« Dear VK - Issue No. 6 | Main | Osama Eight Fingers »

DHS Official Brian Doyle's Child Porn Arrest Draws Liberal Bloggers Interest

There's been a lot of chatter on liberal blogs about the arrest of Department of Homeland Security deputy press secretary Brian Doyle on charges that he was soliciting sex from a 14-year-old girl over the Internet. Most of it involves heaping generous portions of blame on the Bush administration. Here's a quick sampling...

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog:

Jesus Christ. Do these people vet ANYBODY? And lest anyone suggest that Brian Doyle is simply some two-bit low-level functionary at Homeland Security, just Google him - his name is all over EVERYTHING Homeland Security does because HE'S THEIR SPOKESMAN.

At TPM Muckraker they wonder:

So: if this guy, Brian Doyle, the accused child sex solicitor, is in fact guilty, he was right there under their noses the whole time.

DailyKos, frontpage poster DarkSyde includes Doyle in Republican Family Values?

With all the speculation, rumors, accusations and criticism in the media and blogosphere, investigations, arrests, indictments, and guilty pleas of Republicans these days, every now and then it's good to consult an updated program. Programs, get yer programs, can't tell your hearsay from your alleged Republican perps from your alleged Republican pervs without a program.

And from another DKos poster:

This case of the arrest of Bush appiontee Brian J. Doyle of U.S. Department of Homeland Security for sex crimes is nothing new. Aren't all those Republicans that way?

Cannonfire

Apparently, this was not one isolated chat -- he had gone to great lengths to court the "girl" over a period of time. News stories do not specify his party registration, but one may easily guess.

Of course there's the usual nonsense at DU

[D]o these people do any qualifications checks on the folks they hire - or is it all about giving some crony a campaign contribution?

And the comment section at Think Progress starts off with this:

More Republican family values from this administration? Can't wait to learn more about Mr. Doyle. I'm sure he was well vetted by this administration. Heckofajob Bushie.

And finally Wonkette asks:

Now we'd like some help from you, our readers - specifically, those of you who know or have worked with Brian Doyle. ...If you have any Doyle dirt to dish, please contact us. Thanks in advance for your tidbits!

We'll take up that challenge, but you'll have to check back here later today to see what we've found...


Update: Here's a hint... DHS Child Sex Sting Official Is A Democrat


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DHS Official Brian Doyle's Child Porn Arrest Draws Liberal Bloggers Interest:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Press aide suspended after sex charges filed

» DPGI v.2 linked with It's called a looney tizzy

Comments (35)

As someone who has had to b... (Below threshold)

As someone who has had to be vetted for a security clearance, I can tell you that unless this guy was charged with a crime, or something was wrong in his finances, he would have cleared the first big hurdles. After that, at his level, he probably had a routine lie detector test and a perfunctionary interview with an FBI agent. He would have to fill out reams of forms and provide reference after reference.

If nothing came up in any of that, he would be home free.

It could very well be that this was this butthole's first time.

This guy is a slimebag and deserves his fate, but for crying out loud people, use your head for something other than a place to waste shampoo.

VW

This guy is a carreer civil... (Below threshold)

This guy is a carreer civil servent - most likely hired and vetted under Clinton or Bush I (possibly Reagan). I head he worked for Time Magazine for 20 years but that wasn't confirmed when I heard it.
DKK

DKK-I've seen the Ti... (Below threshold)

DKK-
I've seen the Time magazine reference several times in press coverage.

Which, of course, means that there's a nine out of ten chance he's a Democrat...

Hey, what ever happened to ... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Hey, what ever happened to "It's no big deal -- it's just about sex"?

How refreshing to see Liberals finally talking about family values and high moral standards.

And if they had probed his ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

And if they had probed his sex life during the background check, what do you think the reaction from the left would be? Those evil right-wing puritans are imposing their morals on everyone.

If the President had only d... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

If the President had only done more domestic spying, he cold have caught this guy. The Democrats are right as usual.

No wait. They want *less* domestic spying. Nevermind.

My mistake.

Hey, what ever happened ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Hey, what ever happened to "It's no big deal -- it's just about sex"?

How refreshing to see Liberals finally talking about family values and high moral standards.

I hope you're not serious comparing consensual sexual relations between adults to potential child molestation or statutory rape.

No wait. They want *less* domestic spying. Nevermind.

No, we want less illegal spying. Bush can spy as much as he wants as long as its done legally.

God, you repubs are pathetic. Hold your public servants accountable and stop being apologists for everything they do and our gov't will work much better. It always shocks me when conservatives say gov't is the problem, but when they screw up it's someone else's fault. Just like everyithing else in life, you only get out as much as you put in, and right now we've put incompetence, cronyism, dishonesty, corruption, and hunger for power, so that's what we're getting back. If you don't see that, you're willfully ignoring the obvious.

Yeah, I guess they forgot t... (Below threshold)

Yeah, I guess they forgot the whole "are you a pedophile?" question during his vetting.... I'm sure he would have answered yes.

This is funny. For all those people saying that he wasn't vetted well enough - how would they go about nailing a guy who apparently has no record of child molestation or being suspected of being a pedophile?

I guess it's one of those "I have a plan" things yet again... "We can do it... eh... better! How? Don't ask us how, we'll do it better!!"

Two Points. First, he was ... (Below threshold)
Ernie:

Two Points. First, he was NOT neither a career public servant nor a political appointee. Before saying he must be one or the other, do your research: THIS GUY WAS A REPORTER FOR TIME MAGAZINE FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND IS ON THE WEB AS BEING CRITICAL OF RONALD REAGAN. He may have embarked on a new career in 2002 when he joined as a flack, but really, he was not part of the greater civil service community.

Second, the others are absolutely right. The current security clearance process, at least for those not involving a polygraph, will not explore an individual's character, beyond looking at public records and asking friends about it. Unless we start requiring applicants to turn over their PC's when they apply, this kind of sick behavior will likely only come out through chance, like it did here.

sean What illegal s... (Below threshold)
virgo:

sean
What illegal spying are you blithering about ! wheres the proof ? what in the hell is your point..
ohh, I see ,more DNC talking points..this guy doyle behaves and acts just like a lib so stick it!

Seixon...I've had 2 ... (Below threshold)
Oh, FTLOG!:

Seixon...
I've had 2 background checks done on me for jobs in the law enforcement field. For each, I took polygraphs. Both times there were questions that referred to sex with a minor or similar perverted activity. A proper "vetting" would have unearthed Doyle's perversion.

I don't think the 2 DHS perverts necessarily taint Bush, but they do add to the Pigpen-like dirt cloud that's surrounding the entire Administration.

Just sayin'.

"Hold your public servan... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"Hold your public servants accountable and stop being apologists for everything they do and our gov't will work much better."

He has been arrested and is being held accountable, the thread topic is regarding all the leftwing assertions that this should have been caught with proper "vetting". So the question, sean, is do you think the government should investigate the sexual practices of potential hirees? If Doyle had no prior arrest record, what type of interview process would you recommend to detect sexual perversions ahead of time?

I suppose if he showed up a... (Below threshold)
Tim:

I suppose if he showed up at a Burger King to actually meet the girl, a la Scott Ritter, that would have been OK.

a) Lie detector tests are n... (Below threshold)

a) Lie detector tests are not all that accurate. They are more effective at intimidating folks than actually uncovering secrets not suspected.
b) While Clinton's transgressions were with an "adult," the person was an employee, a "student" of sorts as an intern. His position of authority was abused for his own personal gratification. Then he lied about it. The combination of abuse of power with mendacity under oath were the whole point of going after him (after the gratuitous politics). [Way different than this fellow who simply abused his "power" as an adult over someone he envisioned as a minor. As far as I know he hasn't lied under oath, and he didn't use government property or time for his transgression.] Not that any of those aspects lessen the criminality of the DHS official, but to argue that Clinton was "not guilty of anything serious" is wrong. Had the incidents not been made public, he would have been seriously compromised to blackmail by national or international enemies, just as the DHS official would have been. Both are security risk individuals and do not belong in sensitive positions. Clinton supporters that fail to acknowledge this are lying to themselves.
c) Doyle had no prior history. Clinton had a string of prior accusers, yet the Democratic electorate failed to vet him. So for the moonbats congratulating Bush for the improper vetting of Doyle, they must also congratulate themselves on failing to vet Clinton.

Seixon,I've been the... (Below threshold)
Oh, FTLOG!:

Seixon,
I've been the subject of background checks twice for jobs in law enforcement. Each time I had to take a polygraph and during each polygraph I was asked about sex with a minor or other such proclivities. If Doyle had been vetted properly, chances are his perversions would have come to light.

I don't believe these 2 DHS perverts are Bush's fault, but I do believe these latest incidents certainly add to the Pigpen-like dirt cloud that's been surounding this administration for some time.

Who ever said this -*wasn't... (Below threshold)

Who ever said this -*wasn't*- part of the "process." We don't have all the details of the investigation. Perhaps someone at DHS became suspicious, and got a sting setup. They caught him, busted him, and have made it public. Isn't that -*precisely*- what you would want them to do?

I could see complaining if they caught a DHS head staffer, at random, and then let him go. They DIDN'T let him go. He's busted, and he's going to face justice just as any other perv will.

Do I think he should be punished? HELL YES! Are we making excuses for his behavior? HELL NO! There is NO excuse for being a pedophile, and no legal punishment harsh enough.

And a point or two about sp... (Below threshold)

And a point or two about spying. Spying on other countries is usually illegal in those countries. So should we stop that spying too? Are we international criminals because we do? Does the excuse "everyone else is doing it" justify it? Or do we justify it on the basis of self-preservation?

There is argument about whether some of the domestic intelligence activities are legal in this country or not. As the debate continues, and there seem to be valid arguments on both sides, to ignore the last question completely could be suicidal.

What illegal spying are ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

What illegal spying are you blithering about ! wheres the proof ?

you've got to be kidding about "what illegal spying". the proof is that Bush has admitted to going around FISA when everything in the public record points to the fact that electronic surveillence between a foreign entity and a US citizen on US soil is covered by FISA, and nothing has shown this is any different. where's your proof that everything the prez did was okey-dokey? All you've got is his word (which is worth squat) and pathetic legal justifications that AG Gonzalez lied about to the judiciary commitee.

Bmoe, you're right that I got off topic. I was just venting. There is little the vetting process can do to catch this and this person is being held accountable.
I apologize that I am angry at the state of our gov't and politcal discourse.

Whats to say He did,nt aqu... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Whats to say He did,nt aquire this deviant behavior after He was vetted, after all we all dont assume Slick Willy was always a sexual predator now do we , or do we ?

Yeah this is not like the catholic preist molesters where the higher ups covered it up or something ! they busted the guy. and FTLOG this has nothing more to do with Bush than Carville had to do with hiding a certain Blue stained Dress.

Sean When i see y... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Sean

When i see you liberal types start parading around actual victims that have been spied on and damaged in some way.. than you may have some violations to speak of.. at this point you have ZERO................

Virgo - it's illegal, botto... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Virgo - it's illegal, bottom line. Let's all put a stop to it - we don't need to wait for possible/probable victims. Just get a warrant and do it legally. Really, it's not too much to ask for.

All you've got is his wo... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

All you've got is his word (which is worth squat) and pathetic legal justifications that AG Gonzalez lied about to the judiciary commitee.

Sean has cracked the case. I would love to see the smoking gun on this. Good work, Sean! It looks like you have the President dead to rights!

Of course, if your main evidence is "everyone knows this is illegal adn Gonzalez lied," then you may not have as rock solid a case as you think.

virgo,I'll try a met... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

virgo,
I'll try a metaphor to counter your victim request. A peeping tom spies on women. They never know he spied on them. One day, a friend of the peeping tom tells everyone about his activities and the tom admits it, but no one knows who the women are. By your reasoning, the man did nothing wrong since the victims don't know about it.

And Steve, yes the case is that simple. That's why this whole situation astounds me. The law says to do one thing, and you do another, you break the law. QED.

The lying by Gonzalez in his testimony just proves they're on extremely weak legal ground and have to lie to justify it. And the efforts to make a law to make the program legal are pointless. The prez said he can ignore the law if he says it's in the name of national security. That is blatantly contrary to how our gov't works.

And now we've found out that the prez may have authorized the leak of classified info without going through the proper declassification channels, which may not be illegal since the prez determines the declassification procedure, but it sure as hell is unethical to declassify it and not even inform the original agency. What does it take for you to stop defending the prez's actions? a bad SCOTUS nominee and the dubai ports hullabaloo so far has raised the most objection from the rubber-stamp repubs. absolutely atrocious.

Of course, if your main ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Of course, if your main evidence is "everyone knows this is illegal adn Gonzalez lied," then you may not have as rock solid a case as you think.

Steve, it's a matter of faith for jp2 and sean. No amount of reason will change their minds, not even when the FISA judges, albeit grudglingly, acknowledged that the program is in all probability legal. The word of an inexpert New Yor Times reporter is enough for them, revealed truth from on high. Facts need not apply.

Sean,Aside from pr... (Below threshold)

Sean,

Aside from providing you a copy of the Constitution and highlighting the powers afforded to the Executive branch, I can only offer this to your accusation that Bush's wire-tapping of people in the United States who communicate with terror suspects outside the country:

Washington Times: FISA judges say Bush within law
(http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm)

Of course, you're the legal scholar here so please tell us of what the FISA judges and the DoJ are ignorant.

Hey Sean the Moralizer , i... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Hey Sean the Moralizer , i told you the guy had more in common with B. Clinton than G.Bush as it turns out Hes a dem ,too bad
as For Carter setting up the FISA court , it does not infringe on any future presidents powers as given by the constitution.. in other words a president cannot forfeit a future presidents powers by an act He decides while He is pres,. Bush does not have to run to a court in order to intercept terrorist communications....period

Hmmm.I'll... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

I'll try a metaphor to counter your victim request.

Frankly there are extremely few metaphors worth the paper they're not written on.

Oh and if we're going into ... (Below threshold)

Oh and if we're going into this legal/illegal thing, I sure hope sean hasn't ever ripped a tag off a mattress or pillow.

I'm glad to see you're all ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

I'm glad to see you're all patting each other on the back, but I think you're getting ahead of yourselves. The Washington Times article is pretty much refuted here:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-fisa-judges-really-said.html

Citing a openly conservative paper to support Republican activities is nothing to brag about. This post is also openly partisan and written by a lawyer, so it has just as much merit and it cites multiple quotes from judges to support their point of view, instead of just one as the w times does.

There is a disagreement on its legality, I do concede that. But from the evidence I've seen and the legal arguments that have been made, I think it's illegal. Until an investigation is done or the admin can come up with a justification and not lie while they do it, it will be hard to change my mind.

And jcrue, I've read the Constitution several times now when discussing this subject in other posts. Do yourself a favor and read Art I sec 8: (ed has seen this several times now)
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
This is Congress's authority to create FISA for the proper execution of presidential powers.

virgo, I never claimed anyone was more like Bush or Clinton. If you go back a few posts I admit I got off on a tangent, namely the one we're discussing now. What this guy did is wrong, plain and simple, dem or repub. Now if only repubs could admit the same about members of their own party. and sorry, but yes the prez does have to go to a court to surveil terrorists if one end of that communication is a US citizen on US soil. That's the law! and going around that law is unnecessary, arguably illegal, and potentially worse for national security because now all terrorist cases can bring up the defense that the evidence brought against them was obtained illegally.

ed, you're right about the metaphors, but they can concisely describe a situation and show the absurdity of one's position.

finally, epador, i've done worse than rip a tag off a mattress. But none have damaged national security or had the potential to completely alter how our gov't functions. oh and I almost forgot, jersey sucks!

Sean Now weve found... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Sean
Now weve found that the prez "may " have authorized declassification without notifying the original agency may be unethical.. what ?do you work for CNN or something because it sure sounds like the same broken record story over and over trying to replay and reshape reality to fit the script ,or whatever that days action line happens to be..

How can he be a "Career Civ... (Below threshold)
Kuni:

How can he be a "Career Civil Servant" if he started with the TSA in 2002?

And it's not about his 'Party Affiliation'; it's about how he got his 'Security Clearance' so easily.

All they had to do was talk to his last civilian employer to get details about his Porn Surfing at work and why he left them.

I don't know why I'm having... (Below threshold)

I don't know why I'm having trouble with Wizbangs' trackbacks, but my post is here

Sean,

Glen Greenwald? BWHAHAHAH! Thanks for the giggles this morning.

FTLOG

Doyle was a press secretary. Not exactly the "I'm carrying a gun and I can arrest people" type position that MAY include a polygraph test in order for a clearance.

I worked at Hughes Aircraft, Ground Systems in the late 70's, my ex worked on the stealth bomber project at Northrop in the mid 80's, I currently work at a courthouse.

Not ONCE in all the background, security clearances I or my family has been through has it included a polygraph. Oh, it was an option the employer reserved if they had suspicions, but it was a regular feature.

It is unreliable and not admissible in court, even as police agencies use it as an investigative screening device (they are more interested in whether someone agrees to take it rather than the results).

Sean,"Citing a ope... (Below threshold)
Tim from Chi-town:

Sean,

"Citing a openly conservative paper to support Republican activities is nothing to brag about. This post is also openly partisan and written by a lawyer, so it has just as much merit and it cites multiple quotes from judges to support their point of view, instead of just one as the w times does."

Just clarify one thing for me.... When libs cite the NY Times (a blatantly liberal paper) to support a democratic position, does this carry inherently more merit than Cons citing the W Times?

Considering that I'm 20 yea... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Considering that I'm 20 years old and 16 year old girls are only 4 years younger than me, I don't see it as child porn, I'm sorry.

Just because stupid American laws say child porn is wrong doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.

ewww.... (Below threshold)
Matt:

ewww.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy