil.

Fritz: I love it when you and tj start telling others who and who not to respond to, as if they are children or that you have some sort of authority over them. Pretty insulting to them. Thanks for proving once again, scratch a moonbat and underneath you will find what they profess to hate.

Cyninbed & anon: Nothing civil about it. Just the same old insulting canned moonbat crap. Are you that ignorant in that you can't see how offensive you are? You're not making Bush look bad. It won't win you an election. Heck, what am I saying! Just keep doing what you are doing. Don't let me stop you. :)

LOFL!

Oh, the hypocrisy. Don't much like it when the shoe's on the other foot, do you, neocon sheep?

After all the BS about Dan Rather, a REAL journalist who got caught up in shoddy work by his staff, the whining about this is beyond hilarious.

For people who claim to be "security conscious", what if Gannon actually had had an ulterior motive and just wanted to kill the president?

Don't give me this crap about how "other" journalists use other names - this guy is as phoney as George Bush's promise to slash the deficits HE created!

CONSERVATIVES ARE F***ING IDIOTS.

We need to make a distinction between traditional conservatism and the new winger movement, which more resembles a cult than an expression of political orientation. For instance, Julie: do you ever disagree with any of Bush's decisions? Do you ever question your oracles: Coulter, Hannity or El Rushbo?

Thought so. See?

This from American Conservative magazine:

Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as “hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now.” One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it’s not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. “It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth—not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.”

and

I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve.

more here:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

Is the author of that piece that ignorant in that he can't see how offensive he is?

(Comment edited to remove obscenity)

wrt the profanity, sorry about that, I'll be more than happy to respect protocol here. Actually that was a cut & paste from an earlier post you might have missed, 1:04 am. Though if you want to be censoring Him you're on your own. :-)

After all the BS about Dan Rather, a REAL journalist who got caught up in shoddy work by his staff, the whining about this is beyond hilarious.

Carter, Dan Rather rushed to judgment and acted impetuously based on forged documents provided to him by people with shady motives. He deserves to be excoriated.

After all, his actions cost the lives of 1500 US soldiers, tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and ruined the economy.

Oh no wait, that was the other guy. Never mind.

Brecht said "there isn't enough of a case against Gannon to make this scandal any bigger"

I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

It seems to me that there is indeed enough of a case against Gannon to charge him with prostitution, and the very absence of that charge is an important part of the ongoing mystery, in my opinion.

Anyway, I think the real story is not Gannon's behavior, it's our government's behavior.

"Just politics as usual, nothing dirtier."

This implies that some previous administration had ever gone to such lengths to corrupt the press. I don't think so.

I also think you are sadly indifferent to why the press matters.

"don't ever respect the other side's points, never follow their line of argument, never acknowledge their truths."

Acknowledging the truth no longer has any relevance when you've got Jesus on your side (actually an entirely corrupt parody of Jesus), when you can count on the Rapture to save the world (no matter how badly we've trashed the environment, for example), and when you can count on Christian forgiveness (actually an entirely corrupt parody of Christian forgiveness) to absolve you of any personal responsibility for youthful indiscretions, or (for that matter) ongoing indiscretions.

Someone else just noticed that Bush is "Tearing Down the Press."

Of course, Kurtz tries to pretend that it's no big deal.

The moonbat denial of reality is pretty deep and prominently on display in this thread. I will cherish every intolerant, bigoted comment y'all have made. Howl, howl at the moon, y'all!!!

Bottom line is this:

1) You don't have evidence-- solid, prosecutable evidence that Gannon did anything illegal. But ya love talkin' about gay prostitutes. I'm thinking of setting up a Gay Prostitutes of the Rich and Famous blog site. My meter would probably twirl faster than Dean's tongue. I'd give every one of you free subscriptions, but the most vitriolic of you don't appear to have email addresses.

2) It's the WH's discretion who they give day passes to. Just ask anyone from the Clinton administration. Get pissed that it was Gannon, get pissed IF he had connections to GOPUSA, but hell, bottom line is tough sh*t. Win an election and you, too, will be making those calls. It's called politics, representative government. Losers don't get an equal share.

3) If writing up news stories directly from press releases were considered plagerism (now that's a comment from someone who knows not one whit about joiurnalism) most small town newspapers would be out of business. Poor journalism? You bet. Lazy? Hell yes. Let's sue every small town paper in the U.S.! SHEEPLE! ChimpHitlerBushCo!!!

4) Hit up Soros for a few $MM to do a REAL investigation on this. He's already wasted about $50MM, what's a few more between lefties and a capitalist (sorry) Kapitalist money-market manipulator?

5) I'll talk to Aaron about setting up a few more threads on this site, like: "Jeff Gannon is the Puppet of Karl Rove" and "Reality is What We Say it Is," or "We're the Party of Tolerance, so the Rest of You Red-Neck Jesusland Wingnuts F*ck Off!" That outta keep you going until the next election.

6) Keep howlin', keep moving left, keep insulting the voters of this country and the sound you'll hear is America (oh, sorry) AmeriKa flushing your party doen the toilet. (You're already twirling around the rim...)

7) Eventually you'll move so far left you'll come back around and have a lot in common with far-right groups, and you'll wonder how you got there. Senator Byrd anyone?

8) Go into higher education. It's the last bastion of socialism in the U.S. Don't bother outing me, I've already made my public confessions here:

http://www.lifelikepundits.com/archives/000172.php

9) For a complete history of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy go here:

http://www.lifelikepundits.com/archives/000329.php

10) /snark off

Carter:
For people who claim to be "security conscious", what if Gannon actually had had an ulterior motive and just wanted to kill the president?

With his pen and pad? And anyway, if Bush was assassinated, you would be jumping with joy. Talk about hypocrisy!

Don't give me this crap about how "other" journalists use other names

Then don't bring up the fact Gannon used another name. Espeically, when it's been demonstrated he applied for a pass under his true name.
moonbat:
Julie: do you ever disagree with any of Bush's decisions? Yes.

Do you ever question your oracles: Coulter, Hannity or El Rushbo?

My oracles? More like your oracles! You have listen/read them, otherwise you would not be able to intelligently criticize them, right?? I haven't, so I can't answer you question or offer an opinion on them.

And please don't post whole articles or links to articles that I have no interest in reading. You're not in a position to give homework here. Usually, the people who do what you do haven't even read the stuff themselves. I have never read American Conservative magazine and I have no interest in doing so now. Jeesh.

(Comment edited to remove obscenity)
Posted by: moonbat at March 3, 2005 10:33 AM

Gee, moonbat, and you have the nerve to call me angry? LOL! Here's a suggestion: Anger Management Classes. It'll do you good.

Acknowledging the truth no longer has any relevance when you've got Jesus on your side [the usual Christian bashing edited out for brevity sake and because it's boring.]

First you have to have “truth” before it can be acknowledged, jukie. You don't. Can one get any more over the top then tossing out the line “never acknowledge their truths”? I'm embarrassed for you and cyninbend (sp?). And I'm an atheist, by the way. Though, I still object to you resorting to the usual Christian bashing. It's not a substitute for a lack of ideas, jukie. You really need to learn to respect other people's beliefs. It's the American way. :-)

I realize you think it's OK for the government to try to turn the press into its own propaganda ministry. People like James Madison and Hugo Black had a different idea about this.

Oh, jukie, the USSC has also refused to determine who and who is not a journalist. Unlike you lefties, besides the fact it would be an infringement on the First Amendment it would have dangerous consequences. Remember, the bad laws and policies you want to enact and use against other people, can also be used against you.

Don't ever change, Julie, you're priceless. :-)

Welp, I can see posting here is useless (as it is in most places, really - everything's one-sided, no one is willing to debate facts).

Bye to all of you who pick and side and ignore the truth. Enjoy the pointless direction politics is going in this country, and thanks for adding to the problem, rather than contributing solutions.

tj-- bye bye!

"ignore the truth" Priceless! Your mirror is fogging up!
"pointless direction politics is going in" Like low unemployment, democracy in the Middle East, education and SS reform, lower taxes and no terrorist attacks in the U.S. in nearly four years? Yeah, pretty pointless all that. Damn that ChimpHitlerBushCo!!! SHEEPLE! Wake up! We're DOOOOOMMMMMED!!!!

tj:

You're right, there is no point in trying to post here anymore seeing as how facts and and reason are willfully ignored by certain attention whores. I would have any easier time convincing survivors that the Holocaust never happened than people on this board that Jeff Gannon was a prostitute pretending to be a reporter. Enjoy taking my posts out of context and calling me names.

Prof said "You don't have evidence-- solid, prosecutable evidence that Gannon did anything illegal."

Obviously you need some help comprehending rudimentary principles of law enforcement. It's quite normal for an investigation to begin in the absence of "solid, prosecutable evidence." In fact, the whole point of an investigation is to attempt to find "solid, prosecutable evidence." In other words, if the absence of "solid, prosecutable evidence" was interpreted as a reason to avoid conducting an investigation, it's hard to imagine why there would ever be such a thing as an investigation.

Your "logic" is circular, in other words. No one is suggesting that Gannon should be thrown in jail tomorrow. It is being suggested however that there is a mountain of evidence representing (at the very least) probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, and therefore there should be an investigation.

All that aside, please explain in what way this customer review does not constitute "solid, prosecutable evidence."

This review has been mentioned here before, and I notice you continue to pretend it doesn't exist. Is that what you mean by "denial of reality?"

Gee jukie, you already demonstrated you know nothing about criminal law. Now you go and show us you are just as unknowledgeable on LE.

All that aside, please explain in what way this customer review does not constitute "solid, prosecutable evidence."

Why don't you play prosecutor for us. [This should be good for a laugh.]

1. Name the charge(s), if any, you would file and specify the statute(s).
2. List the necessary elements of the charge(s).
3. Specify your proof of each and every element of the charge(s) filed.

"Why don't you play prosecutor for us"

Uh, because we have government employees in DC who actually have that job. The only mystery is why they're not doing it, especially since this description of a criminal act leaves little to the imagination:

"This was 8 or maybe a 9 and very thick. His technique made this the first time I have ever not been hurt when stretched to the limit when going to first base. First, my legs over his shoulders, then on my back, flipped over and on to doggie style. It was all good. This guy was easily in the top 5% of any escort I've found. While he hasn't had a review in a while and didn't ask for this one. It is well deserved. If you're looking for a hot,hard, large sized, forceful top this man is it. Oh yes and he does kiss."

Maybe you'd like to interpret that as a description of a yoga class.

jukeboxgrad: I told you! You just love the gay prositute sites! Damn I'm missing a big money opportunity with you folks! In the meantime, learn something about law enforcement before you go off (ahem) half-cocked....

Uh, because we have government employees in DC who actually have that job.

Oh, yeah? Didn't stop you from making a similar demand of ProfShade, you hypocrite, you!

So, come one: Explain how this is solid prosecutable evidence?

The only mystery is why they're not doing it, especially since this description of a criminal act leaves little to the imagination:

Okay, I have work to do, moonbat, so I can't be wasting time toying with you today.
Let's see:

1. Based on what you copied and pasted, no criminal act is stated. If you want to continue yapping about this, come up with a statute and specify how what you pasted proves each and every element of the charge. Or, shut up.
2. Only a moonbat would think you could criminally prosecute someone based on an anonymous post off the internet. Don't let those pesky constitutional rights to due process and right to confront witnesses get in your way. Or, are you planning on repealing the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Wouldn't surprise me. But, in case you can't, shut up.
3. Or, are you also planning on tracking down anonymous and prosecuting him, too? If he testifies, he will be admitting to a crime under oath. I predict he wd take the Fifth. (Assuming you haven't repealed it, that is.) Or, do you think a prosecutorial office is going to grant immunity on a chicken shit misdemeanor case? Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Now, shut up.
4. And last, but not least, but really should have been first: The statute of limitations has long run out on any misdemeanor. Now really shut up.

Know what your problem is, jukie? You need a hot, hard, large sized, forceful top of a man. It might do you some good. Now, shut up.

So, ok then, in your (presumably) amateur - and intemperately expressed - view, me'julie, no crime has been committed (or, perhaps more accurately, not one that can be successfully be prosecuted).

What about the morality of having sex for money or gain? Do you think that's ok? Or only ok for gays? Or only ok for men in general? Or only ok in Washinton? What are the limits in your view to prostitution?

Oh, and are those views of yours common in the conservative voting demographic?

(You'll note that I've taken an old fashioned, nay conservative tone in expressing myself here. I challenge you to do the same).

Julie said "no criminal act is stated"

Uh, sex for money is a criminal act.

"specify how what you pasted proves each and every element of the charge"

Uh, I realize you won't be convinced until you have a chance to personally inspect Gannon's used condoms. And even then I'm sure you would have some unintentionally humorous objection. This only serves to prove how well-entrenched you are in the denial-of-reality crowd.

"Only a moonbat would think you could criminally prosecute someone based on an anonymous post off the internet."

Uh, this is not the only evidence. However, this evidence is certainly sufficient to serve as probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Anyway, there's a lot more where this came from.

"Don't let those pesky constitutional rights to due process and right to confront witnesses get in your way."

Uh, I never suggested he should be deprived of due process etc. The whole point of investigation and trial is to figure this stuff out, and make sure his rights are protected. I realize you don't think there's any basis for investigation or arrest, but that's only because you've adopted this position.

"do you think a prosecutorial office is going to grant immunity on a chicken shit misdemeanor case?"

Uh, in many places, many forms of prostitution are a felony. An example is here.

"The statute of limitations has long run out on any misdemeanor."

Long run out? The review is barely 2 years old. Statutes of limitation vary greatly, by offense and by jurisdiction, but a good rule of thumb for a felony is 3-5 years. Incidentally, there are quite a few signs Gannon was still advertising his prostitution services well after the time this review was published.

"I have work to do, moonbat, so I can't be wasting time toying with you today."

You keep threatening to go away, but you never do. I wonder what that's about. Anyway please keep making a fool of yourself. I think perhaps we don't all fully grasp quite how ignorant you are.

"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Lincoln. You're apparently determined to keep at it until you've indeed removed all doubt.

Prof, you recently said "You don't have evidence-- solid, prosecutable evidence that Gannon did anything illegal."

After I provided exactly such evidence, you said "learn something about law enforcement."

It's not a good sign for your argument if this vague arm-waving on your part is the best you can do, as far as trying to convince anyone that what I cited is not "solid, prosecutable evidence that Gannon did anything illegal."

I'll again point out the distinct irony of you making a fuss about people who are in "denial of reality."

Uh, sex for money is a criminal act. Where is money mentioned in your post. And how are you going to prove it without a witness? And how are you going to prove it with a witness who wd incriminate himself? And how would you prove it when the S/L has run?

Uh, I realize you won't be convinced until you have a chance to personally inspect Gannon's used condoms.
I asked you to list the elements that define the crime you insist was committed. Instead of admitting you have no clue as to what you are talking about, you answer by making some gross reference to condoms. If you think you can b.s. your way through everything, you are truly a fool. And, yes, you are obsessed with gay sex.

And even then I'm sure you would have some unintentionally humorous objection.
Hmm, is that what you call the Constitution and the Rules of Evidence? An unintentionally humorous objection?

This only serves to prove how well-entrenched you are in the denial-of-reality crowd.
I asked you specifically what crime was committed, the elements of the crime, and what evidence do you have to prove each element. Can't get more real than that, moonbat. What little, and I do mean little, credibility you had, has disappeared.

Uh, this is not the only evidence.
Oh, really? If that were true, you would have mentioned earlier when I asked you repeatedly what's your evidence. So, now you have evidence. What is it? Let me guess: you're not going to tell me. I guarantee you, it is as legally deficient as your other, cough, “evidence.”

However, this evidence is certainly sufficient to serve as probable cause to believe a crime was committed.
No, it's not. It's just you taking a legal phrase that you don't fully comprehend out of context. And if you insist it is, then take it to a police station, announce that you have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Demand an arrest be made immediately. I guarantee you the only person who will be arrested is you!

Anyway, there's a lot more where this came from.
Oh, really? If that were true, you would have mentioned earlier . . .(I think I better make this into a macro.)

Uh, I never suggested he should be deprived of due process etc. The whole point of investigation and trial is to figure this stuff out, and make sure his rights are protected.
Why would you need an investigation? You already announced he was guilty of a crime. Go arrest him. And yes, you did state he should be deprived of due process since any prosecution is constitutionally barred.

I realize you don't think there's any basis for investigation or arrest, but that's only because you've adopted this position.
Is that what you equate the Constitution and the Rules of Evidence with? Sticking one's fingers in one's ears? They carry a lot more weight than your opinion even though you have - how many years in LE? Oh, yeah, zero. And, your – how many years in criminal law? Oh, yeah, zero. I don't even know why I'm debating this with you. That YOU refuse to recognize the Constitution isn't going to make this a prosecutable crime. All it does is show that you are an obsessive nut.

Uh, in many places, many forms of prostitution are a felony. -- No, it's not.

An example is here.
First, the example you site is in a different jurisdiction. Second, you better learn to read. The page you link to does not even list the offense of prostitution. In New York, it's a straight misdemeanor,by the way, *not* a felony.

Long run out? The review is barely 2 years old. Statutes of limitation vary greatly, by offense and by jurisdiction, but a good rule of thumb for a felony is 3-5 years.
Yes, long run out. First, it's not "barely 2 years old". Second, are you saying the date of the post is the date of the alleged crime? And a good rule of thumb is not 3-5 years. Anyway, it's a misdemeanor. The S/L has long run out.

Incidentally, there are quite a few signs Gannon was still advertising his prostitution services well after the time this review was published.
Oh, yeah? But that's not a criminal offense, is it?

You keep threatening to go away, but you never do. I wonder what that's about.
How can I when you keep denigrating the Bill of Rights?

Anyway please keep making a fool of yourself. I think perhaps we don't all fully grasp quite how ignorant you are.

I think its rather sad that you know so little that you don't know when you are wrong. I also thing this need of yours to be right and push a party agenda is pathological.

"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Lincoln. You're apparently determined to keep at it until you've indeed removed all doubt.

“But it is worse to be an absolute fool, like Jukeboxgrad, who is too stupid and arrogant to even realize it. “ -Lincoln.

I'm confused. We're supposed to stick up for Gannon like we do Halliburton, but can I still hate Spongebob anyway? I really want to.

There's a couple of problems with Jim/Jeff's answer to #1:

You see, at the time he first got into the White House Press Room, he had exactly 0 articles written and the 'news' agency he went on to work for didn't even exist.

His answer is extremely disingenuous by omitting these two facts.

So the question still remains: how did this clown get into the Press Room so easily and who helped him gain access?

http://www.petpresident.com/gannoncannon.gif

"Where is money mentioned in your post."

Money is mentioned on the page I cited, about a dozen lines in, where it says this: "Rates-Time Only: $200 hour"

I guess I should have figured this out a long time ago. Your problem, obviously, is vision-impairment.

"So, now you have [other] evidence. What is it? Let me guess: you're not going to tell me."

This would be a good place to start, if you're looking for more. Then again, I think your vision-impairment problem might get in the way of your grasping this new collection of material.

"And yes, you did state he should be deprived of due process since any prosecution is constitutionally barred."

Really? Can you translate that incomprehensible nonsense into something resembling plain English? Did you mean to say "any prosection of any person who happens to be Dubya's personal man-date?"

"you better learn to read. The page you link to does not even list the offense of prostitution."

Really? I guess you didn't notice all this:

230.05
E Felony
patronizing a prostitute in the second degree

230.06
D Felony
patronizing a prostitute in the first degree

230.30(2)
C Felony
promoting prostitution in the second degree

230.32
B Felony
promoting prostitution in the first degree

That nasty vision-impairment again. I guess you must have attended a special law school for the blind.

"In New York, it's a straight misdemeanor,by the way, *not* a felony."

Hmm, I guess those items I just pasted above are a little strange, then, since they spelled "misdemeanor" F-E-L-O-N-Y. Thank goodness your eagle-eyes are spotting all these peculiar errors.

"But that's [Gannon still advertising his prostitution services] not a criminal offense, is it?"

Uh, yes it is. Prostitution is not just sex for money. It's also offering sex for money.

Then again, I realize you know more about this than Findlaw. You should let them know about their error.

"How can I [go away] when you keep denigrating the Bill of Rights?"

I realize I missed the fine print in the Bill of Rights, the part where it says prostitution is a crime if you're a black female streetwalker, but not if you're a high-priced white male Republican hooker. Thank goodness you're here to protect the Constitution, though.

"I think its rather sad that you know so little that you don't know when you are wrong."

To quote a certain well-known blogger, heh.

Let me know if you'd like me to try to find large-print versions of these various sites you're obviously having trouble reading.

God, you are an idiot, or maybe you are just dishonest. Probably both. I asked you to specify the charges and statute, list the elements, and specify the proof for each element. I knew you couldn't. I also wasn't going to play link-o-rama with you which is always a waste of my time. All you could come up with is a quote. I then went on to refer to “what you copied and pasted' and “specify how what you pasted” and “Where is money mentioned in your post.” You even quoted two of the phrases back to me.

I guess I should have figured this out a long time ago. Your problem, obviously, is vision-impairment. As demonstrated, once again, the problem is strictly yours. Work on your reading comprehension, moonbat.

This would be a good place to start, if you're looking for more. Sorry, moonbat, put up or shut up. I'm not going to some disgusting moonbat website or to your crappy links that are worthless.

Then again, I think your vision-impairment problem might get in the way of your grasping this new collection of material. It's you who can't see and/or read, remember? Or, do you also have a memory problem, too? Yes, I believe you do!

"And yes, you did state he should be deprived of due process since any prosecution is constitutionally barred." Really? Can you translate that incomprehensible nonsense into something resembling plain English?
It's adult English. And, no, I can't dumb it down any further for you

Did you mean to say "any prosection of any person who happens to be Dubya's personal man-date?" Great, back to the gay bashing. I'm saving all this for future use, by the way.

"you better learn to read. The page you link to does not even list the offense of prostitution." Really? I guess you didn't notice all this:

So, where is it? I see procurement and promoting, aka pimping, but I don't see prostitution. You do know the difference, don't you? Of course, not. Prostitution, procurement, and promoting, are three different and distinct categories of crimes, with separate elements for each that must be proved.

You listed:
Paying money to have sex with a minor 13 yrs or younger.
Paying money to have sex with a minor 10 yrs or younger.
Pimping a kid 15 yrs or younger
Pimping a kid 10 yrs or younger.

The NY statute for prostitution is § 230.00 a Class B misdemeanor. Now show me where it is on your list or your crappy link. You're blind and stupid. And, here you are being blind and stupid again:

"In New York, it's a straight misdemeanor,by the way, *not* a felony." Hmm, I guess those items I just pasted above are a little strange, then, since they spelled "misdemeanor" F-E-L-O-N-Y. Thank goodness your eagle-eyes are spotting all these peculiar errors.

Too bad for you they didn't spell out the crime of: P-R-O-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.

"But that's [Gannon still advertising his prostitution services] not a criminal offense, is it?" Uh, yes it is. NO, it's not.

Prostitution is not just sex for money. It's also offering sex for money. Then again, I realize you know more about this than Findlaw. You should let them know about their error.
I know more than you, but I admit, that isn't saying much because you are so dumb. You picked some words and phrases from some statutes from some unknown jurisdiction, and applied your own meaning to them, ignoring years of case law and the jury instructions. Which proves, once again, you are an idiot but too dumb to know it.

I realize I missed the fine print in the Bill of Rights, You apparently missed all of it.

the part where it says prostitution is a crime if you're a black female streetwalker,
The only person who said that is YOU. Scratch a moonbat, you'll find a Racist.

Thank goodness you're here to protect the Constitution, though. Protect it from creeps like you.

To quote a certain well-known blogger, heh.
Glen would agree with me 100% He would find your stand on the constitution, if not you personally, abhorrent.

Let me know if you'd like me to try to find large-print versions of these various sites you're obviously having trouble reading.

But as demonstrated over and over and over again, you are the one who is blind, and stupid on top of it. How many times can you be shown up? Your secret weapon is that you are a bottomless pit of stupidity.

"I asked you to specify the charges and statute, list the elements, and specify the proof for each element."

Uh, just because you think I'm supposed to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops you set up, doesn't mean I will. Also, it's odd that you seem to be posing as an eagle-eyed law professor when you've revealed you have a lot of trouble with your eyesight.

Uh, by the way, I realize you think you have some magical license to demand answers to any absurd question you dream up, while at the same time you consistently evade very, very simple questions that come your way. Such as this one: you said "keep repeating your lie" (3/2, 1:12 am). What lie? I realize you'd like to confuse the issue by pretending you've already answered this question. You haven't.

"I also wasn't going to play link-o-rama with you which is always a waste of my time."

As a law professor, you should know that this thing you call "link-o-rama" is what some people think of as "showing proof." I realize you can't be bothered to do that, since you know everything about everything, and we're supposed to just take your word for it.

I also realize you're not aware of the unintentional irony of you repeatedly asking for all sorts of proof, and then when you get it, you complain that you don't want to play "link-o-rama." This thing you call "link-o-rama" is also what some people call the "World-Wide-Web." It has that name for a reason. Go look it up.

By the way, you've posted here now 39 times, and not once have you ever referred to an external source of any kind, to back up any of your assortment of ludicrous statements that you've apparently just pulled out of your hat.

"Where is money mentioned in your post."

Oh, I get it now. You're expecting me to paste in here the full contents of every external link I use. And if I fail to do that, you get to pretend the facts don't exist because I didn't spoon-feed them to you. Important annoncement: I'm not your mother.

"I'm not going to some disgusting moonbat website"

I realize your definition of "disgusting moonbat website" is "any source that has factual information that interferes with my preconceived doctrinaire notions." By the way, it's certainly true that Gannon has posted a lot of disgusting information on the web. But if your frail sensibilities are offended by such things, you shouldn't be hanging out in a thread discussing a prostitute. Certain aspects of prostitution could be considered disgusting.

By the way, since you've now said it twice, please provide an iota of proof to back up your implied assertion that offering sex for money is not prostitution.

I'm confused. I need to explain to my commnist left-wing America-hater neghbors why $2.16 a gallon is good for America. I need to learn them why the defcit is good for America. They seem to think these are bad.

I know these are good things because George W Bush is Presdent, but it's hard to explain why. Can you help, Julie?

Uh, just because you think I'm supposed to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops you set up, doesn't mean I will.
Why not? That's what you are always trying to make me do. You *are* suppose to put up or shut up, something you have yet to do.

Also, it's odd that you seem to be posing as an eagle-eyed law professor when you've revealed you have a lot of trouble with your eyesight.
And you have a lot of trouble with honesty. But, thanks for elevating me to law professor.

Such as this one: you said "keep repeating your lie" (3/2, 1:12 am). What lie? I realize you'd like to confuse the issue by pretending you've already answered this question. You haven't.
Who is demanding who to jump through hoops? It was answered. You don't like the answer and you are going to whine showmeshowmeshowme forever. That's your trademark.

And speaking of poor eyesight, you fail to address all your previous errors pointed out to you. What? No comment? Think people won't notice that for the upteenth time you've been proved either wrong or a liar?

"I also wasn't going to play link-o-rama with you which is always a waste of my time." As a law professor, you should know that this thing you call "link-o-rama" is what some people think of as "showing proof."
You must have me mistaken for Reynolds. Linking over and over to something which isn't what you purport it to be isn't proof, jukie. Just a waste of my time.

I realize you can't be bothered to do that, since you know everything about everything, and we're supposed to just take your word for it.
You're the proponent. You prove it. And, I've already shown you were wrong numerous times. But, you are like the energizer bunny: you keep lying, and lying, and lying.

This thing you call "link-o-rama" is also what some people call the "World-Wide-Web." It has that name for a reason. Go look it up.
You look it up. Do you realize how stupid your argument here is? The debate may be about apples and you will link to a page about horses and yell, "See! See! I proved it!"

By the way, you've posted here now 39 times, and not once have you ever referred to an external source of any kind, to back up any of your assortment of ludicrous statements that you've apparently just pulled out of your hat.
You're the proponent, jukie. Do your own work. And none of my statements are ludicrous, let alone wrong. Correcting all your errors is work enough for me. I pointed out that the S/L ran. You try to b.s. your way out of it by insisting it is a felony and link to a page of NY statutes. Why, I don't know, since there is no evidence that it occurred in NY. And the statutes are not even for prostitution. And more importantly, none which applied. I cited the NY section for prostitution, a misdemeanor. So, look it up if you are so damn curious. Against my better judgement, I checked your irrelevant link. Just more unnecessary work for me. I name the applicable constitutional amendments that bar prosecution but you whine that you don't understand. I can't help you there, buddy.

"Where is money mentioned in your post."
Oh, I get it now. You're expecting me to paste in here the full contents of every external link I use.
Nope. I asked for the charges, the statutes, the evidence to prove the elements of the charges. If it existed, it could have been a brief paragraph -- much briefer than your cut and paste job. You said it's sex for money but failed to even mention money.

And if I fail to do that, you get to pretend the facts don't exist because I didn't spoon-feed them to you. Important annoncement: I'm not your mother.
Nope, I'm just not doing your work for you. You insist there are viable charges so prove it or shut up, mom.

I realize your definition of "disgusting moonbat website" is "any source that has factual information that interferes with my preconceived doctrinaire notions."
Oh, I'm sure Americablog meets many people's ideas of a disgusting website these days no matter what their political affiliation. You're just too whacked out to realize it.

By the way, since you've now said it twice, please provide an iota of proof to back up your implied assertion that offering sex for money is not prostitution.

Are you referring to this: Julie said "no criminal act is stated" Uh, sex for money is a criminal act. Well, as I already stated, moonbat, first you have to prove it, which you can't because: You have no witness. If you had a witness, he would take the 5th. All you have is inadmissible hearsay. The S/L completely bars prosecution. You refuse to address any of those arguements except erroneosly arguing it is a felony and the S/L has not run. An exchange of money for sex is not in and of itself prima facie proof of a crime. There are elements to every crime. And each element must be proved byrd. Why the hell do you think I keep demanding that you list the elements and tell me what proof you have of each one? And, make sure you read any and all applicable jury instructions and able to prove them, too, mom.

And, no I am not going to do your work for you. You are the one who keeps shooting off his mouth that a crime has been committed. You prove it.

But, let's cut all your bullshit short. If you think your crap off the internet is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, take it to the police and demand that a complaint be filed. Refuse to leave the station until they do, because you are jukeboxgrad, dammit!(And be sure to take bail money with you. You'll going to need it. )

So, me'Julie:
no opinion on the morality of having sex for money or gain? Do you think that's ok? Or only ok for gays? Or only ok for men in general? Or only ok in Washinton? What are the limits in your view to prostitution?

Oh, and are those views of yours common in the conservative voting demographic?

(You'll note that I've taken an old fashioned, nay conservative tone in expressing myself here. I challenge you to do the same)

Posted by: dashie at March 4, 2005 02:39 PM

"first you have to prove it, which you can't because: You have no witness. If you had a witness, he would take the 5th. All you have is inadmissible hearsay. The S/L completely bars prosecution ... There are elements to every crime. And each element must be proved"

There's a big difference between saying "offering sex for money isn't a crime" as compared with saying "offering sex for money is a crime, but for various reasons I don't think Gannon could be successfully prosecuted for it." Everything you say above has to do with the latter statement. Nothing you say above has anything to do with the former statement. Trouble is, you've repeatedly made the former statement (3/4, 4:34 PM, and 3/5, 12:49 AM), and you still haven't offered an iota of proof to back it up. And you won't be able to back it up, because you pulled it straight out of your hat, like so many other things you say. And so far you have a perfect record, in several dozen posts here, of not bothering, not even once, to provide any sort of proof outside of your own facile and shrill declarations.

Speaking of dodging questions, here the other one that seems to be a problem for you. You said "keep repeating your lie" (3/2, 1:12 am). What lie? Here's a little running digest of your non-answers to this very simple, direct and fair question:

"I have limited my discussion to what is the true issue, in this matter" (3/2, 5:11 AM)

"It doesn't need an interpretation" (3/2, 10:36 AM)

"The answer to your question was in my original response ... I'm not going to repeat for you what is already answered" (3/2, 11:27 PM)

"saying I made false accusations is a false accusations ... I have [already answered this question]. Several times now ... Who's hiding? Everything is in black and white" (3/3 1:58 AM)

"It was answered" (3/5 2:17 PM)

Aside from your law degree, it also appears you have a doctorate from the Richard Nixon School of Stonewalling.

There's a big difference between saying "offering sex for money isn't a crime" as compared with saying "offering sex for money is a crime, but for various reasons I don't think Gannon could be successfully prosecuted for it."

I didn't make the above quotes, you did! LOL!

And so far you have a perfect record, in several dozen posts here, of not bothering, not even once, to provide any sort of proof outside of your own facile and shrill declarations.

You got it backassward, juke. You are the proponent and you are the one that has not provided any sufficient or legally admissible proof for your assertion. Why would anyone need outside proof (whatever that means) that:
1. Your quotes are hearsay, i.e., “out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted”?
2. That the date associated with your quote, is almost 2 ½ years ago?
3. That you have no witnesses to testify in court?

See, jukie, you provided all my proof!

[snip jukie's further demonstration that he has a reading comprehension problem and OCD.]

I can't keep repeating myself or stating the obvious for you, jukie. It is not my job to make you understand. You are irrelevant.

By the way, how was your trip down to the police station? Did you convince them to take a complaint from you? No? Did you even go to the authorities? Or are you just going to whine on the internet for the rest of your useless life?

Oh, julie, as you're still here, but seem to have missed my previous requests for your opinion, I'll just repost them here:

So, me'Julie:
no opinion on the morality of having sex for money or gain? Do you think that's ok? Or only ok for gays? Or only ok for men in general? Or only ok in Washington? What are the limits in your view to prostitution?

Oh, and are those views of yours common in the conservative voting demographic?

(You'll note that I've taken an old fashioned, nay conservative tone in expressing myself here. I challenge you to do the same)

Posted by: dashie at March 4, 2005 02:39 PM

Posted by: dashie at March 5, 2005 08:53 PM

"I didn't make the above quotes, you did!"

You deny saying that offering sex for money isn't a crime.

This is what you said 3/4, 4:34 PM: "But that's [advertising his prostitution services] not a criminal offense, is it?"

You also said essentially the same thing at 3/5, 12:49 AM.

Please explain how "offering sex for money" is not synonymous with "advertising his prostitution services."

Keep trying to run to run away from your own statements. It only helps to establish what you are, in case anyone had any lingering doubt.

Also, nice job continuing to sidestep the question I asked (again) in my previous post: what "lies?"

I'm getting the impression that you don't want to offer your opinion on this julie.

"I didn't make the above quotes, you did!" You deny saying that offering sex for money isn't a crime.

Are you denying that those are your quotes?

Please explain how "offering sex for money" is not synonymous with "advertising his prostitution services."

Have you ever looked at the last 20 or so pages of those trashy free rags you moonbats are so fond of? Please explain that to me.

Keep trying to run to run away from your own statements. It only helps to establish what you are, in case anyone had any lingering doubt.

I'm not running away from my statements, jukie. I'm running away from you falsely attributing your statements to me. And, it establishes what you are: psycho!

Also, nice job continuing to sidestep the question I asked (again) in my previous post: what "lies?"

No, jukie, it's you who keeps sidestepping the answer because it's the answer you want.

Make that: . . . it's not the answer you want.

Nice job trying to create the impression that you said something other than what you actually said.

Nice job trying to misquote me and take what I say out of context. No matter how many ways you rephrase it, quote yourself and attribute it to me, or yap about what I didn't say, as if it were relevant, you have yet to prove that a crime was committed and Gannon committed it. So, once again, put up or shut up.

Anyway, nice job proving (as if there was any remaining doubt) how determined you are to avoid being held accountable for your own statements.

Nice job of trying to deflect from your sleezy tactics, false statements, and the fact that you have yet to demonstrate that a crime was committed and Gannon committed it. You have produced: inadmissible hearsay outside the statute of limitations, links to the wrong statutes in the wrong state, and no wits. You can't even demonstrate that you know what is necessary to prove in order to find someone guilty of the crime of prostitution.

Interesting how you have no problem making up numerous non-answers, while you can't be bothered to repeat the original answer. That's because there was no original answer.

Interesting how you have no problem making up quotes and ignore addressing your blatant misstatements of facts. You keep asking for clarification of a post that was self-explanatory. If you can't be bothered to read it. Tough.

Now once again for the, I lost count, time: Put up or shut up!

As if things aren't confusing enough, a recent post of mine seems to have disappeared. It was originally posted at about 8 AM. I know it was up for a while, because Julie responded to it. Anyway, here it is again:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Have you ever looked at the last 20 or so pages of those trashy free rags you moonbats are so fond of?"

Nice job trying to create the impression that you said something other than what you actually said. You didn't say "offering sex for money is a crime, but apprarently certain people get away with it." You said offering sex for money isn't a crime. This erroneous assertion appears, in one form or another, in your posts of 3/4, 4:34 PM and 3/5, 12:49 AM.

Anyway, nice job proving (as if there was any remaining doubt) how determined you are to avoid being held accountable for your own statements.

Speaking of running away from your own statements, thanks for giving me a chance to update the running list of your Nixonian non-answers to the very simple question ("what 'lie'") I first asked about 6 days ago. That list is now as follows:

"I have limited my discussion to what is the true issue, in this matter" (3/2, 5:11 AM)

"It doesn't need an interpretation" (3/2, 10:36 AM)

"The answer to your question was in my original response ... I'm not going to repeat for you what is already answered" (3/2, 11:27 PM)

"saying I made false accusations is a false accusations ... I have [already answered this question]. Several times now ... Who's hiding? Everything is in black and white" (3/3 1:58 AM)

"It was answered" (3/5 2:17 PM)

"it's you who keeps sidestepping the answer because it's the answer you want" (3/8 6:51 AM)

Interesting how you have no problem making up numerous non-answers, while you can't be bothered to repeat the original answer. That's because there was no original answer.

Julie,

You are an absolutely pathetic debater. You never ever answer any questions. All you do is deflect and blame it on the other person. Get a clue.

God forbid that instead of reposting your same hashing of your same b.s., jukie, you put up or shut up. Still waiting for the admissible "proof" you say you have to warrant criminal charges being filed.

Well, anon, here's a clue for you: The issue is whether you moonbats have admissible proof that a crime was committed. That you continue to yap yap yap yap yap about it instead of actually addressing the issue is what's pathetic. Now, go yap yap yap yap yap somewhere else.

Stop outsmrting Julie everyone. She's doing her best.

"The issue is whether you moonbats have admissible proof that a crime was committed"

Since you're ignorant enough to claim that offering sex for money isn't a crime, you're hardly in a position to throw around impressive phrases like "admissible proof."

Anyway, you're making a lame attempt to backpedal from your own misstatements. First you said (on two separate occasions) that offering sex for money simply isn't a crime. Now you're blathering about "admissible proof."

It's really quite remarkable how you whine I "misquote" you, or take you "out of context." I did nothing of the sort. At 3/4, 4:34 PM, you quoted me saying "there are quite a few signs Gannon was still advertising his prostitution services." Your response to this was "Oh, yeah? But that's not a criminal offense, is it?" (And at 3/5, 12:49 PM, you essentially repeated this same ludicrous assertion.)

You still haven't bothered explaining how your plain, unambiguous statement "that's not a criminal offense" is not synonymous with claiming that offering sex for money isn't a crime.

jukeboxgrad - I hope you have more stamina than I do, I am no longer interested in awaiting a response to my request for julie's opinions on the morality of prostitution, as I asked earlier (though I don't know why someone who takes her own opinions as if they were facts should be so shy):
Oh, julie, as you're still here, but seem to have missed my previous requests for your opinion, I'll just repost them here:

So, me'Julie:
no opinion on the morality of having sex for money or gain? Do you think that's ok? Or only ok for gays? Or only ok for men in general? Or only ok in Washington? What are the limits in your view to prostitution?

Oh, and are those views of yours common in the conservative voting demographic?

(You'll note that I've taken an old fashioned, nay conservative tone in expressing myself here. I challenge you to do the same)

Posted by: dashie at March 4, 2005 02:39 PM

Posted by: dashie at March 5, 2005 08:53 PM

Posted by: dashie at March 6, 2005 11:41 AM

dashie said "I hope you have more stamina than I do"

I think we've got enough to deal with keeping up with Gannon's professional sex life, without getting into my personal sex life, or yours. Anyway, I'm sure you do just fine, and I get by.

Heheh. I didn't realise the pun. Nice catch. (",)

Very good webpage you have here, and best greetings to all your visitors.

new car | used car values | fast car | car stereo | enterprise rent a car | used car sales | lolo ferrari | box car racer | smart car | car rims | bmw motorcycles | lexus locklear | car shipping | car insurance quotes | car park sex | used car | car reviews | car and driver | rent a car | car loans | budget rent a car | new car prices

Hi, nice site! Your hard work paid off

ppgirls .jpg | pressing on bladder while desperate to pee | public pee project | rison, arkansas pee wee football | shitgirl love pissgirl | shitting movies tgp pee virgin | show me that pee-pee | spy live urinal cam | squatting improves bowel function | squatting thumbs | squatting women hairy bush | stories yellow mom panties | story wetting her panties | susheele rama salt rain | swbl pee wee | sweet wet teens sex nude pics | teen bed wetters | teen panty pee | teens drinking pee | the dangers of pee wee football | tickled into wetting her panties | toy xstream glider | train wetting her panties | watertown public opinion accidents | wav files pee wee | wet sex game | wet women haveing sex | woman in wet diapers | women pee standing picture | women watching men pee | xstream dirt bikes | xstream hood | xstream leesport | xstream software | xstreams leesport | xstreams pennsylvania | zephyr xstream mx | easyshag | adult galleries sex wet circle porn | adult pictures girls diaper nappies | alcoholic bed wetting | anal pleasure sex wet | aroused sex get her wet | babe hot wet teen sex | babe wet sex | bathe wet clothes sex hardcore porn | bed wetter stories | bikini wet contest gallery andnot members sex | black girls in skirters and panties that are wet | bondage bondage fetish fantasy sexy diaper stories | boone county pee wee football | brittany spears bed wetting | centerville elks pee wee football | couples sex wet | drinking pee bukkake | erotic panty wetting | facesitting pisssing | fatso's pee pics | fetish fanatics pee | filled panties knickers wet and messy splosh | galleries galleries pee | girls wearing diapers so if they have to pee they just do | having a wet dream and wetting the bed | hidden urinal cam jpg | homade pee movies | horse women sex nude pics cam wet circle | hot and wet teen sex xxxx | hot wet tight anal pussy fucking sucking sex | how to change a wet diaper | hydrangea quercifolia pee wee hydrangeas | jeans wetjeans women | just wont pass the soapy water test | kids teens teen bedwetting | kimmy pee drinking | laurence fishbone pee wees playhouse | little league indiana pee wee baseball tournaments | miniskirt desperate pee gallery | movie pleasure sex wet | neighbors wifes wet panties | pee on you dave chappelle | pee pee panty | pee pee sex | pee wee dolly .pdf | pee wee herman big adventure trailer | peelover natasha part 1 part 2 | pictures of girls getting wet diapers changed | pictures pee time gallery | pictures wetjeans women | pisser boy | pitures pissingpost | problem bed wetting | pssing videos | public wetting accidents | pussy sex wet gallaries | pussy teen wet sex | pussy wet sex | r.kelly pee on you mp3 | real sex wet n wild | rebekah hot wet sex | see wet sex | sex college girls wet and wild | sex gallery adult wet t-shirt | sex hardcore women wet pussy | sex nude jpeg girls wet shirts | sex pictures wet t-shirt | sex pro adult wet yevette | sex probelms getting wet | sex problems she isn't wet enough | sex toys wet platinum | sex ways to make you wet vagina | sex wet babes | sex wet dikes | sex wet gallaries | sex wet housewives | sex wet n | sex wet naked teenagers | sex wet teens | sex wet toung | sex wet wild college girls | sex wet wild soccer moms | sex www wet pussy.cum | stay wet during sex | super sayain 4 pisser | teen sex hot and wet xxx | teen wet diaper | throbbing and wet and sex | tight wet sex | urinal hidden cams | vintage wet sex erotica | wearing diapers ab/dl bedwetting tips | webcam urinal cam | wee pee pics | wet and hony teachers having sex | wet and pussy and sex | wet and wild sex | wet bed sex stories | wet black sex | wet ebony sex movies on windows media player | wet hot virgin sex | wet how to have sex dreams | wet lesbian sex pics | wet lesbians oral sex | wet look sex | wet messy sex | wet mouth oral sex | wet n wild sex | wet naked sex | wet rough sex | wet sex dream stories | wet sex dream street pictures jesse mccartney shirtless | wet sex dreams | wet sex nigga | wet sex nigra | wet sex pussy pic | wet sex sites | wet sex stories | wet t sex | wet thong sex | wet tshirt contests sex | wet tshirt sex | wet wifey aimee amateur sex | wet women having sex | wet women sex | wild and wet and sex | women wet and sloppy sex pictures | woods pee voyeur | xxx excited pleasure sex wet | xxx sex pussy wet pics of the day | goldenshowers | accidents wetting pee panty | adult diaper wet messy change | adult diapers bedwetting incontinence | adult video pee dvd | adults wetting the bed | bed wetter boys | bed wetting alarms for boys | bed wetting belt | bed wetting devices | bed wetting enuresis | bed wetting women | bed wetting young adult | bedwetting and incorrect sleeping | big baby diaper nappy | black girls in skirters and panties that are wet sex | chapelle pee on you | chat pee drinking chatroom | cheerleading camp licked wet panties | cheerleading competition pee video wee | cheerleading stunts for pee wee teams | classified personals diaper fetish ads | dalton's boots pee wee | dave chappelle r kelly pee on you video | dave chappelle show pee on you | desperate easyshag | desperate young girls for sex | diaper fetish adult baby | dirty show me your peepee | dog weeing on lampost | dogs wetting the bed | drink water to pass drug thc test | drunk bed wetting | feel like i need to pee during sex | feeling of urination during sex | fetish adult diaper lovers | filled panties knickers wet and messy | find ppgirls | fox pee wee roost protector | gallery pee hole insertion | gauge porn pee | girls having to pee in maxi pads | girls that are so desparate to pee they go in a menstral pad | girls that pee and poop in diapers | goku weewee | help pee wee cheers/chants | hiary girls pissin | hidden cam pics mens urinal | hidden voyeur web urinal cam | hot-pegs pee videos | how to get a cat to stop wetting the bed | humiliating pee porn bunny teen | i wana pee on you | incontinent bedwetting diapered girls | intermitent adult bedwetting | internal water sports sex | kumbia kings with pee wee | ladies desperate to pee | live pee cam | mare pee porn | masturbating pissgirls | men peing | my diaper is wet | my name is pee wee | north piddle local information | number of wet baby diapers | pee during sex | pee on you - chappelle | pee prego videos | pee project | pee wee baseball tournaments | pee wee bird | pee wee cheerleading | pee wee dolly education | pee wee football coach | pee wee football coaching techniques | pee wee football plays and drills | pee wee football san jose california | pee wee football schedule grapevine, tx | pee wee herman doll | pee wee herman filmography | pee wee herman sound bites