home

Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A Prior Incident Surfaces

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:53:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Brian Doyle, charged last week in an Internet underage sex sting, has resigned. HSA Chief Michael Chertoff's reaction to Doyle's alleged crimes sounds like a shrug of the shoulders and "Sh*t happens."

"From time to time, there will be instances when misconduct occurs," Chertoff said,

And catch this. Chertoff says:

"We try to weed out those who pose a security risk," Chertoff said in a briefing with reporters. "I don't know ... that background checks with people hired will predict future behavior."

Yet, now it turns out this wasn't Doyle's first time getting caught:

A source told CBSNews.com that while working at Time magazine's Washington bureau, managers discovered that Doyle had been looking at pornography on a receptionist's computer late at night. He admitted to the incident, was reprimanded, and was asked to give a formal apology to staffers, the source said.

So a background check couldn't have found a formal reprimand by Time Magazine?

"If there was an incident at Time magazine, Homeland Security above all should have found it," [Congressman Peter] King told the Washington Post. "Homeland Security is our last line of defense, and to be taken seriously, you have to have very, very strict security standards."

Update: Christy at Firedoglake adds her excellent analysis.

< Why Reid Was Right to Doom Immigration Compromise | Libby's Lawyer Reacts to Fitz Filing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A Prior Incident Surfaces | 35 comments (35 topical)
    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    Looking at porn on a work computer, while actionable misconduct, certainly doesn't rise to the level of the offense he is now charged with. This statement:
    Yet, now it turns out this wasn't Doyle's first time getting caught:
    seems to indicate you feel there is some equality. Now if he was your client, I'd bet money you'd scoff at anyone who drew that conclusion.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    I just feel so secure knowing Chertoff is on the case. We want him on that wall. We need him on that wall. What a putz. The dork's whole claim to fame is hasslin' Hillary and her staff. He didn't get anything, but he hassled her and that's why the Gulf Coast is mostly a memory over 7 months later.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:03:30 PM EST
    Patrick, I don't presume him guilty of the current charge. He acknowledged and apologized for the prior which involved pornography on a computer. He is now accused of sending porn to the fake 14 year old. My point is that Chertoff says a background check wouldn't predict future indications of involvement with porn when it was right there in his Time employment file.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:11:17 PM EST
    I think the fact concerning the age of the intended victim seperates this from the prior porn incident. Do we have more details on that such as site visited, correspondence and other factors? It's tough to avoid presuming his guilt on the current charge due to the evidence and circumstances that are public. I don't see the equivalence of adult content inappropriately accessed from work and preying on a (presumed) 14 year old.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#5)
    by joejoejoe on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:20:08 AM EST
    My point is that Chertoff says a background check wouldn't predict future indications of involvement with porn when it was right there in his Time employment file.
    Are your complete past employment file part of a background check? If it was an internal reprimand of Doyle by Time how would DHS ever know? I don't think background checks go that deep for all but SCOTUS and VP.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:01:16 AM EST
    It's useful to remember that men are rather disgusting when it comes to sex. If isolated incidents of inappropriate porn viewing are going to keep people out of important positions, the country will have to be run by women. Plus, many businesses are skittish about providing or even discussing ex-employees' records for fear of being sued. Unless the background check was accompanied by a court order (it might, I have no idea) I'd be mildly surprised if it turned up the prior incident.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#7)
    by rdandrea on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:31:01 AM EST
    It depends on the background check. If Doyle held a security clearance, the background investigation would have been far more extensive than the typical background check that most employers require. The investigation would certainly have discovered the prior reprimand. Investigations for a security clearance have access to records that most companies don't disclose in a pre-employment check. If you want the clearance, you'll waive the right to keep those records confidential and you do when you sign the application. They also interview EVERYBODY: past employers and co-workers, friends, relatives, old neighbors, etc. It's pretty intimidating. If Doyle concealed the reprimand on his application form or in interviews with the investigator, that's a double whammy. If you tend to lie or conceal stuff, you're embarrassed by it; if you're embarrassed by it you might be blackmailed; if you can be blackmailed you might get short of money and be bought; and if you can be bought, you're a security risk. That's pretty much one of the bases for clearance investigations. Drugs, gambling, blackmail, any problems in the past that might cause someone to require large sums of money. But that all depends on whether he held a clearance.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:34:31 AM EST
    I myself would never fall for that kind of bait; but some do. I think the entrapment issue plays a certain tune, although I doubt it will save him completely.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:47:21 AM EST
    I disagree. I don't think the point is whether Doyle held a clearance or not. That's the point. There's no freakin' way he should have held a clearance in the first place. That just underscores the total incompetence and corruption of this administration. This guy is just another poster child for the bush administration and a reflection on Chertoff and Bush's "judgement and leadership."

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:47:47 AM EST
    I agree Patrick. That sentence is misleading. My immediate impression was that he was busted (caught) for doing the same thing. This guy obviously has some mental problems (big wow in the USA). But he is the exception. DHS should spend their Christmas party money on improving their vetting process.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:53:08 AM EST
    while working at Time magazine's Washington bureau, managers discovered that Doyle had been looking at pornography on a receptionist's computer late at night.
    Doyle was trying to get caught. He wanted to be stopped, though he probably wouldn't admit it.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:29:23 AM EST
    while working at Time magazine's Washington bureau, managers discovered that Doyle had been looking at pornography on a receptionist's computer late at night. ------- Doyle was trying to get caught. He wanted to be stopped, though he probably wouldn't admit it.
    It might be that he was using another employee's computer to avoid getting busted himself. Or, more darkly, attempting to sabotage someone else's career.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:34:36 AM EST
    That could be, rumi. It just seems to me that he left too much an obvious trail. The receptionist was likely never in the office at night, and security probably had a record of who was. They do in most government offices, or office towers, that I've ever worked in.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    edger- I'm not sure what to think anymore on this one. Doyle has confessed to the recent charge and there's a lot of mystery/nondisclosure of the events at Time. It was mentioned that his fellow employees created and signed a petition on his behalf when that happened. He retired shortly after but not confirmation of a connection. Time employees and mgmt were interviewed on his background check but I guess the event wasn't mentioned? He left Time in 2001, was hired at TSA in 2002 and the BC wasn't done until 2005-2005? TSA, DHS Spokesman Doyle's Past Porn Problems

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:23:10 AM EST
    Rumi, Yeah, it's a weird one alright. Doyle was dumb(?) enough to give someone he thought was a 14 year old he met in an AOL chat room his real name. Then he uses a receptionists computer in his office at night to look at porn? He probably had to either sign into the building or card swipe his way in. There would be a record of who's in, and by extension who's not (the receptionist). There is a time of last access stamp on every file in your computer. On some unconcious level was he trying to get caught?

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#16)
    by rdandrea on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    Charliedontsurf, you said "I don't think the point is whether Doyle held a clearance or not." I raised the issue of the clearance only because earlier posters questioned the thoroughness of the background check and whether Time would have disclosed Doyle's reprimand. If he held a clearance, he would have received QUITE a thorough background check. So thorough, in fact, that it's hard to imagine they wouldn't have uncovered the Time incident. That's the only thing a clearance has to do with it.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:33:58 AM EST
    This comes from the article linked in an above comment of mine
    Doyle was hired by the TSA in 2002. He apparently wasn't investigated for a security clearance until 2004 and 2005. The Office of Personnel Management, which conducted the background checks, granted him Secret and Top Secret clearances respectively. Time spokesman Ty Trippet told the Post that Doyle took a voluntary retirement deal in 2001, after working for Time since 1975. The Post reports that co-workers said that Doyle got in trouble in 2001 over porn downloads that began by 1999 and continued until he was caught. Office of Personnel Management investigators did interview Doyle's supervisors and peers at Time, but will not say if they found out about Doyle's 2001 troubles and cleared him anyway -- or if they didn't find out at all.
    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:35:00 AM EST
    I gotta go with Patrick on this one, connecting porn with pedophilia is as much a stetch as homosexuality and pedophilia. I gotta problem with this statement tho:
    "I don't know ... that background checks with people hired will predict future behavior."
    Then why perfom them? And describing propositioning a 14 year old as a 'misstep!? ' Stumbling on a curb is a misstep; his act was closer to a defenestratation.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    grrr... all 3 paragraphs in comment above are attributed to the linked article.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    It might be that he was using another employee's computer to avoid getting busted himself. Or, more darkly, attempting to sabotage someone else's career.
    Hell, you want dark? Receptionists tend to be young girls and they tend to sit out in the open. He was probably stimulated by spanking it in her seat.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    He was probably stimulated by spanking it in her seat. Using her computer was maybe some twisted way of exposing himself to her?

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    kayokayo You win! That definitely outdarked my my timid speculation. That's a visual I could do without though. That article I found sounds like many oh his 'peers' were behind him,...oops, rather, in support but it also sounds like a long term, progressively worsening problem he had.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    I thought this was a defense attorney's site. Where's a defense of the guy? Yuk yuk. Just bustin' your bowls, J. I certainly understand the gyst of this post -- which is political rather than criminal -- but let's hear you defend this guy. I'd be curious how you'd strategize with this kind of client. Though it may not be the kind of case you take.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    Or, it was late, no one was in the office, and he looked at some porn. Big Deal. That doesn't bother me, seducing 14 year olds does. I agree that looking at some adult porn and attempting to seduce 14 year olds aren't in the same league, it ain't even the same sport. I don't see what one has to do with other, except adding to the creepiness factor. I don't think a one time mistake of looking at porn on a work computer should ban you from government employment for life. Chronic porn viewing at work would be a different story.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    Hasn't he already confessed? If so, it makes establishing a credible defense a bit more challenging.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:07:46 AM EST
    Dadler, I did lay out possible defenses for him here.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    defending this guy, a few comments from Zaitzeff the unconvicted "pedophile." Some of the charges are that he sent the 14 y o pretend girl hard core pornography. My question right now is whether or not the pretended girl requested it or he volunteered it. Given the reports in the news media, his conduct looks bad. There are times in which a person is doing what is morally right, but which is illegal, and in some of those cases, an innocent plea is appropriate, even if, factually one is guilty. See William Penn in 1670 and Sophie Scholl in Nazi Germany. However, we have what I assume would be morally bad conduct and illegal behavior, in which case, I would guess that the solution is to plead guilty. There is no defense that needs to be made.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#28)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    Viewing adult porn at work and on someone else's computer is definately displaying risky behavior -

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    I love it. Let's play let's focus on everything BUT what's important here. Clearly, Doyle got nailed when he was at Time, and got a lawyer to work out a favorable "no admission of guilt retirement settlement" where Time agrees to give him a favorable job reference. Or, at the very least, they agree to not give him an unfavorable job reference. And, as it happens, the Bush administration being the bush administration, saying you hate Hillary is probably good enough. After that, it's all gravy. Morals, shmorals - competence, shmompetence. To speculate whether Doyle using a co-worker's computer to download porn at Time was a cry for help and an attempt to get caught is just that - speculative. It's also, for purposes of this discussion, irrelevant. The issue was, is, and shall remain the incompetence and poor judgement of shrub and the people he hires. Specifically, Chertoff at homeland security and his hiring of Doyle. This is not only a pattern of behavior on Doyle's part. It's a pattern of behavior on Chertoff's part and ULTIMATELY, A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR ON SHRUB'S PART. THE FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    That's an "incident". Pleeeeaz! Not that he shouldn't have his ticket to the big game pulled for the more recent "incident".

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:00:27 AM EST
    Patrick, I don't presume him guilty of the current charge. He acknowledged and apologized for the prior which involved pornography on a computer. He is now accused of sending porn to the fake 14 year old. My point is that Chertoff says a background check wouldn't predict future indications of involvement with porn when it was right there in his Time employment file.
    sorry TL, this doesn't come anywhere close to comparability, by any stretch of any imagination. the time incident broke no law, unless you left out something. it was strictly a company policy, period. if viewing porn on the company pc and nickel were a viable method of behavioural predictability, than 3/4's of all adult males who use pc's at work should probably be locked up now, for society's safety. i assume you're not advocating that. further destroying your lame presumptive is the empirically supported fact that only a teensy, weensy % of all adult males are pedophiles. so much for predictability. i might add, you provide no factual support for your claim, we're expected to take it at face value. where's the data proving your assertion? one instance does not a database make. shame on you! we already have the inept major media providing nonsensical pablum, we expect far better from you. yeah, the guy's a scumbag, but the d/l of porn at time has zilch to do with it.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:15:12 AM EST
    What is most interesting about cases like these is how so many fill in the blanks. It is true in this thread as well as the one where TL suggested possible defenses. What does it mean to fill in the blanks? Look in the mirror. But the news reported... FoxNew is fill-in-the-blanks elite. Has anyone asked if some defense lawyers intentionally lose big cases before the district appellant courts or the USSC? It would not be a surprise. It happend in 1927 with the Buck v. Bell case, and we live in the same climate today. The only difference is that mostly men rather than women are the degenerates. 15 years when no child was harmed at all is far too long. There really isn't a victim in this case any more than there is when undercovers sell bogus "crack" to buyers. At least one man got his 3rd strike that way: 25-to-life for buying a macadamia nut.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:51:16 AM EST
    Posted by Dan April 8, 2006 06:55 PM
    That's an "incident". Pleeeeaz! Not that he shouldn't have his ticket to the big game pulled for the more recent "incident".
    Yeah, reminds me of an incident we're coming up on the 20th anniversary of. Chernobyl. Clearly, that's had no long-term effects either.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:58:58 AM EST
    The question remains, why does the nitwit who hired the nitwit who hired Doyle still have his job? He's the one who's clearly unqualified and had a lifetime of incidents "hushed up by Daddy" that clearly disqualified him for Government Work in the first place.

    Re: Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:07:08 AM EST
    Posted by ProzacNation April 9, 2006 05:15 AM With plans afoot to nuke Iran and the come-hell-or-high-water-the-fuhrer-can-do-know-wrong-shrub-shillin'-33 percent lunatic fringe to count on, are ya sure ya haven't evolved into ThorazineNation at the very least?

    Brian Doyle Resigns Over Internet Sex Sting, A Prior Incident Surfaces | 35 comments (35 topical)