a.) his sexuality was never an issue; the prostitution thingy is.
b.)try another example: suppose I set up a website offering to sell methamphetamines. Are you saying that if I'd never been arrested for drug-trafficking--a security check wouldn't reveal my business is selling illegal drugs?
c.) he wasn't.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
Then, Rob, why would a security check ask for your previous employers?
Rob
· 4 years ago
1. Does the White House ask for any such thing? I've not heard of that.
2. If they do ask it, its presumably to get an idea of what kind of media outfits the reporter works for/has worked for.
3. Asking for previous employers still doesn't explain how the White House could have possibly known about Gannon's male escort activities.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
1. It's a pro forma question on every security questionnaire. It enables the people doing the vetting to go back to your employer and ascertain if you were some kind of psycho or a model employee.
2. Well, then they must have found out Gannon/Guckert had no previous media experience. Hmmmm.
3. Nonsense. Let's suppose Gannon/Guckert didn't put down "gay prostitute" as his business. Let's say he put down something inocuous like "entrepreneur." Most any security vetting agency would be more curious as to see whta kind of "entrepreneurship" was involved.
Rob
· 4 years ago
try another example: suppose I set up a website offering to sell methamphetamines. Are you saying that if I’d never been arrested for drug-traffickingâ€"a security check wouldn’t reveal my business is selling illegal drugs?
If you'd never been convicted of a crime the background check conducted by the White House, which was a simple criminal records check, would not turn a thing up.
slarrow
· 4 years ago
"But maybe this isn’t getting a lot of media play because its just a dumb story. I wonder if that has ever crossed their minds."
Well, of course not, Rob. Whatever were you thinking?
I'll chalk it up to Friday fatigue.
Rob
· 4 years ago
It’s a pro forma question on every security questionnaire. It enables the people doing the vetting to go back to your employer and ascertain if you were some kind of psycho or a model employee.
There is no indication that Gannon, or any other journalist receiving a day pass, had to fill out any such form or that any of them had to provide any employment history at all aside from who they were currently working for. Your assertions here are unfounded.
Well, then they must have found out Gannon/Guckert had no previous media experience. Hmmmm.
Assuming the asked, that is what they would have found. But does that necessarily disqualify him?
Nonsense. Let’s suppose Gannon/Guckert didn’t put down ""gay prostitute" as his business. Let’s say he put down something innocuous like ""entrepreneur." Most any security vetting agency would be more curious as to see whta kind of ""entrepreneurship" was involved.
Again, this assumes that he was asked. And it also assumes that his escort activity was his only job during that time. He could have easily listed a legitimate day job.
JFH
· 4 years ago
I'm all for a big expose on this. And I'm sure 60 Minutes et. al. are probably investigating this for a story. If a story doesn't come out, it's not because of any white-washing; it's because there was no "there" there.
(Boy, was that an awkwardly formed phrase!)
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
from the stupid Salon article, "...in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard..."
I told my boss that my previous employee was the california drug northern rehab and he hesitated to give me the job. He finally caved in when I proved I never was an addict.
All Comments
b.)try another example: suppose I set up a website offering to sell methamphetamines. Are you saying that if I'd never been arrested for drug-trafficking--a security check wouldn't reveal my business is selling illegal drugs?
c.) he wasn't.
2. If they do ask it, its presumably to get an idea of what kind of media outfits the reporter works for/has worked for.
3. Asking for previous employers still doesn't explain how the White House could have possibly known about Gannon's male escort activities.
2. Well, then they must have found out Gannon/Guckert had no previous media experience. Hmmmm.
3. Nonsense. Let's suppose Gannon/Guckert didn't put down "gay prostitute" as his business. Let's say he put down something inocuous like "entrepreneur." Most any security vetting agency would be more curious as to see whta kind of "entrepreneurship" was involved.
If you'd never been convicted of a crime the background check conducted by the White House, which was a simple criminal records check, would not turn a thing up.
Well, of course not, Rob. Whatever were you thinking?
I'll chalk it up to Friday fatigue.
There is no indication that Gannon, or any other journalist receiving a day pass, had to fill out any such form or that any of them had to provide any employment history at all aside from who they were currently working for. Your assertions here are unfounded.
Well, then they must have found out Gannon/Guckert had no previous media experience. Hmmmm.
Assuming the asked, that is what they would have found. But does that necessarily disqualify him?
Nonsense. Let’s suppose Gannon/Guckert didn’t put down ""gay prostitute" as his business. Let’s say he put down something innocuous like ""entrepreneur." Most any security vetting agency would be more curious as to see whta kind of ""entrepreneurship" was involved.
Again, this assumes that he was asked. And it also assumes that his escort activity was his only job during that time. He could have easily listed a legitimate day job.
(Boy, was that an awkwardly formed phrase!)
What are they talking about?