Amid The Gannon Feeding Frenzy Can I Ask About The Prostitution Charges?

[DistressedAmerican]

Before I start let me note that I am in no way a freeper (see my website if you are concerned about MY motives). Gannon is clearly a creep! I am no supporter. I just want to make sure we are not setting ourselves up for another Rather incident.

I have been seeing a lot of references to Gannon being a "pimp" or "prostitute". I have been looking into it pretty hard and I can't find any evidence for that other than his having registered a domain name that had "escorts" in the title.

Here's what I am asking...
Does anyone have good links with info on whether any money ever changed hands for sex? I posted a similar request a while ago and got a message from someone that claimed to be a DC Police officer (note I do not know if this is true or evidence to the contrary) that said these charges were investigated twice without any evidence turning up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1583263

Have you seen such evidence or is everyone just repeating the terms and assuming someone has seen it? I am not sure that these charges have been well fact checked.

I have had very few takers on the other thread regarding these concerns. None that have come up with much that was concrete rather than just allegation.

That worries me. With so many eyes, it is usually no problem to get good links for credible allegations. Please help me out!

Am I just missing it or are we possibly getting ahead of ourselves?

Another possibility, people do not mean prostitute in the traditional money for sex sense. I would certainly agree he was a ho for the administration in the sense that O'Reilly is a fucking prostitute.

[bozeman]

1. The fact that he doesn't deny it speaks volumes

Did you see his picture he had up on AOL? He's a gay escort pimp type.

If someone had accused me running escort services I would deny it, and not just run away with my tail tucked between my legs.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Not evidence.

"gay escort pimp type"? What the hell does that mean. I've seen the photo and it is clearly homoerotic. But, the "pimp"? Where does that come from.

on edit: If he denies it does that mean he isn't guilty?

[Maddy McCall]

2. I don't think it's necessary that "money changed hands" for him...

to be labeled what he is currently being labeled.

A WH press correspondent who was allowed into daily press briefings has registered websites with gay-sex names. He's a hypocrite of the nth degree, as is obvious to anyone who has looked through his old articles.

Sure, there may be some hyperbole going on on DU, but the evidence against him is damning. He doesn't have to "take money" to be a hypocritical whore.

[BurtWorm]

3. I don't think he actually started his pimping business.

He just registered the domain names. The prostitution (of the sexual variety) is a red herring. He's a media whore, though, unquestionably.

[KurtNYC]

4. A WaPo story included this...

Among the domain names registered by Gannon's company several years ago, but never launched, were Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com and Militaryescortsm4m.com, along with Exposejessejackson.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12640-2005Feb9.html

If he didn't actually put sites up but only bought the URLs then this is not evidence of pimping or prostitution. Has anyone seen other info?

[Maddy McCall]

7. It's not evidence of actions, but of what is in his mind that matters

He didn't have to have to be a paid gay escort--but he evidently fantasized about doing the very things (and MORE) that he denigrated others for doing.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. Pardon me but there are plenty of things to attack about these folks

without just foisting unsubstantiated nonsense that makes us look like we will believe any anti-rightwing rumor. I'd like to maintain my credability. Not a big concern for you?

We bitch that CNN, MSNBC, etc. aren't reporting these charges, are covering them up etc. I just want to know that there really IS something to coverup. If not, it is little more than our desperation showing.

[Maddy McCall]

19. You are posting anonymously on a public message board.

Where does YOUR credibility enter the fray?

Chill out.

[DistressedAmerican]

21. Mine personally? Does not matter. The whole party come 2006?

maybe more important.

Pardon me for suggesting that the things we say actually be true. Clearly, I have lost my mind.

[Maddy McCall]

24. On that we agree.

[blm]

5. He offered his services as an escort using his own picture at HIS site.

Have you ever heard of an escort service that DIDN'T charge money?

[DistressedAmerican]

12. Rumor. Show me!

Besides, escorting is not illegal. Taking money for sex is. There is a HUGE difference.

I for one do not want us to look like WE don't know what the hell WE are talking about. Is that wrong somehow?

[blm]

22. Are you claiming that picture of him is just a rumor? a photoshop?

Male escort services are legal and noone can prove there was money exchanged for sex..... so, there should be a thorough investigation, since the integrity of the WH and the WH press corps is at stake.

Wouldn't you agree? We can't have POSSIBLE male prostitutes compromise the security of this nation by outing CIA agents, can we?

[BOSSHOG]

6. The appearance of impropriety

use to mean something. But I appreciate your logic. Rove and company made a military deserter shine while trashing a wounded war hero. That was due to the audience which the gop knows all too well. This one might be a little harder to finagle out of. I don't believe prostitution charges need to be uncovered for conservatives to know deep down inside this administration is wallering in the gutter.

[Spazito]

9. The 'provocative' photo of him....

would lead one to believe he was doing more than registering sites for a client, imo. The allegations are out there, let him refute them, he is after all, a 'reporter', right?

It is interesting it is always those on the left that have to totally prove everything before they even hint at the possibility never mind the probability yet the right can spew at will. I say, again, let him prove otherwise.

[DistressedAmerican]

13. So, If He Denies It, Will You Assume He Is Not Gulity?

[Spazito]

16. Denying it isn't providing proof that it is not true

and, seeing as I am not a court of law and believe in the preponderance of evidence so far provided, a simply 'Not true' doesn't qualify. Why the pic in his white undies? Why so many 'escort' sites? Who was his client? Would a 'born-again Christian' set up male escort sites and post a 'come-hither' photo of themselves if they are not soliciting?

[Maddy McCall]

31. Excellent questions. Eager to see DA's responses. nt

[SoCalDem]

41. Why pose "semi-clad" if not to "arouse" visitors?

He "claimed" to be a "newsman"..shit..he had WHITE HOUSE credentials, and asked questions of the PRESIDENT of the US, so a website where he POSES provocatively AND "advertises" escorts services.... well...do the math :)

I bet if we looked at Brian Williams' website or Matt Lauer's or David Gregory's, we would NOT find ads for gay escort services and they would probably be fully clothed..

You know what they say.. If it looks like a duck... QUACK !! QUACK !!

[SoldiersProps]

11. There are no criminal charges

against him or pending criminal charges.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoldiersProps]

18. Dude, I'm not a freeper, I'm just telling the

truth. It's not hard to check someone's arrest record!!!

[DistressedAmerican]

20. If you are not, pardon me.

Low number of posts always makes me suspicious. If you are just an innocent DUer, welcome!

[Maddy McCall]

25. Look at your post number.

Is that supposed to make people with as many posts as me suspicious of you?

[Maddy McCall]

27. Welcome to DU, SoldiersProps

Sorry that some people around here enjoy harrassing new members.

Welcome! :toast:

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Is this just about you and me now?

If so, I don't have the time. Give me some facts or stop buzzing and flaming. Just us fact checkers here!

[Maddy McCall]

29. You call out new members as freepers just because they have...

fewer posts than you. Isn't that jumping to conclusions, "fact checker?"

[DistressedAmerican]

33. Yes, I have apoligized. I was wrong to assume.

Are you ready to do the same?

Why are you so hostile exactly? Why are you so wound about this? I'm just looking for some facts about a very heavily discussed topic and you act like I just punched you. What is the issue?

If you are happy to just keep asserting, this thread is not working for you.

[Maddy McCall]

35. Huh? You make no sense.

Actually, anytime I see anyone start a post with a disclaimer that "I am not a freeper," I pay special attention to it.

But, might I remind you that you cannot tell me when and where I can post on DU? I will reply to this thread as long as I please, or until there is nothing here that interests me anymore.

The issue is that you are asking questions that can easily be answered through reading numerous posts here at DU, with links supplied to evidence elsewhere.

But I don't think you want evidence or answers to your questions. I think the purpose of your post is to scold DUers for making assumptions about Gannon, assumptions well based in the evidence that is ALL OVER the internet today.

If you don't have time to explore the evidence, that's YOUR problem, and you should quit schoolmarming the DUers who are more enlightened about the GAnnon story than you are.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. That is not it at all. I'd love to nail this guy to the freaking cross.

I just think we must actually have the nails to do it.

I have been looking as noted for this much storied evidence. I still can not find it. You sound like you have seen the evidence. Please help me out.

As noted, I don't get the hostility.

I am making an honest info request like thousands here everyday. I was not posting to lecture anyone. Read it again. I was and AM looking for it if it exists.

So far, all I have found is you flaming me like I just said I think Bush is THE MAN!

So, I am asking nicely, do you have the info?

[Maddy McCall]

23. Wow. You sure jumped to conclusions labeling Soldiers a freeper

Where's your evidence? Huh? Seriously, you need to calm down a little.

[blm]

30. I know what you mean.

The overwrought appeals and positions are odd.

[Maddy McCall]

32. As is the emotionalism when he's supposedly pushing a "rational"

position. :shrug:


( :hi: blm! )

[Padraig18]

14. Who needs evidence when we can just shout "Amen!" in the echo chamber?

:eyes:

[EST]

17. I would reccommend some readings of the

diaries at Kos-should give you what you need.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. I have been digging through the bulky material and still find

little more than assertions and repetition of those assertions. I'll keep looking.

Do you have a particular thread/post in mind? Not to make you do my work. Just haven't found much myself.

[LynneSin]

34. It's the hypocrisy of what Gannon/Guckert has done...

....and I don't actually think the guy was a prostitute.

But he did post for a sexually suggestive picture on an AOL website that was clearly aimed to attracting other men. Now mind you, myself along with the rest of DU probably has no problem with men searching for other men to date through online service providers. There is no sin there.

However, the sin is the hypocrisy of it all. Gannon/Guckert has clearly been in Bush's court and blantant opposed to GLBT rights. I think it was at Media Matters where I read something he said about his "sins of the past" but his Christianity somehow corrected those problems (mind you, I"m quoting out of context).

So seriously - Gannon/Guckert is guilty of one thing: Hypocrisy. Personally the other people who are truly guilty of this are the folks that have allowed a hack like Gannon/Guckert a WH press pass when clearly he nor Talon news service had no real creditials

[Maddy McCall]

36. Plus, the remark he made about "hiding in plain sight."

It seems to me that he knew the evidence was there, but he assumed that we (meaning liberal internet users) were too stupid to put the pieces together.

He threw the gauntlet, and internet researchers responded. When it looked like his gig was up and he was about to be exposed for what he really was, he jumped ship.

[LynneSin]

39. In a nutshell he said "Bring it on"

and you know what happened last time someone said "Bring it on"

:eyes:

[DistressedAmerican]

37. That's fair enough. I just do not think we are rationally talking

about the broader issues of an uncredentailed member of the press core that may have served as a conduit for the outing of a CIA agent.

When we make specific charges against these folks they have to be credible or they will say we are crying wolf when something we really can get our teeth into comes along.

We must be careful not to cloud that with the feeding frenzy or we have no room to bitch when the media ignores the unsubstantiated rumors.

That and when I started the thread I was actually looking for the info. I still am if it exists. However, I think a lot of folks are just trumpting the words without any regard for the facts.

[Kingshakabobo]

40. You must have missed his ad (thanks to diamond14)