It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeff Gannon the "Journalist" involved in Scandal, Resigns.

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
This is hilarious, watching the DU website and this thread. Bush haters: take a deep breath-

Here's my question: What federal statute has been violated here? Where's the crime.

And if there is no crime committed, how can it be a scandal?


What federal statute did Dan Rather violate?

If you can't see why people would be upset that a gay prostitute ended up asking questions in the press corp, using a fake name and fake history, if you can't see why that's bad, then you have some real problems, and you should probably go back to the Free Republic.

Let alone, why was he given access to classified documents? He's being investigated as a leak in the Valerie Plume CIA scandal.

I think we should take a page out of the Republican playbook, put Ken Mehlman under oath, and then ask him if they've ever had "Sexual relations..."

With a man.

Then watch the scandals follow. It's the latent hyspocrisy of the GOP to galvanize their ranks at the expense of homosexuals, only to have their entire ranks be filled with them. Plus, imagine how quiet Matt Drudge will be. He's married, right? No, he lives in North Hollywood.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
For the last time, Gannon used his real name to get his daily press pass. That has been established by now. Of all the things 'Gannongate' is, a security problem it is not.

You wonder why people scream 'witch-hunt' when you seem to be unable to stick to legitimate accusations.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, Brimstoned, there's this:

Title 18 of the United States Code:

Sec. 2197. - Misuse of Federal certificate, license or document
Whoever, not being lawfully entitled thereto, uses, exhibits, or attempts to use or exhibit, or, with intent unlawfully to use the same, receives or possesses any certificate, license, or document issued to vessels, or officers or seamen by any officer or employee of the United States authorized by law to issue the same; or

Whoever, without authority, alters or attempts to alter any such certificate, license, or document by addition, interpolation, deletion, or erasure; or

Whoever forges, counterfeits, or steals, or attempts to forge, counterfeit, or steal, any such certificate, license, or document; or unlawfully possesses or knowingly uses any such altered, changed, forged, counterfeit, or stolen certificate, license, or document; or

Whoever, without authority, prints or manufactures any blank form of such certificate, license, or document, or

Whoever possesses without lawful excuse, and with intent unlawfully to use the same, any blank form of such certificate, license, or document; or

Whoever, in any manner, transfers or negotiates such transfer of, any blank form of such certificate, license, or document, or any such altered, forged, counterfeit, or stolen certificate, license, or document, or any such certificate, license, or document to which the party transferring or receiving the same is not lawfully entitled -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Moreover, you want to talk partisanship? Just take a look at some of the questions Helen Thomas has asked at press conferences...

Helen Thomas: "My follow-up is, why does (George Bush) want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?" -- January 6, 2003

Helen Thomas: "Is this (war) revenge, 11 years of revenge?" -- January 6, 2003

Helen Thomas to Fleischer: "[W]hy is [Bush] going to bomb them? I mean, how do you bomb people back to democracy? This is a question of conquest. They didn't ask to be "liberated" by the United States. This is our self-imposed political solution for them." — Feb. 26, 2003. As reported by Salon

Helen Thomas: "We didn't go in to win the war on terrorism when we invaded Iraq." -- April 29, 2004.

Helen Thomas: "...following up Ann Compton's question [regarding Saddam Hussein's court hearing], does [President Bush] agree with Saddam that Presidents are above the law?" -- July 1, 2004.


Helen Thomas: "Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --"

A: "I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat."

Helen Thomas: "Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?"

A: "The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat."

Helen Thomas: "There was no threat."

A: "The President made the decision to confront the threat."

Helen Thomas: "Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country." -- July 19, 2004
Helen Thomas: "Why are we killing people in Iraq? There are many men, women and children being killed there. I mean, what is the reason we are there, killing people, continuing. It's outrageous." -- Nov. 29, 2004. ---

Helen Thomas: "Has the President given any orders to stop the ongoing brutalization of Iraqi prisoners?" -- Dec. 8, 2004.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
Well, Brimstoned, there's this:



So, are you saying that Dan Rather stayed up until the wee hours of the morning, slaving over a typewriter to forge the documents?

Otherwise, that's a nice piece of fluff you posted. Try harder.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Well, somebody did, and the "internal investigation" didn't turn up who, and nobody can deny Rather was a willing participant in it.
But you avoided answering the question that is central to the thread, what crime has been committed by this Guccurt guy? Hypocracy is not the domain of a single party.
No flames though, anyone who quotes Mr.Sinatra for a signiture is worthy of some respect...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
why are we talking about helen thomas and Dan rather in this thread? is this another attempt by Conservatives to distract everyone from the real topic at hand?

If Gukert used his real named to get the press pass, why was everyone using his fake name in the press room, in articles he wrote, and on any apperances?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Because that's the name he calls himself in public?

No, that's too absurd.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Notice the question still hasn't been answered by the libs, so instead we get digression and scolding.

Here it is in simple language, though the Bush haters can't seem to come to grips with it:

No crime = No scandal.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
Notice the question still hasn't been answered by the libs, so instead we get digression and scolding.

Here it is in simple language, though the Bush haters can't seem to come to grips with it:

No crime = No scandal.


That's because your logic is inherently flawed.

"No crime = no scandal" is like saying "No ice age = no snow"

I'm not sure Ward Churchill broke any laws, and yet there is quite the deserved scandal occuring right now. I'm not sure Eason Jordan broke any laws, and yet, a scandal occured.

The other reason I'm sure people are ignoring you, is because of the paradox it creates. A GOP donor put a plant in the White House to include supportive propaganda, when the job of the fourth estate is supposed to be critical. The press is not supposed to support any administration, and while they have been accused of liberal bias, that didn't stop them from exploiting the Clinton/Monica fiaso.

This sort of thing happens in banana republics, not here.

Suddenly, it's discovered that Gannon was issued a press pass BEFORE the actual news service was created. How did that happen? Ari Fleisher hesitated to call on him, literally thinking Gannon was a plant. Only when he was reassured that he wasn't, did Fleisher start calling on him.

Then it's discovered that Gannon is a gay prostitute. How does a gay prostitute, without any journalism experience, get a press pass in the White House, before his news service was created? A news service that carries the party line on Homosexuality, and regularily bashes the Homosexual community? How is this man allowed to read classified material about Valerie Plume?

How this possible?
Does this not reek of hypocrisy?
Don't we have the right to know the truth?
Shouldn't Christians know if there is a secret, self loathing sect of gay Republicans who fetishize the military in their Whitehouse?
Was RNC chairman Ken Mehlman blackmailed by this gay prostitute?
Was he the CIA leak, poltical revenge, which endangered national security and the lives of a CIA case officer and a former ambassador?

So, kindly continue burying your head in the sand, it makes you look oblivious, rather than determined. Also, you're in the POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES section of the world's biggest conspiracy website, if this isn't a palable notion to you, I'll say again, go back to the Free Republic. They're more in line with your thinking.

Gannon was one of them.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
First, it is a scandal for the GOP is the "Kill all Gays" party, if they had their way they would do to gays what Hitler did to Jews. So using a Gay Prostitute as a plant is freaking funny.

Second, this guy had no credintials, according to this case, I could go in with a 50 Caliber anti tank gun and grenades on my belt as long as I was being planted by the GOP.

Third, the GOP has been caught paying reporters to go on news channels and say things like they were news, when all it is is propaganda.

Fourth, they own Fox News, All CEO/President/VP are registered republicans, GWB's cousin is a big boss there, the Dark Prince of the GOP was hired to fire all dems, from host to clerk to janitor, and then all hosts but 2 are registered republicans. One, Colmes, gets half the air time, half the words, on a regular basis. Also, on the H&C Show, both hannity and the republican guests have repeatedly told Colmes to shut up and get into his place. The second one, Reilly, was a registered republican untill 2000 when the New York Times was about to prove he was lieing.(He said he was always a registered independent, but it turns out he wasn't, until 2000 election, when NYT was about to expose him for the registered republican that he was for over 30 years)

So, this looooong line of owning the media, censoring the truth, and protecting Bush from all nay-sayers. Hell, they cancelled a press conference in Germany because the German Gov. wouldn't let Bush&Co. script it.(Basically make a script, this person in seat A7 will ask you this, you say this, then person in seat C9 will ask this, you respond with this)



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
First, it is a scandal for the GOP is the "Kill all Gays" party, if they had their way they would do to gays what Hitler did to Jews. So using a Gay Prostitute as a plant is freaking funny.


Yeah, see, I was doing doing pretty well by myself here. I know you're a liberal, and technically on my side, but it might help if you thought more and wrote less, especially when it comes to poorly written hyperbole.

You defeat more sound arguements than you help, when you bust out the "yuck yuck" rhetoric, because that's all anyone ends up talking about.
And, if you were trying to be funny instead of serious, there's a gulf of difference between actual humor and mindless drivel.

You look like an absolutel fool writing that stuff, and you detract from the validity of the arguement. And, for someone who complains about Sean Hannity so much, you parrot his style with a certain amount of ease.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
1."Does this not reek of hypocrisy?
2.Don't we have the right to know the truth?
3.Shouldn't Christians know if there is a secret, self loathing sect of gay Republicans who fetishize the military in their Whitehouse?
4.Was RNC chairman Ken Mehlman blackmailed by this gay prostitute?
5.Was he the CIA leak, poltical revenge, which endangered national security and the lives of a CIA case officer and a former ambassador?

1. Yes. If the shoe was on the other foot and republicans were persecuting a gay "reporter" friendly to a democrat president, there would be no end to the main stream media consternation over thier homophobia.
2. Show me that right in the Constitution. I quoted federal code to you, I'm sure you can do the same for me.
3. I don't know, I'm not either one. But I don't hate them and see them as uniformly nasty closeminded bigots as you seem to do.
4. Are you now accusing Ken Mehlman as being a closeted gay man?
5. And your source for that is? NYT reporters being threatened with jail and won't reveal their sources in regard to the case, please break the news for the rest of us

I think you make assumptions based on your political outlook rather than looking for facts in evidence. Such prejudice is common in this world, but it does not fit well with the ideal of denying ignorance.

Broad, sweeping generalizations about people who may belong to a party, religion, or share a sexual orientation are invariably false to one degree or another, and cruel as well.

Finally, people who post here are looking to be challanged in thier belief and viewpoints. Telling them to go away or "back to free republic" is the exclusionary act of someone afraid of to have thier opinions questioned.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Realist05]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Donno if this was reported. But Reuters reported on Talon news closing "to reevaluate operations"


Talon News founder Eberle is a Republican who has another Web site called GOPUSA.com, which touts the Republican Party and conservative causes. Talon News said in its message that the Web site would be redesigned and "a top-to-bottom review of staff and volunteer contributors" would be performed. "The recent public focus on Talon News, while much of it malicious, has indeed brought some constructive elements to the surface," the message said.


Reuters.com



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
2. Show me that right in the Constitution. I quoted federal code to you, I'm sure you can do the same for me.
[edit on 26-2-2005 by Realist05]


Well, that about says it all right there, doesn't it? You don't think the American public deserves to know the truth. It should be selective to what the administration decides.

That's a scary way to live, so more power to you. However, there's really no point conversing with you, when you have different, lower standard for our leaders. So, live and let live.

Also, my Free Republic comment stands, as well as my other "sweeping generalizations". As an apologist for the administration, you'd fit in well with the freepers. Although, I'm sure you were just as horrified when Clinton was hounded by the Republican attack dogs.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I questioned the public's "right" to know, as you put it, not what the public "deserves".

You state one thing, then run away from your statement. Three times now.

Again, you brand me an apologist for the Bushies instead of addressing a question for which you have stated no answer, and instead decided that since you can't, "it's not worth discussing".

You have not backed up or provided a thread of evidence for any assertion you have made, and seem incapable of doing so.

You are embracing ignorance, not denying it.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05

I questioned the public's "right" to know, as you put it, not what the public "deserves".

You state one thing, then run away from your statement. Three times now.

Again, you brand me an apologist for the Bushies instead of addressing a question for which you have stated no answer, and instead decided that since you can't, "it's not worth discussing".

You have not backed up or provided a thread of evidence for any assertion you have made, and seem incapable of doing so.

You are embracing ignorance, not denying it.


I'm still not sure who's divorced from reality here. You're like Lesie Neilson in that movie, standing in front of the bruning fireworks factory, screaming "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here".

The public doesn't deserve to know the truth?

I mean, they do or they don't.

Hypocrisy is wrong.

It is, or it isn't.

Gay prostitutes in the White House.

You either support it, or you don't.

Fact of the matter is, Gannon resigned. Talon is in shambles. The administration was embaressed. You can deny the scandal all you want, but it already happened. It's done. If you expect me to provide evidence of the road sign we just passed 50 miles back, forget it, do you own homework.

One is either shocked by the allegations in this thread, or they are not. You obviously are not. Me, and many other other Americans, want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes. You don't. So, if you don't wanna know, cover your ears and hum a little song.

I wanna know how a gay prositute got into the White House press corp.

You don't.

I wanna know how this gay prostitute got credentials for a news organiaztion that didn't exist at the time.

You don't.

I wanna know how this gay prositute was given access to classified materials.

You don't.

I wanna know what, if any, relationship Gannon had with Ken Mehlman. Did he blackmail Mehlman into getting him into the press corp? Did he use a prior relationship to give him access?

You don't.

I wanna know what relationship Gannon has with the Free Republic, and why he was able break the Dan Rather story so quickly. I wanna know what, if any involvement, he has with the forged documents.

You don't.

I want answers that I currently don't have.
You don't want answers to questions that you don't have.

So, I can sit here and fight with you all night, but you're not gonna change your mind, because you don't care. So it's a waste of effort on my part, when I could be playing playstation instead.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Also, it is believed that Karl Rove sent the documents to Dan Rather to get rid of someone that people respected who wouldn't bow down before Bush.

So may be how Gannon got the news out so quickly, working for the GOP does have benifits.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
We have reached agreement!



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Sound And Fury

So far, I'm still not seeing much in this thread other than a lot of obvious lies, hyperbole and tiresome partisan finger-pointing, which is neither news nor entertainment.

Where's the beef?

There need not be a violation of law for there to be a scandal: impropriety or unethical conduct are enough. Apparently innuendo alone is enough for some.

As best I can tell, whatever this guy's name is, he was planted as a shill by the White House to softball the press secretary, because no one else would.

Heck, maybe they were just trying to thaw what is unarguably a very hostile environment for press conferences.

Even in the Reagan years, I never saw such acrimony and open contempt for the president, or such blatant press partisanship.

The reason this guy got all the attention he did is because no one else behaves that way. They're all trying to get in a dig, and never let up. This guy stood out like a sore thumb because he wasn't attacking the president.

That's why he was investigated in the first place.

Planting a shill and getting caught doing so seems pretty pathetic to me, but not a huge scandal in my opinion, unless someone has some meaningful and truthful information I haven't seen.

The fact that the White House saw the need for it, however, says a lot about both the White House and the reporters in the White House press corps.

I don't remember this kind of press animosity during the Clinton years, and that speaks volumes to the decrepit notion of impartial reporting.

There is a scandal here, but it's not limited to the White House.

Unless something else develops, I expect this to go the way of the other minor scandals, as ever and anon.

Bigger fish beg to be fried.

[edit on 2/27/2005 by Majic]




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join