Gawker Slammed For Outing Exec

Via USA Today:

Gawker drew heavy criticism Friday from online readers after the news and gossip site ran a story about the CFO of Conde Nast allegedly soliciting sex from a gay porn star. David Geithner, a married father of three and brother of former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, denied the allegations. Gawker nevertheless reported that Geithner planned to go to Chicago to meet a gay porn star and escort and was prepared to pay $2,500 for the encounter. David Geithner cancelled the meet-up after the escort tried to get him to use his political connections to help with a housing dispute. Previously, the anonymous escort had asked Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for help with his housing dispute, the online article said.

I read the entire Gawker piece early this morning and I’m with Greenwald on this one.

UPDATE: Gawker founder Nick Denton says the post is coming down.

  • BoringLawyer

    Total sleezeball move by Gawker. But… can anyone really feel bad for a filthy rich executive who put his trust in a hooker? Buyer beware, folks.

    • Gustav2

      and with pics? Not good.

    • metrored

      I think the outrage is more about Gawker’s journalistic integrity rather than sympathy for Geithner. They made themselves a party to blackmail and are trying to call it journalism. It reflects badly on the profession.

      • JustSayin’

        Reporting blackmail is the correct thing for a newspaper to do. Everyone who is slamming gawker think about this for a second.

        If the had gotten the tip and refused to publish, then the next site would not only publish but drag gawker into the fray by claiming something absurd about them protecting rich people.

        They had a choice to make and they made one. For those complaining, were you truly an avid reader of gawker? Or like most people do you think it is an internet rag covering alien babies and six headed sheep?

        • oikos

          They didn’t report blackmail as they didn’t name the blackmailer. They didn’t do the right thing. This was a hit piece on a competing company.

        • metrored

          They weren’t reporting blackmail they were aiding it. If it was about reporting blackmail they won’t have hidden (poorly) the identity of the blackmailer while broadcasting the identity of the person being blackmailed. The only newsworthy part of this story is Gawker’s involvement.

          They published a story to take down an exec at a rival company for no discernible reason. He isn’t a public figure. He isn’t known for anti-gay activism or anything really. He’s just a rich closet case with a brother who used to be important. Now the internet is horrified.

        • CottonBlimp

          If the had gotten the tip and refused to publish, then the next site would not only publish but drag gawker into the fray by claiming something absurd about them protecting rich people.

          So if I see a passed out man at a bar, I should steal his wallet before the next guy does?

          • BobSF_94117

            Grab his watch, too!

        • Nelson Kerr

          If they wanted to report blackmail, the would have not published the victims name and published that of the blackmailer. They simply acted as the blackmailers enforcers them getting a hit on one of competitor’s executives was probably just gravy.

          When you make a sleazebag choice, you should be willing to pay the price. In this case firing the editors and the “journalist” involved seems about right.

  • Sam_Handwich

    yeah, i don’t get this. it’s not like the guy is some anti-gay politician

    • DwenH

      It has more to do with who he works for. Gawker as a whole hates Condé Nast bought it in 2006 and at this point its parent company (Advance Publications) is its largest shareholder.

      • Dramphooey

        Oh, ho!

  • romanhans

    1. This is not a public figure.

    2. He didn’t actually do anything particularly bad.

    3. Gawker was given the “scoop” by the man’s attempted BLACKMAILER.

    So yes, this is horrific. I hope it doesn’t ruin the life of the man involved and he finds the strength to sue.

    • jomicur

      CEOs aren’t public figures? I agree with everything else you say, but just because CEOs try to keep their various business/political dealings/shenanigans in the shadows doesn’t mean they’re not public figures.

      • Except he’s not even the CEO – he’s the head accountant – the CFO. Maybe involved in the most tangential way with content (as in its effects on the bottom line), but not as a core part of his number-crunching job.

      • KT

        He’s the CFO, not the CEO. Not exactly in the same league. He isn’t the public face of the company – in fact I would imagine 99% of the readers of the post had no clue who he was until today. Just because he brother was in Obama’s cabinet doesn’t mean its fair game to go after him.

        • Circ09

          The story should not have been printed. However, I would much rather a CEO than a CFO be blackmailed because a CFO better knows how to hide & move the money quietly. This gives his company a head’s up that he is a risk.

          • Nelson Kerr

            Circ 98, since the blackmail attempted failed and no money was involved you might want to warn your employer that you are functionally illiterate

          • Circ09

            Not about literacy. Your’s isn’t great either, by the way, you got my user name wrong. It’s about corporate HR. Possibility company CFO hires prostitutes, which is illegal in itself (outside of Nevada, anyway) with
            the added bonus of possibly being a married closet case. All makes for a shaky corporate asset & company embarrassment. Regardless of what went down, now that it is out there, unlucky dude is going to be on the radar with the company finances scrutinized much more closely with probably an independent audit too. Sucks to be him so it’s a good thing he has friends/family in high places. And it was still a shitty “story” that should have never been published with what they had and the angle they chose.

          • Nelson Kerr

            And none of that was the pubic business at all. And If you think that his job at Conde Nast is in jeopardy because of a competitors hit piece I have a bridge at a bargain price.

          • Circ09

            I said scrutinized and I also said he’s got enough friends that he will be OK as long as he hasn’t got too many embarrassing skeletons. Are you sure I’m the one with the literacy problem?
            The forensic firm I used to work for gets called into corporations just like Conde Nast all the time over cocky shits getting up to much less stupid than the assumption of paying for prostitutes. Standard Operating Procedure. Agree about the competitor hit piece though.

      • Unless there was a crime involved it’s not any of my business. Never even heard of this guy before this. And given how often executives do a lot worse (and I say that as someone who worked for them) that everyone gossips about but no one publishes) this is sleazy.

      • Nelson Kerr

        CEO are ony public figures when the take actions that make them public figures, and where did you pull the studio idea that any CEOs were involved from?

        • jomicur

          Ummm…er…in my studio?

    • Adam Schmidt

      And to top it off, they’re deliberately protecting the identity of the male prostitute because he’s concerned about the possible impact to his career. And yet it’s ok to trash the career and home life of the executive who was hiring said hooker?

      • Jeffrey

        Thats the part I find most amazing. He’s worried about killing his whoring business.

    • Gustav2

    • ErikDC

      He was a public figure. If you Google Image search his name, he can be seen in photographs from a number of red carpets. If you’re notable enough to have your picture taken on a red carpet, it’s newsworthy that you’re hiring high end prostitutes. Eliot Spitzer had to resign as governor of New York for the exact same reason. The only difference is that Geithner was soliciting a male prostitute. A caveat, of course, is that it’s unlikely they would have run the story had he NOT been Timothy Geithner’s brother. Fair or not, that’s why it’s considered newsworthy.

      • Tim

        Who cares how many Google image search hits you get? Spitzer was an elected politician with massive power over his constituents. This guy is CFO of a media company, who if this story is even true, was the target of extortion (which Gawker is abetting). If you can’t see the difference then why not endorse dumpster diving on anyone in private business? And if ends so justify means for you, just say so.

        • ErikDC

          Extortion is illegal, but so is solicitation. Newspapers have been known to publish the names of averages joe’s caught in prostitution stings. It’s been done to people much less notable than Geithner.

          • Tim

            Again you make a false analogy — Newspapers have been known to publish the names of average Joe’s caught BY THE POLICE AND ARRESTED in prostitution stings. You say nothing about whether you think that is right (I do not, what happened to innocent until proven guilty, and btw this was a common way to shame gay men caught in public places seeking sex). But in any case, there are no authorities involved in this case, just the rentboy talking to a Gawker reporter, who is protecting his identity. Why are you rationalizing this terrible journalism?

          • ErikDC

            Well, we’re not going to agree.

          • Tim

            Ok, thanks for cutting to the chase. I’m still curious as to why this nasty filth is all so peachy with you, and not about “it happened to Roger Clinton and Noelle Bush so this is ok too, and they’re all axiomatically public figures” (despite legal definition that would stand up in court), or your assuming guilt on the part of Geithner (which you _cannot_ know!), so it’s all a-ok! Is anything like this case beyond the pale for you?

      • Itsatarp

        Hey, you know who else you would see pictures of on a red carpet if you Google their name? Me. Yet, somehow, I am not a public figure, I’m just someone who happens to know one. Does that mean I am a fair target?

        • ErikDC

          You might be if you were the sibling of say… Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano.

          • Itsatarp

            No. It doesn’t work that way. This is the legal definition of public figure. Please note that no where does it say being related to someone makes them a public figure.

          • ErikDC

            And yet, Roger Clinton and Noelle Bush made headlines for no other reason than being siblings of high profile politicos.

          • Itsatarp

            That does not make them public figures. Did you even bother to read what defines a public figure?

          • ErikDC

            I read your link. You’re using a legal definition applied to defamation cases, which is not applicable here, unless you think the story wasn’t true.

          • Tom

            And clearly you believe it entirely! So you’re judge and jury, and get to decide punishment? Good luck when it is your turn at the wheel. Think about this!

          • Itsatarp

            If you can find a source that says a person is a public figure simply because they were photographed on a red carpet, then by all means, cite it.

          • chasmader

            Noelle Bush made headlines for getting caught with a rock of crack cocaine while she was is rehab.

      • leo77

        The photos where he appears on a a red carpet were taken at a network upfront. Upfronts are yearly media events attended by anyone who works in media and media related fields. Entry level grunts at media buying shops attend those things.

        There are probably plenty of administrative assistants who have pictures of themselves on that same carpet. You don’t don’t have to be a public figure or even hold a high profile job to attend an upfront.

        • I’m appalled by the idea that having your picture taken once at an even waives your right to privacy. Unless he was charged with a crime, this is no one’s business except his wife’s.

      • Spitzer committed a crime and was charged with it. Now if you want to compare this to Anthony Weiner’s story, then I’d agree. That wasn’t any of my business and I didn’t care.

    • bambinoitaliano

      I was making a comment on that site comparing Gawker to that pink satan Perez Hilton. Ironically, he too tweeted his disapproval of the site action. The porn star/escort is a looney like those we read from this site.
      I hope the site get sued til thy kingdom come.

    • TK

      They removed the post, but it’s too late!

      • Cousin Bleh

        One of the commenters at Gawker described it as trying to shove a turd back up your asshole.

    • Funbud

      His identity is not hard to discover. A little internet sleuthing and I’ve learned much more than I wanted to know about this sordid story.

      The escort seems quite unbalanced. He has rants on the web about various conspiracy theories that are pretty unhinged.

      If the whole thing wasn’t a simple shake-down to begin with (meaning he never intended to meet his client in Chicago), one has to wonder why, once he discovered his client’s identity, he didn’t wait until he’d met him in person to spring the request for help with his HUD case? After all, most people are more amenable post-coitus and, from a blackmail standpoint, he’d have had more to hold over Geithner after they’d done the deed.

      Clearly, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    • Failed

      If there were hypocrisy of any kind, it would be a “straight” (assuming he is not bi) man with a family soliciting sex from a gay porn star but that seems to be as far as it goes. I think that this is on the other side of line that must be drawn and kept unmovable. Gawker made an extremely bad judgment call. Face the consequences!

      • CatApostrophe

        I’ve been following this whole fiasco since yesterday when I stumbled across it while browsing Jezebel. The Gawker commenters want the author’s and the editor-in-chief’s heads on a platter, it’s vicious. Gawker is also being sued by Hulk Hogan for some sex tape thing so they were in hot water already, but this time, they may have actually abetted blackmail. They shared the CFO’s name (like 47 times), as well his photo, but gave the escort/extortionist a fake name to protect his identity. Super shitty and a gross violation of journalistic ethics. I heard the editor-in-chief hosted a cocktail party with his colleagues at his apartment the night before the article went up to celebrate the piece. Woodward and Bernstein, they are not…

    • Here You Go…

      Gere is the extortionist, gay porn actor, wack job – Leif Derek Truitt, from Austin, Texas that goes by the pron actor name of Brodie Sinclair

      • Here You Go…

        Here is the extortionist … that goes by the porn actor name ….

      • Horse’s Mouth

        And like alot of gay porn actors, he is gay for pay. He really is straight or possibly bi.

        • objectivistking

          Gay and Gay. Johns pay well for Str8 escorts. This is just business.

      • JCF

        For Gawd’s sake, there are LESBIANS here! Please, at LEAST some warning!!! [Doesn’t Joe not want NSFW posted here anyway?]

        • Give It a Break!

          Oh please!!!!

          • Goodboy

            Think of the children you monster.

        • Pablo

          Just close your eyes, sweetie. And think of puppies. It works for me when the young men in Reddit post ‘eye candy’* to salve their sensibilities after a traumatic image is posted.


      • Here You Go…

        Archived anti-gay gay-for-pay porn actor’s site is below:

      • seant426

        Gross. $2500 for that?

    • TommyTune

      Re: that second item: his wife might have a different take on that.

      • Ambivalence Not Indignance

        I agree. I find it difficult to move from ambivalence to indignation over the outing of a man who is very likely putting his wife at risk of contracting a (potentially life-threatening) STD.

        Mr. Greenwald speciously points out that we can’t know with certainty that Mr. Geithner is acting without his wife’s approval, but we can rely on both common sense and the percentages that an overwhelming majority of heterosexual women do not consent or approve of their husband having sex (‘safe’ or otherwise) with gay porn stars.

        I also agree that it was curious on Gawker’s part not to identify the other party, but Gawker did provide enough information that the internet public was able to figure out relative quickly who he is. So that point is now moot.

        Nowhere is anyone categorically, substantively denying the truth of these claims yet. If truth is an absolute defense, then shouldn’t Gawker be covered?

        I feel bad for the wife, who should not be subjected to public embarrassment. I feel bad for the man’s children, who should not be subjected to this type of family trauma. And I wonder just how comfortable the family’s finances must be for the father to spend $2500 on sex, without that affecting the family’s ‘bottom’ line. Or was Mr. Geithner somehow charging the expenses to Condé Nast, in which case a whole other can of worms gets opened. I would think that an audit of his business expenses might be revealing, given his casual ability to fly a hooker to Chicago and put him up in a nice hotel for a weekend.

        So, yeah, I think there are a number of counterpoints to the assertion that Mr. Geither ‘wasn’t even doing anything particularly bad’.

    • Ontogenesis

      The only time I’m OK with forced outings is if the person is powerful and is doing something to make life hell for other queers (e.g., passing anti-gay laws, or firing gay employees).

      • Al Kaseltzer

        Closet cases DO make life hell for other queers. It may be subtle but it sends a very strong message about all of us. I say, OUT THEM

  • oikos

    Yet the escort who is doing the blackmailing about his housing dispute gets to remain anonymous. Really sleazy move by Gawker.

  • word is the escort in question is “Brodie Sinclair”
    i do not follow Gawker’s logic. at all. it’s hideously ugly.

  • Nic Peterson

    The man was practically invisible by current standards, no public comments, nothing remotely anit-gay and he didn’t deserve this. However, I am now more intrested in why a porn star would have contacted Ted Cruz in the first place. Did some NYC based hoteliers provide an introduction?

    Hmmmm. It seems the ‘journalist’ missed the actual news item.

    • Dreaming Vertebrate

      That’s what caught me eye too. Very curious.

      • Gustav2

        Maybe is a, ahem, constituent.

        • Dreaming Vertebrate

          Maybe is a, ahem, client.

    • jomicur

      That part of the story jumped out at me. For an anti-gay politician Cruz seems to be, er, consorting with an awful lot of queers.

      • Sk3ptic

        I’m convinced there’s a lot more going on with Rafael than we know. There always is with these ultra-hating attention seekers.

      • Rex

        He was having housing issues so he contacted his senator, who happens to be Cruz.

        • jomicur

          Ted Cruz of Texas is the senator of an escort from Chicago? Okay.

          • William

            One of the links shows him as living in Austin.

            Aren’t we lucky.

          • Rex

            That’s what the gawker article said. He must have been living in Texas at that time.

          • CatApostrophe

            I think the escort lives in Texas and they were planning to meet up in Chicago. Regardless, he’s a shitpile and apparently has no idea how government works…

      • I was curious about that too.

      • Nelson Kerr

        IN this case the scumabg was just doing his job. Sometimes even slime do the right thing

    • Cousin Bleh

      The porn star, who goes by Brodie Sinclair, was evicted from his apartment. He filed a HUD discrimination complaint and contacted Ted Cruz, his senator, for help resolving the apartment dispute and played up the fact that he’s a veteran with PTSD.

      If you go to his Facebook (Brodie’s, not Ted’s) you’ll see that he’s an anti-gay, conspiracy theorist, nutcase.

      • JT

        He’s a gay porn star and escort, and he’s anti-gay? WTF. Does he think he’s not paid enough?

        • Cousin Bleh

          He’s into Jesus.

          It always comes back to Jesus.

          • JT

            He’s not far enough in then.

          • oikos

            Cocks for jesus.

          • barrykyle415

            Jesus is coming. Don’t miss the money shot.

          • Miss it? He’s been edging it for almost 2000 years.

          • JCF


          • Dicky

            Pity. He had a lovely body for porn.

          • Jeffrey

            Turns out that he has the brains for porn too.

      • John30013

        Sounds like the guy’s a total nutcase:

        And I get a pretty strong gay-for-pay vibe from him. My guess is he’s a nutbag grifter who figures his hot body can get him something from powerful, closeted men.

        • Jeffrey

          You get a really strong “gay for pay” vibe from looking at a picture of a guy who fucks men for money? Your psychic abilities are kind of amazing.

          • shawnthesheep

            You do realize that the term “gay for pay” typically refers to straight guys who fuck guys for money? As opposed to gay guys who fuck guys for money? I think that was the point.

          • Jeffrey

            I know exactly what it means. It was all made clear.

          • shawnthesheep

            Your previous comment suggested that you thought any guy who fucked men for money was “gay for pay.”

          • John30013

            Your snarky reply aside, “gay for pay” means “not gay, just fucks guys for money”. There are plenty of gay guys who fuck other guys for money, but they are not “gay for pay”.

            And it’s not just the picture; I’ve seen him in “action” too. My opinion is that he’s not that into it (fucking guys, or being fucked by them)–that he’s doing it for the paycheck. I’m not judging, and I don’t know his sexual orientation; it’s just my own impression.

          • Jeffrey

            I hope you can take a dick better than you can take a joke.

          • ChitownKev

            lol, that’s shade

          • John30013

            I can take both pretty well when I know what’s coming.

            It’s customary to use a smiley or other indicator (lol, j/k, etc.) when your comment could be misconstrued. Nevertheless, I apologize for taking your comment as snark.

    • Chlorogoth

      The porn star is a right winger.

    • bambinoitaliano

      That’s the whole point. The guy on the down low is the least of the problem with that article. Yet Gawker make it the main expose. It’s in cahoot with an escort/porn star that conduct an unethical business transaction. In essence Gawker is the accomplice to this blackmail scheme. Naturally it did not take long, the blackmailer was expose as he deserved to be and the dailycaller manage to get an interview from him.

    • Please Help

      For one thing, he was a constituent of Cruz. For another, he is allegedly a veteran, allegedly suffering from PTSD, facing an eviction. I have heard of parents seeking a Senator’s assistance in getting access to a public university. Enlisting Cruz’s office for assistance in contesting a possibly illegal eviction is as natural a request as could be imagined.

      What’s surprising is that Cruz didn’t completely summarily refuse assistance.

    • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

      …and there is always national bewilderment why good, competent people won’t run for public office.

  • metrored

    The company the guy works for also owns Reddit, with which Gawker has an ongoing war. Glen Greenwald a really good piece about this earlier today.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      So this is potentially just collateral damage in a Reddit/Gawker pissing match?

      • metrored

        That’s what it looks like.

  • AJD

    Yeah that’s pretty messed up. Outing should only apply to people who actually work against LGBT rights.

    • Toasterlad

      Yes, I thought we’d all pretty much agreed on that.

      Still, it’s a fucking gossip site. Of course they’re going to print reprehensible things.

      But I seem to remember TIMOTHY Geithner pulling some homophobic shit when he was chairing the DNC, which is all the more appalling if his brother is gay.

      • Daithi in SF

        He was never chair of the DNC,

        • Toasterlad

          Och, you’re right…I was thinking of Kaine. I always get those two mixed up. Sorry, Mr. Geithner!

      • Jeffrey

        His brother is married with three kids, not identifying as gay.

        • Dramphooey

          Exactly; he could be bi-curious.

          • Jeffrey

            If he’s willing to pay a whore $2,500 for a fuck then Id say he was more than curious lol

          • CatApostrophe

            The impression that I got was that this might’ve been his first time seeking the services of an escort. Like, something about his behavior and texts struck me as the kind of nervous you get when you’re still getting your sea legs. I’ve seen some people speculating that his wife knew he was into men and that maybe that had an arrangement, that she was OK with him fucking dudes. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that conjecture one way or the other, but if my husband got curious, personally, I’d let him try to explore that and figure it out as long as he was safe and didn’t bring anything home. I may be in a minority there, though.

          • Jeffrey

            If you have a partner who is open enough to bring up something like that you are lucky. I feel like my husband and I could talk about it if there was something I wasn’t getting from him.

          • Wonder if he’s over his curiosity yet?

        • Toasterlad

          That’s why I said “if”, back when I was referencing the wrong Timothy.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    I gotta agree with Greenwald too. That was a shitty thing to do to Geithner.

  • KT

    This was pretty sleezy, even by the usual Gawker standards. I have yet to see anyone (besides an editor and reporter for Gawker) defend this article. There is some speculation online that since Gawker is in a feud with Reddit, this is to get back at Reddit’s parent company, which happens to be Conde Nast where David Geithner works. I wouldn’t doubt it honestly – the reporters at Gawker all seem to share the same “Fuck everyone we are awesome and can do no wrong” attitude; they seem like people I would not want to spend much time with.

  • Webslinger

    Someone posted this comment on another site ( ) and I inclined to agreed…the site is NSFW

    Everyone keeps wondering why Gawker outed this guy for really no reason. This entire thing was a hit job to damage their direct competitor (Conde Nast owns Reddit). That’s the only explanation as to why they would be so wreck-less about this particular case.

    • oikos

      The link you posted doesn’t work.

    • Platos_Redhaired_Stepchild

      I think it’s about Reddit too. Conde Nast via Reddit is making money off tons of racists & misogynists, borderline child abuse (which is crossed frequently), and homophobia…or at the least providing a platform for it. It could be argued that David Geithner and all of Conde Nast’s CEOs live off the fruit of the poisoned tree.

      • Webslinger

        The media and/or news these days have been less about truth gathering and MORE about generating buzz and/or clicks for profit…

      • Nelson Kerr

        That would work If he was a CEO. But he is not,

  • Ninja0980

    I have to concur, this is a really sleazy move.

  • I am, for better or worse, a long-time Gawkerite, but I’m truly flummoxed by the decision to do this to someone who is essentially a private person. It’s one thing fo a televangelist, a teal-belt-wearing congressman/bigot, or the like – but some schmo whose only sins are bad judgement and a some spare cash? Not cool.

    • William

      I agree, anyone actively working against the gay community deserves to be outed.

    • Cousin Bleh

      I honestly don’t understand how anyone who claims to be a long-time Gawker reader could be surprised by this. They made their first big claim to fame posting real-time celebrity sightings on a Google Maps API. They’ve published numerous sexually graphic videos (including Hulk Hogan, ewww). They offer money for unretouched images of female celebrities, and published such pics of Lena Dunham. They have a writer, Hamilton Nolan, whose sole purpose to posit about how much he hates anything popular (CrossFit, greek yogurt, etc). They’re click whores.

      Gawker is not exactly a bastion of journalistic cred.

      • True on the cred front, and the Hulk Hogan incident was defnitely a puzzler and in its way troubling. But in its earlier incarnations Gawker was a lot more self aware and a lot more upfront about being, in its longstanding motto, interested in illustrating that “today’s gossip is tomorrow’s news.”

        I was never offended by Gawker Stalker if only because the vast majority of its targets were so actively involved in using “private” sightings as part of their overall PR (Lohanism, as it were). And you’re seriously misrepresenting Nolan; he’s a curmudgeon, no doubt, but a thoughtful writer and committed Progressive.

        • Cousin Bleh

          Hamilton Nolan is a paid troll. Nothing more.

      • CatApostrophe

        That Hogan video got them sued.

  • chasmader

    By shielding the name of the [email protected], Gawker has now made themselves an accessory to blackmail. I hope the CFO ends up bankrupting these world class A-holes.

    • JustSayin’

      You can’t sue a publication for printing facts.

      As for the outing part of this, paying for sex is a crime in most of this country.

      If geihtner was busted picking up a hooker on a corner or caught having sex in a public place (with or without paying for it) would you still be complaining about his being outed?

      Fact is a crime was being committed, and no matter what you think about paying for sex being a crime, it does not alter the reality that it is one in most places in this country. It does not alter that there is a serious underside to e end legal prostitution. It just means that he committed a crime and the hooker tried to blackmail him.

      • chasmader

        And threatening to expose you for committing a crime is called blackmail. When you meet with a publication and discuss planning that or more crime, that’s called conspiracy.

      • BobSF_94117

        Fact is a crime was being committed

        Unless I’ve misread something, no crime has been committed. One was planned, but planning paying for sex isn’t a crime, I don’t think.

  • JustSayin’

    I read the entire thing too and all I can say is if you are that famously related and that stupid, I don’t have much empathy for you. Though I do think blackmail charges should be brought against the hooker with a luxury condo.

  • Gawker (which I do read sometimes when I am not here) gives me the impression of being the digital equivalent of a supermarket tabloid. While the articles may be interesting, I wouldn’t necessarily rely on the sort of “juicy details” coverage as being terribly accurate.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Tabloids have higher standards, and I mean that in all seriousness. Gawker and tabloids publish mean, petty, and stupid shit, but tabloids rarely have to retract once lawyers get involved.

  • Rocco Gibraltar

    He has been pegged as a closeted gay. Who knows the situation? Perhaps he is bisexual, and perhaps his wife is cool with that. Utterly tasteless article. Yellow journalism at its best.

  • TommyTune

    I agree with Greenwald – it was a sleazy move on Gawker’s part. However, we all inhabit a world in which there is increasingly no privacy whatsoever. Like it or not (and most people don’t) it’s a fact of life these days that our every word and action is liable to be recorded and tweeted out to the known universe.

    There’s an easy way to deal with all this, however: as a fortune cookie I once got read, “If you don’t want anyone to know about it, don’t do it.” If David Geithner didn’t want his wife, kids, and the rest of the world to know about his affair with a male hustler he shouldn’t have done it. It’s that simple. In the end, he has no one to blame but himself. Someone else would have found out about it sooner or later – they always do.

  • William

    Why is the escort/porn star being kept anonymous?

    • ZhyKitty

      I don’t know but it’s very upsetting when one of ours (a sex worker) does something like this and isn’t using the power for the greater good (outing someone who has it coming) but just for greed. When one of us does this, they make the life more dangerous for all of us, and bring down more hate on sex workers, making it that much harder to advance towards gaining recognition and rights. He fucked over a lot of people with this, and shame on him for it, the greedy fucker.
      What a mess.
      Screwing with people in high places brings fallout…and the worst of it will hit the most vulnerable and not who it ought to land on.

      • Douglas

        The wore is not “one of ours”. He is a certifiable wingnut, conspiracy loving, bible thumping ,gay hating, gun toting gay for pay freak. Read his Facebook page to get a glimpse of who he really is.

        • ZhyKitty

          You mis-spelled whore. : )

          I’ll go look…he may be, as you said, a total piece of shit, and if so I hope he gets excoriated, which he already deserves. What he has done here will truly hurt other sex workers, so without knowing anything else about him, I’m already not a fan.

        • BobSF_94117

          I repeat my prediction: heterosexuals are going to ruin homosexuality.

      • Tom

        ZhyKitty, why oh why is a sex worker axiomatically “one of ours”? They are not, this POS is not, and can we agree to take things “case by case” instead of ideologically?

  • Blake Jordan

    I wonder if he has an open marriage and his wife knows he is bi, or if Gawker has just ended a family…

  • Elsewhere1010

    The prostitute in question is Derek Truitt, aka Brodie Sinclair. This article from str8upgayporn ( (possible NSFW) contains a link to his facebook page, where he espouses the Apocolypse, Obama as the Anti-Christ, 9/11 being an inside job, and his beliefe that Jesus is going to punish everyone.

    We are talking some serious mental issues, here.

    • William

      Does he repent after getting it up the butt?
      “Jesus forgive me, again.”

    • metrored

      that link is not even a little SFW

    • John30013

      Possible NSFW? I’d say definitely not.

  • Tony McClean

    I never made it through the whole thing. Started reading it when it was first posted and, once I realized what it was, I quit. Everything about it was wrong and unethical and nasty and homophobic.

  • oikos
  • LarryChemEngr

    Gawker says it was a close call about whether to run the original story. Really? Seems pretty obvious to me and most others that this was out of line. Sounds like a “cover your ass” statement by Gawker.

  • Dan

    They can’t unwreck that family by taking down the story with the Fox News non-apology. I’ve been following this since last night and it’s been disgusting watching Gawker bury all the comments calling them out on their shit and promoting meaningless ones. This was disgusting and people need to lose their jobs over this.

    • Elsewhere1010

      It was owner Nick Denton’s call to run the post. I doubt if he’s going to be firing himself.

      And now he’s taken down the post and run an apology, not one word of which can be believed.

      • Tom

        Read Denton’s post again — no apology there, in fact he reasserts the truth of all they posted (which they cannot and have not proved). He’s a psychopathic POS and his media empire in my view has only brought nastiness and destruction into our world. I hope this is the beginning of their end.

      • chasmader

        The best way to deal with Denton is to ignore his site. I’m confident Karma will soon catch up with him.

    • JustSayin’

      So Dan if he had been picked up soliciting a hooker or having sex in public and that was reported would you have as much faux rage? Its the same crime but now involves the US postal system and the internet, along with a smidge of blackmail…

      Bet you were all for hastert being outed for a slightly different crime from 40 years ago.

      Gawker reported a story about a crime involving srx and blackmail, but many of you want to slice and dice who the media should say negative things about. Not a good plan in my opinion.

      • shawnthesheep

        Hastert molesting underage teens while he was their wrestling coach is just a bit more than a “slightly different” crime.

        As for blackmail, if it did occur, Geithner was the victim, not the perpetrator. Since when do media outlets report the name of a victim of blackmail without reporting the name of the perpetrator?

      • jutta

        If he had been “picked up soliciting a hooker or having sex in public” that’s still none of our (or that of any other person not directly involved) business. And it is certainly not newsworthy.

  • Sam_Handwich
    • Treg Brown

      Thanks for this Sam. Jordan made a huge mistake with this piece. Comments are blowing up at Gawker and even IO9 today.

  • HomerTh

    I started reading it and then was so repulsed by this invasion of privacy I stopped.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    Outing has usually been reserved for hypocrites who preach one thing publicy and do the opposite in their private life. As Greenwald points out, Geithner was not guilty of this. But guess who is the guilty one? The porn star doing the outing! Despite working in the gay sex industry, his facebook page paints him as a holier-than-thou antigay fundie.

  • JT
  • leo77

    The hustler is a complete loon. They have an interview over at Daily Caller.

    • JT

      That wingnut rag, Daily Caller, run by Tucker Carlson, tries to find anything gay and negative to post.

      • William

        I’d throw Tucker a hatefuck.

        • BobSF_94117

          I’d make him wear a bow tie.

          • William

            You are twisted!

  • John T

    Gawker should either commit to being a gossip site or commit to being an ethical journalism company. Right now they’re in a weird halfway zone where they can publish mean-spirited privacy-invading pieces and get away with it because they’re a gossip rag, but at the same time claim entitlement to the credibility and respect of a legit news organization. Can’t have it both ways.

    • Cylux

      Hah, Gawker an ethical journalism company, good one.

  • Octavio

    “This post has been removed.” Probably was so dirty and broken it needed a thorough cleaning and repair.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      I won’t be happy until “This site has been removed.” is the sign hanging on their front door. They can go to hell (has anyone handwrung yet that the guy who runs it is a big fag, so “No harm, no foul”? Well, fags can be pretty awful people, and Gawker is my go-to in any argument.)

  • Rex

    It’s one thing to out someone who has been actively working against the LGBT community. In this case, it’s none of our damned business. I won’t condemn or condone Geithner’s activity but why do people continue to put themselves at risk over the internet?

  • Clungeflaps

    I wish closeted dudes like this would think about the damage they do to their wives, and kids, just so they have the comfort of appearing normal to society.

    It’s not 1965 anymore, so there is no excuse. And you know none of these guys are practicing safe sex, because, “I’m married to a woman therefore I’m straight, and straight men don’t get HIV”

  • KT

    According to John J. Cook, Gawker investigative editor, he and alot of his colleagues fought the decision to take the post down. It just goes to show what kind of people work at Gawker. Even after potentially ruining a man’s life and after being called out by basically the entire internet, they still think they did no wrong (And Denton’s “apology” is nothing of the sort – he defends Gawker constantly in it).

    • Tor

      If the person in question (I don’t feel like scrolling up to find the name) were on record with homophobic comments, I’d say “yes” to the outing. Otherwise, leave the man in his closet.

  • Alpha 50327

    The focus of the story was completely off. Why wasn’t the story more about how crazy the potential blackmailer is? It looks to me like that information was easy enough to find. A cautionary tale for people of influence when trying to hire gay escorts. Some escorts are crazy.

    • Tor

      Looking good while crazy.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    I’ve repeatedly “sworn off” Gawker and its properties many times over the years – they’re worse than Vice, IMHO – but the scandal that finally sealed the deal, the camel-back breaker – was when they went ahead and published nekkid profile pics of Tyler Clementi after his suicide.

    Gawker and its properties have been dead to me since, and I believe that the 5th anniversary of that awful tragedy was recently commemorated.

    To smell of this new horror show? I’m not surprised.

    I don’t care if (e.g.) Jezebel has published the world’s most awesome deconstruction of the Daily Show and women – they’re a gawker property. Not gonna click. To click after reading JMG’s description above? Just plain sick and wrong.

  • Jaime

    How come the escort had access to Ted Cruz. Was Cruz one of his clients?

    • Cousin Bleh

      Ted Cruz is his congressman. Anyone can write to their congressman.

      • Tor

        Ummm. yes, that’s it.

      • Mark

        Probably offered same deal to Cruz for 1/2 price – with a guarantee he could get Cruz a big campaign contributor….

  • TJay229

    I enjoyed the article… I detest men on the “DL” (Blk vernacular) and “Discreet” (Wht vernacular) both equal lying sneaky bastards. Tell it, tell it all.

    I think the Women/Wives have a right to know, so expose them.

    • Mark

      I’ve always wondered why bi-sexuals are not more forthcoming. Just based on percentages – they are the best of the lot!! They can choose from 100% of the population, whilst rest of us is cut to 50% right off the bat. I’m really, really counting on reincarnation.

  • Ireyon

    First they published Hulk Hogan’s sex tape, now this.

    I thought Republicans were the ones obsessed with what goes on in other people’s bedrooms?

    Screw Gawker. It’s been a bottom rung gossip rag for years.

    Sue the fuckers out of existence!

  • Jeffrey

    Sorry to see that is was Brodie. He’s hot and stupid. A combination that is not such a bad thing in porn. I can’t believe he costs 2,500 for a fuck. I can’t believe this guy FedEx’d him cash first. I can’t believe this guy told him who he was or let someone else introduce him who knew who he was. There is a lot of stupid going on here. I feel bad for Geithner’s family. Gawker is trash, but thats not news.

    • Jeffrey

      I just googled Brodie Sinclair and he’s gotten tatted up and looking a little worse for wear. $2,500? Really? Must be for the weekend.

      • SorryNotSorry

        He’s also a raging homophobe and conspiracy theorist, by the looks of his Facebook page.

      • William

        I’ll give him ten bucks to scrub my kitchen floor.

        • He looks like he might pay you 100 bucks to clean them – depends on how Joan Crawford butch your attitude can be ordering him around while he is on his floorscrubber knees.

          • William

            Oooohh, let me get the Bon Ami and wire hangars!!!

      • Tor

        I guess the price of a call-boy has gone up since the last time you or I hired one……

        • Jeffrey

          I know, I didn’t know that whoring was such a great gig.

        • Mark

          I thought $5 bucks was outrageous!

    • Max_1

      There’s this saying from my youth…
      Young, Dumb, And filled with cum.

      Fits Brodie well…

  • another_steve

    Glenn Greenwald is a discredited journalist who aided and abetted Edward Snowden, who put our lives at risk and subsequently took refuge in that haven of personal liberty — Russia.

    Greenwald’s opinions are worth shit to me.

    • Max_1

      How did Snowden put “our” lives at risk?
      Greenwald, discredited? Tell that to the wider journalism world who’ve awarded him accolades over the Snowden story.

      AND… to perpetuate the LIE about Snowden being in Russia is even a bigger “tell” about what propaganda has done to your brain and rationalization. Facts don’t lie, but you just did.

      • another_steve

        The American intelligence community (which I assume you, as well as the Far Right, believe is “out to get us”) believes that Snowden’s “work” put the lives of Americans at risk.

        The fear and hatred of the American Government on the part of the Far Left and the Far Right are virtually identical.

        The rhetoric of the two sides, virtually identical.

        • non

          Err… So in your world, a person who reveals that the government is engaged in illegal, unconstitutional activity against it’s citizens is nothing but a no-good traitor. And those citizens who criticize the government for said illegal activity are “far left/far right” extremist radicals who fear and hate their country and put lives of the real, true, obedient American citizen patriots at risk. I wonder who would want you to think that way…

          It’s true that both those on the left and those on the right find common ground on this topic. But it’s not just the “extremist” wings, it’s the *majority* of the population, according to the polls.

          I’m very grateful that Snowden had the courage to come forward with proof of our government’s wrongdoing and validate what the conspiracy theorists have been saying the whole time. I am just sad and feel quite powerless to change the culture of paranoia and arrogant policies of violence and destruction which come at great monetary, environmental, and human cost instead having the courage to pursue nonviolence, peace, prosperity, and sustainability.

          May the collapse of the American Empire hasten, so that we may become a humble, peaceful nation.

          • Tom

            Amen! And well put. Those who would trade freedom for security will have and deserve neither (paraphrasing here).

          • Mark

            I think of it this way. Give a Republican and a Democrat the exact same story. Let them read it. Then listen to their “take” on the story.

            Neither side will simply repeat the story – hence the audience never knows who is telling the truth…and who isn’t.

            And! depending on the political affiliation of each person in the audience…the ‘truth’ gets repeated with their own slant on it. And before you know it, it’s right back to kindergarten with “Pssst – pass it on!”

            Are we really smarter than 5th graders?

          • another_steve

            Kudos to you for voicing that in a relatively non-ad hominem way, non. You garner my immediate respect by so doing.

            Having served in American government for 27 years (now retired), I have a great and abiding respect for the vast vast majority of civil servants who serve the public tirelessly and for much much less pay and benefits than they could earn in the private sector. Ninety percent of federal employees perform their duties well and honestly.

            And so it is with our intelligence services. The people there, for the most part, strive to keep you and me and our loved ones safe.

            We are alive and safe and able to do the “blog thing” today in part due to their vigilance and devotion to their mission.

          • non

            I quarrel with nothing in your post. I just want to make an additional point.

            Even people with altruistic intentions can do horrible things. Especially when they form groups. And especially when they are following orders or otherwise acting out of a sense of duty or loyalty to the group.

            Snowden is acting out of a profound and sincere sense of duty. His loyalty lies not merely his employer, coworkers, his government, or his country, but to the high ideals of a nation aspiring to be a beacon of freedom and rule of law.

            As all readers of this blog know, our government falls short–very short–of achieving these lofty principles.

            The good people of the government are public servants, yes. Of course, I agree with that. But what masters do we serve? The government? The Democrats? The Republicans? The corrupt oligarchs who bribe our elected officials to write the laws of our country and to selectively enforce them?

            Or do we have the courage to serve a new master, a new nation of the people, by the people, and for the people?

            “Phew! For a minute there, I lost myself…”

            Who am I kidding? Nothing is going to change. Most of us will vote for Clinton because she’s less of a bigot than any and all of the Republicans. We’ll ignore that she is a politician for hire who accepts bribes from the same people who benefitted from and caused the 2008 crash:

            Bribes from the same people who have been fined billions of dollars for the fraudulent mortgages, illegal foreclosures, market rigging, regulatory capture and drug cartel money laundering but somehow never actually end up in jail. Instead they end up in cushy positions of wealth and power bouncing from private sector, to regulatory agency, to political consultancy, to elected official.

            And bribes from the same media monopolies which control and manipulate what you see, read, and hear. And therefore what you think about and when. And thus who you vote for.

            They have brainwashed you into thinking your only alternative to one corrupt politician is another. Another Bush. Hahahaha! Jokes on you!

            Go back to sleep, faggots. America doesn’t belong to you either.

          • another_steve

            Well, it’s “the lesser of the evils,” and always shall it be.

            No one is happy with that reality (I certainly am not), but what good is there in denying the way of things?

            Just as you and I, non, are sometimes scumbags, so too is the political class. They’re frail human beings. They have both good and vile intentions, just as you and I have. Sometimes they are strong and principled and sometimes not. Just like you and I.

            Politics is — and always will be — the “lesser of the evils.”

            In my opinion.

        • Max_1

          Interesting that in order for your explanation to even stick, you are compelled to toss a stranger to the wolves…
          … And how whistleblowers of unamerican activities are some how “unpatriotic”?

          Do you support your Fourth Amendment being violated regularly?

          Its like a housewife that condemns the press for how they revealed how her husband beats her in their own home…
          … “If only they didn’t put it to print, I would be a better person”?

    • Although Edward Snowden helped unmask the unlawful mass collecting of data by the NSA and other organizations, and is correctly lauded for this, the mass publishing of thousands of classified intelligence documents, some of which contained information which at a minimum destroyed the usefulness of on-the ground intelligence assets was not to anyones advantage – that is unless you the successor to the KGB in .Russia. The United States has not been hit with an internal terrorist attack of anywhere near the magnitude of 9/11 in the past 14 years, and we should credit the NSA and other organizations for this. I am not sure I would feel safe living in an environment in which intelligence gathering and the collection of metadata never occurs. A lawful balance needs to be reached.

      • another_steve

        Eddi, I may have previously said this in a response to one of your comments, but you are certainly one of the most thoughtful commenters on JMG. Balanced and thoughtful.

        You’re a must-read on JMG.

        • Thank you Steve! I try to be fair. BTW I do not think this is the place for personal attacks. We LGBT people have suffered enough abuse in life to have to put up with this on our blog forums.

        • Tor

          Oh god, you two are getting awfully close to “fair and balanced.” Scary.

      • non

        That’s right folks. If you think the NSA and the American government shouldn’t collect, track, and monitor your every keystroke, email, family photo, and travels, you must be a no-good red commie who support of oppressive, secretive government intelligence organizations like the KGB.

        Hahahah! Truly Orwellian. Bravo!

      • non

        The government infiltrates American Muslim communities throughout our nation and targets vulnerable, isolated young men. They feed them anti-American propaganda, incite them to violence, provide them with money, weapons, bombs, and plans for terrorist attacks.

        Then, they catch them we say, “AHA! Look! We caught a dangerous terrorist! And it’s all thanks to the brilliant work of our secret police organizations and surveillance programs!”

        Don’t you see? We *NEED* the government to spy on us. How else will be be protected?

    • Max_1

      We’ve come a long way, baby?
      I guess you would say that Nixon was right…

  • HZ81

    I was and am not the biggest Gawker fan but I’ve read them on occasion, but no more. This was truly appalling.

  • Question — since David Geithner is not a recognizable public figure, can he sue Gawker for this? I know that publically recognizable figures usually cannot do anything, but David Geithner is not one.

    • Cousin Bleh

      Many people are speculating that Denton pulled the story on the advice of his legal counsel.

    • bambinoitaliano

      Yes, there’s a chance to prove that Gawker is abetting a blackmailer.

      • Scorpio

        Your charge makes no sense. Gawker isn’t ‘abetting’ anything. The point of blackmail is to collect money. Neither Gawker nor the porn star will be collecting anything as a result of this disclosure, now or in the future. Any leverage that will be gained by making Geithner fear further disclosures will NOT accrue to the benefit of the porn star.

        As for Geithner, he is now in fact inocculated against being blackmailed for THIS infidelity.

        Separately, the charges that Gawker is ‘attacking the composition’ makes no sense either. Exposing Geithner’s private life will have no effect on Condé Nast, Reddit, or Gawker. Why then would they go with this story?

        Why does the scorpion sting?

        • bambinoitaliano

          Why does it have to be monetary gain to consider as blackmail. The psycho was using Gawker as the leverage to expose Geithner if he did not use his connection to the White House to fix an issue he had. Gawker willingly allow this psycho to be use as the weapon of threat. The fact that Gawker follow through and published the article indicate the site was an accomplice. The only way Gawker is innocent of this if it does not have prior knowledge of that psycho intention and was just publishing the expose as given. Ethically it should not have publish unless Geithner was publicly known as someone who work against the cause of LGBT community. From the headline till the end of the article it was never about holding anti gay politic against Geithner. Can you imagine all media do not exercise editorial control publishing what blackmailers send them. What happen to vetting the source. All it takes is to visit the psycho face book page to get a perspective of it’s source.

        • Nelson Kerr

          Acting as the Blackmailers muscle is abetting, He did pay soGawker ad the blackmailer worked together to punish him

    • Nelson Kerr

      Since the makice is obcvous, He works for a competitor a lawsuit would be easy

  • bambinoitaliano
  • bambinoitaliano

    I hope those wealthy elites on the down low learn a lesson from hiring porn star/escort. While one cannot generalize they are all scum bags. Given the profession, it does not usually attract the most upstanding citizen who honor a business deal like a regular business we conduct on our everyday lives.

    • William

      Karl Rove’s boys better watch out.

  • robirob

    I get it that Gawker posted the hit piece because it involves someone associated to Conde Nast (which owns Reddit).

    What I don’t understand. Why does Gawker see Reddit as such a threat and as a competitor? They are two completely different things.

    Reddit is a platform where devoted users form a community of groups (subreddits?) where they can chat and post messages, clips, and pictures with like minded users. Gawker publishes articles with a comment section underneath each article.

    I don’t see how they are in direct competition? Is this really just about clicks?

    • Cousin Bleh

      I don’t think Gawker sees Reddit as a competitor.

      The feud began in 2012 when Gawker doxed a redditor named Violentacrez who managed several gross, misogynistic subreddits, including infamous ones called Jailbait and Creepshots.

      It has grown exponentially as the controversy around Reddit has exploded, particularly during the Fappening scandal. Reddit today is little more than a haven for “white-power racist-sexist neckbeards” (the words of its former CEO) disguising themselves as libertarians. Gawker, which typically leans far left and runs one of the web’s most feminist blogs, Jezebel, treats Reddit and its users as barely a notch above 4chan.

  • KaBoomBOX

    I read this yesterday and totally regretted it. All parties involved are scumbags, though I don’t feel that Geithner is enough of a public figure to have his bad behavior aired in such a way.

  • Mark

    Nasty break. Higher prices don’t ensure higher quality…or confidentiality.

  • Would they have run the story about an exec meeting a female porn star? If yes, then they should run it and accept what douches they are for wallowing in the gutter but at least they’d be consistent. If not, then they shouldn’t have even considered running it.

  • leastyebejudged

    The media lies all the time.

  • The sad thing is the lowlifes at Gawker gets to have it both ways because the piece isn’t really down . it’s easily found in cached form all over the internet.

  • MikeBx2

    Since the Gawker piece was so kind as to keep the blackmailer’s identity a secret, I think he should be given lots of attention now that his name is out there.

  • bambinoitaliano

    For those who wants to know more about why the readers reacted the way they did. Read some of the comments
    Seek out the commenter blue_tetris (Grayn’t Misbehavin’!)

  • e jerry powell

    I also read the entire Gawker article, and, true or false, failed to understand why anyone would care.

  • SockMikey

    I don’t assume that his wife was unaware of his interest in other men.

    There are some couples that have understandings and some that consciously turn a blind eye.

    I don’t want or need to know the details of his relationship dynamics.

    IMHO the “anonymous” (no longer) call boy is a piece of crap in doing what he did.

    In seeing some of his videos, not porn but rather weird conspiracy theories, he’s a person that should be at the top of anyone’s avoid list.

  • goofy_joe

    I have never actually read Gawker…now it looks like I probably never will. I totally agree with romanhans, there is no reason to “out” this guy.

  • ChitownKev

    OK, HOLY SHIT, Brodie Sinclair (I think I even remember him from BukBuddies, I believe and other places…I may or may not have a video of this dude on my hard drive) is a LOON!

    In another video, in which he calls President Barack Obama the “son of the Devil,” Truitt says that since 1980 the numbers “6-6-6″ have been drawn 25 times in the Illinois state pick-three lottery. Truitt claimed that Obama spoke publicly on 11 of the days on which those numbers were drawn, evidence of some evil of some sort.

    “I already figured it out. You were giving a speech 11 times,” Truitt says in the video. “Dirtbag,” he calls Obama. “That is a fact.”

    This is Gawker’s source.

    TheDC called the Austin-based phone number listed on Truitt’s numerous escort advertisements. The sex worker’s conspiratorial verve was evident in the interview.

  • David

    The headline alone, when I read it, had me thinking WTF Gawker?