Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

As much as I hate using a blog for a reference, this link is interesting for those who want to know what is involved in getting a day pass.

http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31588

Quote:

One point on the controversy involving now-deposed Talon News and GOPUSA politics writer Jeff Gannon got our attention.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said that Gannon, actually James Dale Guckert, 47, was given access to presidential briefings and a Jan. 26 news conference with President Bush on a day-by-day basis - and that this practice is basically a routine one that many journalists go through.

It sounds convincing on first hearing. Doesn't it?

Forget that Talon News and GOPUSA are partisan outfits that are friendly to the president, McClellan was telling us.

Doesn't matter.

Nor does it matter that a number of White House correspondents are saying that they saw Gannon with what appeared to be a permanent White House press pass.

And that the pass featured his picture and name - his fake name, mind you.

Never mind that the White House day passes that we have in our scrapbook don't have anybody's picture and name on them.

Yes, we have been through the process for obtaining White House day passes.

And let us just say that it is not at all an easy process to get through.

Needless to say that it is difficult to think that it could have been done using a fake name - the Secret Service needs your real name so it can do a background check on you before letting you inside the gate.

Several phone calls placed over the course of a two-week period were needed to get us inside.

And that was for a one-shot deal.

To think that Gannon or Guckert or whatever we should call him now did this on a regular basis makes us wonder when he had time to do any writing.

Which is why we applaud his gumption - if not his choice of afterhours business ventures.

It's entirely possible that G/G went through this process for the first day pass, and then didn't have to go through it again after that. But it's still interesting given that Scott Mclellan pretty much said that all they did was look up GOPUSA on the web.

Quote:

"He faxed a letter in on his [GOPUSA] letterhead, they checked that it was a conservative news Web site he worked for," McClellan explained, referring to his staffers who handled such credentialing at the time. "There was a check to make sure it was a news organization and a news Web site. There was a determination made at that point [that it was legitimate]."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000808705

0 Replies

Sounds like that editorandpublisher.com article answers the question. Now you can cuss and discuss whether GOPUSA.com is/was a "legitimate" news source, but it appears the WH staffer at the time made the initial determination that it was. You may have problems with that determination, but that appears to be the answer.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Sounds like that editorandpublisher.com article answers the question. Now you can cuss and discuss whether GOPUSA.com is/was a "legitimate" news source, but it appears the WH staffer at the time made the initial determination that it was. You may have problems with that determination, but that appears to be the answer.

I certainly do have a problem with that determination. The folks responsible for issuing press passes on Capitol Hill clearly made the decision that Talon was not a legitimate news organisation for several reasons, one of them being that it was not independent. How much less so GOPUSA? Clearly that staffer made that determination, but does it appear that the same level of scrutiny was used when Augusta Free Press applied for a day pass? If so, it seems that 2 weeks and several phone calls would be unnecessary.

0 Replies

Again, it appears G/G was actually in the press room in Nov. 2002, if not earlier depending on when the footage was shot. So, all this about whether it was GOPUSA or Talon he was working for, or whether he was real journalist or not, etc. doesn't matter when we have McClellan, Gannon, and the White House press office lying about when he got assigned a seat.

Look at the video of Scott McClellan on the kids site. In that clip we see Gannon, and Scott talks about how the seats are assigned. He even indicates that the seats are assigned based on senority. Gannons actually pretty close for a no name website volunteer reporter. He didn't get Helens seat, but still not at the back of the room either.

With only 48 seats to begin with, and the fact that the seats are assigned, and have engraved name plates attached to them, I wonder which name they put on his... jeff or james? Gannon or Guckert?

Freeze Frame:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5358

McClellan Video:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/#

Verification of the date of the celebration for which the videos were done:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/a111302.htm

0 Replies

McG wrote

Quote:

Ok, so that answers the question regarding when he started and what credentials he used. Cyc has repeatedly said he got into the WH press briefings before Talon. We now know that to be false

McG, It appears you didn't read the ENTIRE article. A presidential press conference is not the same as the WH daily briefing. Gannon was attending WH daily briefings BEFORE he attended his first presidential press conference.

0 Replies

squinney, I didn't think about the assigned seats thing. Can someone with just a daily pass get an assigned seat with their name plate on it? Seems curious.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Again, it appears G/G was actually in the press room in Nov. 2002, if not earlier depending on when the footage was shot. So, all this about whether it was GOPUSA or Talon he was working for, or whether he was real journalist or not, etc. doesn't matter when we have McClellan, Gannon, and the White House press office lying about when he got assigned a seat.

Look at the video of Scott McClellan on the kids site. In that clip we see Gannon, and Scott talks about how the seats are assigned. He even indicates that the seats are assigned based on senority. Gannons actually pretty close for a no name website volunteer reporter. He didn't get Helens seat, but still not at the back of the room either.

With only 48 seats to begin with, and the fact that the seats are assigned, and have engraved name plates attached to them, I wonder which name they put on his... jeff or james? Gannon or Guckert?

You have just accused McClellan and the White House press office of lying about when he got a seat. Please point to the specific statement made by McClellan which you believe is a lie, and the corresponding evidence that proves its deliberate falsehood. Start with that editorandpublisher.com article that FreeDuck posted, since it quotes McClellen on this issue. Do you think he was lying then, and if so, why?

Rather than speculate on a freeze frame on the "kids site," why not make your road trip to the WH, do a FOI Act request for the records of G/G's appearances at WH press rooms, and put some meat into your conspiracy?

Also, do you know whether G/G had a nameplate on the chair he was sitting in, or are you just making wild speculation?

0 Replies

Hmmm... Has McGentrix been divorcing himself from reality on this thread? Why is it that a neoconservative's reading comprehension is continuously challenged on these threads?

Why can't they address the softball questions at the heart of all of this; you know, those questions Gannon asked that were the most ridiculous questions ever heard in a White House press room; questions which made the rest of the press corp snicker when asked? Especially when the questions become so tainted with lies as well?

This is a classic example of THEM being divorced from reality. Objective journalism means NOTHING to them. Either that, or they just don't get it. It's beginning to feel like an extraordinary waste of time trying to convince them otherwise.

When other journalists laugh and McClellan keeps a straight face after a Jeff Gannon/James Guckert joke question, it is beyond the obvious to the point of surreal, because all the individuals who are looking the other way on this issue would be in HOG HEAVEN if this were the Clinton administration.

The parsing of words and statements removed out of context is getting a little sickening here. Why is it that both McGentrix and Tico just can't address these issues up front?

Because it is truly impossible to defend the indefensible, no matter how desperate you're willing to spin...

0 Replies

The only thing I am defending is the absurd notion that Gannon was a plant by the adminstration. I don't care about the rest of it.

0 Replies

Here are some of the questions he asked:

"Go Ahead, Jeff."

0 Replies

Dookie wrote:

The parsing of words and statements removed out of context is getting a little sickening here.

I agree. Please stop it.

0 Replies

Don't ask me. Ask McGentrix. He's the one who can't differentiate between the White House press briefing and a Presidential press conference.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Dookie wrote:
The parsing of words and statements removed out of context is getting a little sickening here.

I agree. Please stop it.

0 Replies

Like I've said...

0 Replies

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/tmwgannonlarge.jpg

A very telling cartoon.

Which reveals a most devious theory regarding this whole Jeff Gannon/James Guckert affair.

This is classic Karl Rovian style. Turn the tables to accuse liberals of hating gays by falsely accusing them of being "obsessed" with this story, when the story speaks for itself.

As I've said, if it was Clinton, you'd see torches and pitchforks heading to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Is it possible that Gannon/Guckert was a plant, and that the administration KNEW about his sordid past, in order to allow this to mutate into something the neocons can hopefully turn to their advantage? Imagine that, huh? Bush bashed gays during his 2004 election, whereas even the Log Cabin Republicans refuse to endorse him, and now these devious neoconservative pukes are once again playing the hypocrisy card in the hopes of America once again displaying her unbelievably short-term memory.

This has always been their game. And why not? They're trying everything in their power to turn Gannon into a victim, when the only true victim here is the death of objective reporting.

There are too many examples of the rightwing media machine in action to keep track, and it continues to get more ridiculous and puerile with each passing day. The neoconservative politicians are marketing their snake oil in record numbers. It is up to the progressive left to keep these morons in check at all times.

And, speaking of puerile acts of stupidity, the last several posts by Tico and McGentrix, along with their respective avatars, speaks volumes...

Very, very sad indeed...

0 Replies

Quote:

And, speaking of puerile acts of stupidity, the last several posts by Tico and McGentrix, along with their respective avatars, speaks volumes...

Huh? What's with your avatar obsession? Grow a little skin why doncha? It's pretty sad when you're upset about a woman's hand on a mouse, and my smoking a cigar. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I guess the best way to know about an assigned seat, which Scott admits the seats are assigned btw, would be to go back through briefing videos and see if he was in the same seat over and over again.

Don't have time to do that right now.

0 Replies

See what I mean? Now it's an avatar "obsession..."

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I guess the best way to know about an assigned seat, which Scott admits the seats are assigned btw, would be to go back through briefing videos and see if he was in the same seat over and over again.

Don't have time to do that right now.

I don't doubt the seats are assigned. (Hell, I have assigned seats when I eat Thanksgiving Dinner at my Mom's.) I imagine the assignments change over time, though. Doubt he only sat in one spot. Doubt he had a nameplate on his chair.

0 Replies

'Tw'at was that about Clinton endorsed cigars?

0 Replies

Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know