Oh, my G-d, someone is actually having sex in the White House…
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 18, 2007
Gannon, whose real name is Jim Guckert, has worked as a male prostitute and advertised his own escort services over the internet. More than two dozen of his visits to the White House were made when there were no scheduled press conferences or briefings. And, even more noteworthy is that fact that on 14 separate occasions Secret Service records indicate no arrival or departure time.
It is considered highly unusual for individuals to be admitted to the White House and not checked out. The Secret Service could offer no explanation for this, but it is hard to imagine that Gannon could have left without having signed himself out unless someone in a position of authority at the White House left with Gannon and waived off having to sign him out.
Of course, the missing log outs also raise serious security issues. One plausible possibility is that Gannon may have left in the company of a senior White House staff member or official, and did not want to be signed out at the same time as the individual he may have been accompanying. Given Gannon’s history as a male escort and prostitute, it hardly takes a leap of faith to suspect that he may have been turning tricks at the White House.
This story is so silly it’s silly. Ok, I get the security problem, and yes, if indeed this is true – the WH SS do have a problem. That’s not why this story is silly. It’s silly because the guy’s sexual habits is the main concern of the article.
The question – which is implied in the last lines of the quoted text – is WHO is getting a blow job inside the White House?
That is my problem – this is irrelevant. Not even if it happens to be the Emperor himself, is it relevant. What ever happened to honest news reporting? Where did journalism start turning tricks in the gutter?
Oh, I know, it’s been like that since the mid 50’s, but is it ethical? Do we really want to have this kind of details in our news? Another Question – is this a Democrat herring, an attempt to get back at the Republicans for Clinton/Lewinsky?
If it is it’s sad. So is the focus on Gannon’s sexual preferences…