Meet Derek Truitt (a.k.a. Brodie Sinclair)—The Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Gawker Used To Out David Geithner

Posted July 17, 2015 by with 163 comments


Yesterday, Gawker published a story that effectively outed Condé Nast CFO David Geithner—who’s married to a woman and has three children—after he allegedly attempted to hire a gay porn star escort (pictured above) for $2,500. Geithner (the brother of former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner) is a high profile public figure, which undoubtedly figured into Gawker’s justification for outing him—not that they were justified!

Since Gawker published the story, the pitchfork wielders and Twitter outrage has been relentless, with many calling for a boycott of Gawker and its advertisers due to their seemingly senseless outing of an obviously closeted family man who wasn’t really hurting anyone (except for his wife and maybe his kids?). But regardless of how you feel about outing a public figure who’s attempting to break the law, the bigger and more important question for Gawker might be this: What the fuck were they doing using a batshit insane conspiracy theorist as the sole source and entire catalyst for their story?


As Str8UpGayPorn commenters swiftly pointed out last night via photo comparisons, the gay porn star escort—whose identity was being protected by Gawker—is none other than Brodie Sinclair (whose real name is Derek Truitt). And Brodie Sinclair, it so happens, is an absolute nut with a Facebook page that might make Alex Jones blush. The even nuttier part? Gawker acknowledges having looked at Sinclair’s Facebook page, which means they saw all of his insanity and still trusted him with his Geithner story anyway.

Meet Brodie Sinclair/Derek Truitt (who goes by Leif Derek Truitt on his Facebook), Gawker’s source in outing the CFO of Condé Nast:

obamaI guess even hookers who believe that Obama is Satan can be reliable sources for Gawker?

Here’s something about planes being shot down (of course):


Obviously, the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina was signaling the upcoming Russian invasion, or something:

charlestonAnyone still wondering why Gawker didn’t want to identify Brodie Sinclair/Derek Truitt as their source?


Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 9.41.44 PM

Oh, and despite being a gay porn star escort who has sex with men, Brodie Sinclair/Derek Truitt is not a fan of your Satanic gay marriage:

Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 9.44.03 PM

Could Derek Truitt believe all of these insane things and still be telling the truth about David Geithner? Maybe. Should Gawker be humiliated that someone as unhinged and obviously mentally ill as this is their one and only source for a story involving the highly controversial practice of outing a closeted man (who happens to work for one of their competitors)? Definitely.

Finally, here’s a fun video from Gawker’s source about how Obama is the son of the devil.

[Facebook: Derek Truitt]


In case you need a reminder of Brodie Sinclair’s gay porn, here he is getting fucked by Phenix Saint a few years ago on CockyBoys, which was obviously a false flag operation meant to distract you from the truth (Str8UpGayPorn is owned by Vladimir Putin).

[CockyBoys: Phenix Saint Fucks Brodie Sinclair]

  • Mimi Bahl

    This bubba has serious sociopathic challenges and possibly dissociative identity disorder. Axis 1, 2, & 3 or more… lol

    I’m thinking Geithner figured out through a few communications that Leif wasn’t wrapped tight & cancelled without asking for some of the funds to be returned.

    • n24rc

      Or he looked at his facebook profile, from doing a google search on his cellphone.

      • Pascal

        I can’t understand why he didn’t do that before trying to hire the unhinged lunatic g4p for sex though: being closeted, he could still have known from the Burns case that you can stalk porn stars pretty easily through social media.

        Why not check whom you’re going to ask to pound you for cash in a couple of weeks?

        • beariac

          Sometimes the little head thinks before the big head.

          • Pascal

            Yeah I get that but he’s the CFO of a big media corporation so you’d expect him to do due diligence and check out the credentials of the nut job he was hiring well in advance.

            I get how my little head can get me into trouble in a spur of a moment thing but when booking g4p sex 10 days in advance???

          • beariac

            My guess, for that’s all it can be, is that the big head took a while to catch up. It’s also possible that DG initially assumed that because BS had worked for a major studio, had positive hooking reviews and been around for a while that he’d be ‘OK’. Not everyone reads porn blogs to know that there are whackos out there, and the facebook stuff was posted under his real name. DG might well not even have heard about DB’s recent troubles.

        • Mimi Bahl

          Sometimes the cock leads us to do things based on impulsive cumfarts.

  • Todd

    To paraphrase Motormouth Maybelle from ‘Hairspray’ “Whomp Bomp A Louie, We Got Us A Loony” …..

  • n24rc

    Well, undeniable proof that G4P is a bad thing – hiring nutsos like this isn’t a good idea.

    I love the two ratchet women fighting over this douche. Just goes to show you how pathetic they can be getting attached to someone who is completely unhinged. Now you know why these guys know which side of their bread is buttered, and refuse to either identify as gay or bi. They have some desperate females after them. Then again, I see some gofundme page and some of the amazon lists – it can’t all be women; some self-loathing fags too. So maybe they play the fence for the reasons that they are incapable losers in life…and need people to support them.

  • robirob

    David Geithner has a questionable taste in escorts. Usually you pay a hustler to be professional (which includes discretion). With a social network presence like Truitt’s this is not a given (and a closet case who wants to remain in the closet really does his research before he takes action). So, either Geithner was not aware or chose Truitt, on a subconscious level, to be outed.

  • Nickolas

    Hot psycho is hot. I’d let him read bible verses while he pounded me. #FOMO

    • Mimi Bahl

      Yea wouldn’t feel much cuz he’s on the average size. His claims of thickness only refer to the head atop his body.

  • Mike Julius
  • croadster

    This post confirms it. 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 wreckless about this particular case.

    • Zachary Sire


    • Mike Julius

      Hope you don’t mind me running with it.


      They probably did run with the story solely based on that fact but Truitt probably knew they were competitors and contacted them and he has real evidence against the guy

    • Myko

      This story just keeps on giving.
      The Gawker founder and CEO is a KUNT !

    • loyalty888

      Well…that completely backfired…

    • n24rc

      I don’t give a shit with the conspiracy. It’s not like Conde Nast’s stock is going to drop from this, or that they will force him out because of the bad PR. They pretty much will stonewall this until people have moved on and find something else to talk about…maybe Kim Kardashian’s ass implants will leak instead of a ticked off gay whore.

  • Myko

    The more I read about Brodie the more I go and check my windows and doors are locked.

    He is seriously fucked up or extremely intelligent .. He works out a plan how to get $2500 out of a guy and not even have to lay a finger on him. WOW thats clever shit !

    Anyone want to fedex me $2500 ?? I promise I wont mention it to anyone.

    Watching that Cockyboys clip …. he was a rubbish porn performer.

    Its not good for the hooker industry either.

  • andrew

    Hopefully the Secret Service has this nut on their watch list. Gawker should be deeply ashamed of themselves for using this nut case as a source for anything.

  • Laws

    I completely agree with this entire article. Now someone tell me how Zach’s actions were any different.

    • Zachary Sire


      • Laws

        You seem like a smart guy and I’m actually being sincere. How is this different from the guy you outed?

    • Mike Julius

      How? His actions are justified whereas Truitt’s actions are not. Truitt exposed this guy for personal reasons while insisting his identity be shielded. His hypocrisy (anti-gay while hooking on gay sites, anti-democrat while he and gawker skipped that completely) should be exposed on principle alone.

      Clear enough?

      • Laws

        I’m comparing Zach to Jordan Sargent, not Truitt.

        • Mike Julius

          Convenient then that I included the author in my reply: “…His hypocrisy (… anti-democrat while he and gawker skipped that completely)”

          • Laws

            I think there’s still misunderstandings about what we’re both trying to say, but I’m not really invested enough to debate it.

          • Mike Julius



      Truitt is the escort. His job is to protect his client. However, in his looney fantasy world he didn’t and was just using him. He’s a hypocrite for being a gay escort but being anti-gay. So he was in the wrong.

      Geithner was being unfaithful to his wife and kids. So he was in the wrong.

      Zach is merely covering what’s already out there. Not saying Geithner deserves what happened but both now will face consequences for their actions.

      • Laws

        Zach is crucifying Gawker for outing a professional rival. It’s not an identical situation, but it seems hypocritical.


          I understand your point now. One can’t entirely blame Gawker since it is a juicy story and the not-gay-but-has-gay-sex escort has real evidence, so they can’t blow that off as a false story.

          • beariac

            Reputable journalists verify their first source with another before publishing and don’t (under normal circumstances) give coverage to the batshit crazy. Gawker are vindictive cunts deserving of boycott.


            Well they did say that they called the number given to them by Truitt and the person who answered identified himself as Geithner and they cross referenced the address on the package which also linked back to Geithner and Geithner even texted a picture of himself. So they did verify the facts

          • beariac

            Point, I forgot about that. It still doesn’t excuse their motivation imo.

      • Diogenes Veritas

        this may be semantics but truitt is hardly an escort. he’s basically a street hustler who wouldn’t know a code of professional ethics if it came up and bitch slapped him in the face.

    • Caleb Exhem

      Um ….. Who?

    • slipperyslope

      If you mean: how is it different that Gawker ran a decidedly biased story exposing only ONE person involved in this transaction (whose only real crime seemed to be picking a mentally unstable escort with no sense of discretion) and this blog exposing said mentally unstable escort so that people in the future can avoid doing business with said mentally unstable escort— I don’t know if I have enough time or patience for that.

    • CK

      David is a hot younger guy with a family while Donald Burns is a rich old man with none and republic friends? There’s a lot of grandstanding when we were, you know, a week or two ago lighting burns up at the pyre. Yes, Burns has more money, but who here can say they knew who Burns was before the first “Why is Ashton standing next to this other famous guy’s brother”? I’m also pretty sure, that the site outed his identity in the Brank extortion trial well before the judge ordered it. Why are you surprised that a bunch of gay men are sympathetic to the hot younger guy?

    • Dazzer

      Gawker’s Jordan Sargent and all his editors colluded with a potentially mentally unhinged individual to extort favours from a man from a man who may or may not be gay and has never gone on record attacking gay men.

      Gawker trashed the married man’s public life.

      Zachary Sire (and several truly excellent commentators) turned the light onto Gawker’s ‘source’ and discovered that he has ‘problems’ .

      This is called good journalism.

      It’s called that because it doesn’t take a story at face value.

      I keep on having problems with you Laws because you don;t seem to understand the meaning of the words ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ when it comes to journalism.

      I’ve done this before, but I’ll repeat it just for you. The simple rule is: An ethical man knows that it’s wrong to sleep with another man’s wife. A moral man doesn’t sleep with another man’s wife.

      Gawker’s story was ethical insofar as a man was contemplating cheating on his wife (allegedly).

      But it’s not particularly ethical.

      The man didn’t cheat on his wife. And Gawker does not have any kind of record of running stories about men who allegedly contemplated cheating on their wives but didn’t.

      In news stories and ethical fables, you’d be surprised at how few stories are run on ‘Man didn’t cheat on his wife’. Even Reader’s Digest doesn’t run those stories.

      To be honest, there are only two American writers who could make those stories fly: O Henry and Garrison Keillor. And they both deal with fiction.

      In this instance, the estimable Sire stuck to his professional ethics.

      Where Gawker deliberately ignored the quality of their ‘source’, Zachary Sire (thanks to so many excellent commentators here) turned a searchlight on the person who leaked the source. And Brodie Sinclair is shady by anyone’s metric.

      Sire adopted an ethical standard. Gawker didn’t.

      Let’s get onto the more difficult concept of ‘morality ‘ here.

      Gawker’s journalistic morals in this case were reprehensible, they were disgusting, and they served precisely no concept of ‘right-to-know’. David Geidner may or may not be bi or gay, but he’s never attacked other people for their sexual orientation. There is no reason for this story to have been published.

      When Sire published this post, it served a pubic interest because it allowed people to know the nature of Gawker’s source and Geidner’s accuser. That’s called grown-up journalism.

      When harm was one to someone, Sire’s automatic response was to examine where most harm was done and why it was done and to report on it. Gawker didn’t do that. It just set out to harm a relatively innocent man.

      The morality of Gawker stinks. The editorial policy of survives both the ethical and moral sniff test.

      Oh, and if you’re going to mention the ‘why name him’ argument for Geidner, his name s all over the internet. And if you want to make that argument, your brain is going to be so fucking blown when I tell you about King Edward VIII of England and his relationship with Wallace Simpson.

  • NG212

    Gawker does have a history of trying to undermine or openly criticizing their rivals — Conde Nast, Vice Media, Buzzfeed.

    But I also think Gawker just hires assholes who are willing to publish lowest-common-denominator dirt. I think their thirst for page views and quick turnaround on articles mean that they’ve lost a great deal of editorial judgment, standards, and human empathy. Sleaze is now their specialty.

    • WillG

      They’re in the middle of a lawsuit now that could literally bankrupt them. You’d think they’d be a LITTLE more circumspect while that’s going on.

  • Caleb Exhem

    Lol brodie you take dick in your ass for a living I don’t really think you can just go out and pretend to be crazy just because you don’t like where your life is heading.

    • NG212

      Actually, Brodie is top only when he escorts. And most of his porn scenes were as a (very flaccid) top. He only bottomed at the end of his career.

  • Gazzaq

    Its clear that this guy has mental health issues and I wonder why he still has access to guns this is a tragedy waiting to happen.

    • *NmySkynn70*

      right, very scary, he’s a nut job judging by his posts. I swear, something not favorable is exposed everyday about these men that some of “us” have drooled over . . . .

  • Galaxy_Scribe

    To me it seems especially shitty because his treatment of the escort was pretty damn nice. Fedexed him half upfront, paid all expenses, and was even going to pay his full fee despite canceling plus the 5 star hotel. Way to fuck over a guy who was more or less an ideal customer.

    • NG212

      Agree with everything you said. Plus, David is pretty fuckin’ hot. Probably one of the more attractive johns too. He’s like a unicorn.

    • John

      Agree….the Crazy is real deep in Texas…..what I don’t understand is the people on his FB cheering him on like he was wronged…the followers are scarier than the lead crazy

  • Hunter O’Porn

    Aside from his questionable taste in escorts/porn actors (wouldn’t call him a star) Gawker should have never posted the article. No one should ever be outed regardless of their position. But honestly who cares if the brother of a former cabinet official is on the DL? It’s nothing in the big scheme of things. If this person was a cabinet or high ranking government official I could understand but that should be done in private with the appropriate authorities.

    Also the man got sloppy and or doesn’t know how to cover his tracks online. He should have conducted his business using a pseudonym using a burner email and cellphone number (there’s cheap VoIP). If the guy needed to send money by mail he should have rented a P.O. Box for a month or use some random return address. Electronic transactions should be done using a PayPal/Venmo loaded up with money from gift card credit cards. Pictures should be unique and not posted anywhere else as Google reverse image search will find all. And never cross link your accounts online. I can’t tell you how many porn actors have linked to their real Facebook / Instagram accounts and have posted the same images and information to each.

    As a side note the man is very handsome and I’m sure if he walked into any bar he could pick up almost any man there. I assume he wanted the anonymity of hiring an escort but a lot of good that did him. I’d be willing to bet if he walked into a gay bar out of the way in NYC no one would know who he was.

    • Webslinger

      i would not call 90% of the gay/straight men who are these films “stars”…they are gay porn actors and nothing more…

      I seriously miss the simpler days when watching porn you could reasonably and rightfully assume that these men were gay but the straight man having gay sex has become SUCH a commodity to sell porn today…

      Nowadays gay porn is for anyone with a hot enough body and/or face who is willing to have sex for money and the stream is full of fish…

      • MXD

        God I love this scene

        • Tony161956

          Webslinger, to what “simpler days” are you referring? The days of Rex Chandler, Ryan Idol, Ken Ryker, Brian Maxon, Matt Ramsey, Jeff Stryker,..the list goes on. Straight men, gay for pay hookers doing gay porn has been a so-called vital commodity for decades.

          • Webslinger

            Never a fan of any of these men…the reeked of phoning it in…I had to look up Brian Maxon and Matt Ramsey…however I see your point…yet there were LOTS more GAY MEN (Colton Ford, Chase Hunter, Aiden Shaw, Derek Cameron and now I am tired of typing) who were in porn that what is being showcased now…

          • Colorful Kent

            wouldn’t say vital. It could have survived without them. Still could.

          • La Bambi

            100% correct. Add in the gay-for-pay from Sean Cody (most of them) Corbin Fisher (ditto) and Randy Blue (Chris Rockaway, Reese Rideout etc) and it’s pretty clear the industry yesterday, today and tomorrow has always been built on straight men having sex for money.

      • NG212

        What movie is this from?

      • Lee

        You stole this from another thread.

      • Colorful Kent

        Amen. But they are performers, not actors. Matt Bomer is an actor. They are told they are acting by the producers who recruit them and will say anything to exploit them.

        • Webslinger

          exploit is the key word…

          I see these guys signing away their images to be sites like Sean Cody, Corbin Fisher and there is not five years of work ahead for MANY of them…but their image is not theirs anymore and it can be used again and again…without making any money…

      • Benton Fraser

        From what film did you find these great clips?

    • Scott King

      They are only “stars” in their own heads.

      • Webslinger


  • FooFight

    As a complete aside to the outing scandal…here’s your next mass shooter, folks. I certainly hope the FBI takes notice and gets Brodie out of circulation before he massacres a group of people at his local shopping mall. He desperately needs help.

    • John

      Agree and hope the Secret Service got him in their sights too…

  • n24rc

    I’m just surprised that the CEO of Conde Nast didn’t get better ass, that he had to resort to rentboy dot com for gay sex.

    I mean, if you are a media mogul, you have access to models actors and desperate wannabes that need jobs – just find the hottest one. Or another person of prominence and public life that has the same level of risk of being outed, like an athlete. I mean Michael Sam said there were TONS of gay and bi guys in football.

    • Mimi Bahl

      He probably thought it’d be faster & easier to go the escort route. It’s not an uncommon thing to do even for hot guys. Looks don’t mean that you’ll get someone equally attractive at a bar, etc…

    • OneOfTheManyChris

      If he’s married and has kids then he may be one of the guys who’s paying them to leave after he’s done.

      • slipperyslope

        Exactly! The idea of hiring an escort is DISCRETION! Now these jackasses like Jarek and Derek (I smell another conspiracy brewing…) are ruining everything.

        • n24rc

          Well, if you find another closeted public figure – you’d be ASSURED discretion without the payoff and messiness.

  • Stacy

    Before the sweaty (in a bad way) CB scene wasn’t he the house stud somewhere else, like maybe CollegeDudes or ?

  • bob80

    Anyone who believes in numerology can be dismissed as an imbecile. As for the Geithners, it’s not right to out someone who isn’t publicly homophobic, but I won’t really shed a tear for this family. They are part of the corrupted financial elite that put our society and econmy in a mess.

    • Mimi Bahl

      You may have valid points that I identify with. I do think it’s sad though because his job may be in jeopardy.

      Of course that wasn’t the case for Timothy re: his IRS issues. He got ushered right into the job sins & all. LOL

    • OneOfTheManyChris

      He’s got that weird form of psychosis where you connect random (i.e. lottery draws) numbers to all sorts of important shit.

  • OneOfTheManyChris

    On the plus side, David Geithner will now be besieged with messages from hot guys who want to share. Some of them may even be sane. They may have to be nice to wifey though, she’s probably pretty miserable today and may have some strong opinions.

    • RoFaWh

      I wish we could alter societal norms so it’s understood that many men, no matter how happily opposite-sex married with kids, occasionally get the urge to have sex with another male without it meaning anything other than that his wife, being female, is simply incapable of satisfying those yens. It’s about on a par with someone going to KFC for a chicken dinner because he gets tired of the fried chicken at home. IOW, big deal!

      Between my own experience (which these days includes two married guys on the downlow) and the flood of married guys on the Craigslist m4m ads, the situation is simply too common and too ordinary to warrant any comment.

      A happier society would have hubby say “Wifey, dear, I’ve got the yen again, so I’ll be away tomorrow evening.” With the response “Have fun dear, and don’t forget that I bought you a new box of condoms yesterday; they’re in your top dresser drawer.”

      • dqh257

        It’s not societal norms that caused Geithner to enter into a likely monogamous relationship with a woman, knowing that he had bisexual tendencies that would not and could not be quenched. How about he just be honest about what he wants BEFORE he got married and let his wife make the decision to be with him or not.

        • Tom Scruggs

          How do you know he didn’t?

        • loyalty888

          Yes, because women are generally very open to the fact that the man they’re with might also like dick. When he got married (and even today to an extent) bisexuality wasn’t accepted. If you had any attraction to guys you were gay, no gray area. I don’t condone what he did, but what RoFaWh was getting at was that because of societal norms, Geithner couldn’t be open about his attractions to his wife, family, coworkers for fear of consequences that are too lengthy to list here.

      • a b

        Why should the infidelity of closeted bisexuals become a societal norm? My god, what a shitty post

      • Diogenes Veritas

        how about not getting married in the first place? or how about this? if that was the kind of relationship he wanted to have, maybe he should have married a woman that would support him in his extra-marital activities.

        • La Bambi

          How do you know his wife didn’t support these activities? You know nothing of David’s personal life. It’s possible he has an open marriage or arrangement to have sex with men.

          • Diogenes Veritas

            then i guess he doesn’t have a problem does he?

          • loyalty888

            Just because his wife may have been ok doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem. The problem is that now all his friends/family/co workers who have no business in his personal sex life know and there could be some serious ramifications in his life.

  • Hereweare

    “And Brodie Sinclair, it so happens, is an absolute nut with a Facebook page that might make Alex Jones blush.”
    HaHaHa….Good one, Zach!

  • disqus_9xayOTnP13

    Has no one even thought that maybe the whole thing is a delusion of the accuser? That Geithner never contacted this guy and is a family man with no attraction to men?

    Or if he isn’t, has the internet not only ruined journalism, but also extremely discreet procurers of hot man flesh?

    • OneOfTheManyChris

      I wouldn’t rule out Gawker being to full of shit to figure out a scam, but apparently they were provided with texts from a phone number that had David Geithner on the other end when they called it.

      • disqus_9xayOTnP13

        Just as devils rhetorical advocate, “the” or “a” DG?

        I am just disgusted by the whole thing. I am just getting old. This wouldn’t raise Louella Parsons’ eyebrow let alone make the pape’s

        Thx for the info I didn’t want to add to Gawkers click totals.

    • CK

      Well, Geithner was on the other end of the phone that they called and the return address of the package was that of a house in the Geithner family’s possession. It could be an elaborate plot, but it would involve a lot of photoshoping, there were days of text conversations, research, and I really don’t think Brody is that capable.

      • disqus_9xayOTnP13

        Most mentally ill paranoids are very intelligent, but I don’t think that is the case here.

        Thx for fleshing out the story for me I am not giving any one my clicks for this but Zach.

        Before this did you even know who the guy was let alone his brother was the T-Sec?

        This is such a non news worthy story.

        • CK

          I didn’t, but in all fairness, I doubt most people knew who Donald Burns, and many of the other people involved in these executives getting burned by escorts stories were before it happened.
          Conde Nast isn’t a small company and catching any of their top executive’s with their hand in a cookie jar is pretty newsworthy in the right crowd. He’s the CFO of Conde Nast and in the business/publishing world, that’s big.

          • disqus_9xayOTnP13

            Dead girl/live boy, i wann’a to be equal! =( Dead call boy or girl.

            Let me know when the paramour is dead by the hand of the john and I’ll feign interest then. Till then I don’t need to know.

            Now where is my ostridge feather bustle bow?

  • David Geithner is really hot!

    • NG212

      He really is, and right now, I just want to comfort him.

      • I know right?! Even though I don’t know Geithner as a person, the situation is messed up even for the wifey and kids. I was bored and read some of the angry comments on Twitter directed to @jordansarge. They make me happy and I want to retweet them but I think that would exacerbate the situation and I don’t like the idea of drawing attention to Gawker.

      • James Withers

        In a purely non-sexual way, right? :-)

  • EatingRaoul

    I always found it a bit of a giggle that possibly the worst porn performer in the Universe advertised his RB rate as $700 to $1000 an hour. Definitely a tip-off to the total insanity. Geithner clearly didn’t watch enough porn.

  • CK

    So is this blackmail or not? While I thought it was the former after reading this story, I’ve since mellowed and now it just seems like a case of a jilted escort outing his client. My main reason for that is that Brody went to the press before making any threats (if he made any at all) and his only contact with David after was to give him a heads up on the outing and after David insisted that they talk. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the due should have outed his client, but I don’t think he had the forethought or intelligence to set up some two pronged blackmail scheme. To me, it seems like he found out who the guy was, expected him to do something, and when that didn’t happen, instead of threatening to go to the press unless actions occurred, he just went to the press.

  • kikodpr

    How can you be a porn star, male escort and right wing nut homophobic conspiracy theories at the same time?

    • Rockhard

      Just ask the Sean Cody guys

      KkKurtis is a recent example. And boy does he look ugly with that Hitler stache

    • Zealot

      It’s a condition commonly known as persistently mentally ill– or “batshit crazy” for short.

    • planesdrifter

      How soon you’ve forgotten Jeff Gannon (James Guckert) the infamous reporter/porn/escort that visited the Bush White House.

  • GN

    Before I make this comment I will emphasize that i DO NOT agree with The Gawker did. Is Brody Sinclair an insane, roided-out, (and nowadays irrelevant) hypocritical douchebag? Yes. Did The Gawker pull a grimy, sour grapes move? Indeed.
    But to Mr Geithner: I came out to my kid’s mother because she was about to be told by someone else. While I had not fucked any men during our relationship, I was certainly unfaithful and lying, I even went on several dates. I thought it best she hear the truth from my lips. It’s better to lead a clean, honest life and absolve yourself of any secrets, as Ms Caitlyn Jenner is so fond of telling us.
    The Gawker did not ruin your marriage. If your marriage is in fact ruined, it was your soliciting of prostitutes that did that, and any subsequent lies. Sometimes the Paul Revere that sounds off in your relationship is not some caring friend with a cautionary tale, but rather a prick who outs you for self-serving reasons–But even that vicious act has a silver lining. You are now free to be yourself. Which is ultimately the right thing for both you and your family. I recall the tense tightening I used to feel in my chest when I would lie to my ex about where I was going. Can you relate? Now you, like myself, are free of that ugly feeling.
    Good luck to you in dealing with this. I can tell you from experience, she’s gonna hate you for a while. You know those angry women who burn your clothes when they catch you cheating? Been there, done that. Eventually they get over it. They realize the new reality is better than living in a house of lies.


      Agreed. Brody Sinclair was in the wrong for being an escort and outting his client. Geithner was also in the wrong for cheating on his wife / kids (which I doubt this was the first time).

      So I don’t really see any wrong in what Gawker did. They report scandalous stories and this is one considering who is involved. Its not like Geithner is some small pizza shop owner in the middle of no where.

      Geithner did seem very nice to Brody however by still giving him money even though they didn’t meet. If it was Don Burns, he’d want his money back or he’d take you to court.

      • GN

        What the Gawker did wrong, if I may put it this way: You know how straight men have their “bro code”?.Well, a gay man does not out another gay man. You just don’t do that. Not all of us were born out and proud. Many of us had to lie, pretend, live in fear (literally, for many gays in the world today can face death if they are outed). Coming out is a personal experience that one must be ready for. You have to come out of the closet yourself, not be pushed out.


          I didn’t sense the article as being gay shaming. He was breaking the law by hiring a hooker. I’m sure Gawker would’ve still published the story if the hooker was a female.

          He’s possibly a nice man, I don’t know him. Yet he should’ve been more cautious when dealing with escorts rather than giving out his cell phone, address, and photo. He could’ve used Google voice, a PO box, and sent a photo of a guy who looks similar to him. Or he could’ve not broke the law by hiring an escort and just used Craigslist or Grindr instead.

          Plus, why is Brodie listening to Elton John while in the gym?

  • NickDC

    It’s baffling that after pulling the story, Gawker Editor-In-Chief Max Read said:
    “A high-level executive at a powerful media organization f—ed around on his wife and attempted to trade favors to kill the story. If you don’t see how that’s a news story, I don’t know what to tell you.”

    The claim that there was a proposition to “trade favors to kill the story” is one of the many elements of the original Gawker story NOT documented in writing but solely based on the word of a crackpot, conspiracy theorist, homophobic cunt who has sex with men for money.

    • Zachary Sire


  • Colorful Kent

    Another gay4payer who doesn’t care about the gay porn industry, just his own personal benefits. They give gays a bad name. More on the liar here.

  • Colorful Kent

    If gay porn has any dignity, they will never hire this guy again. Not just because he’s a blackmailer crazy, but because he quotes the bible against gay marriage. But they will, because all they care about is making money.

    • Estelle

      I don’t think he’s worked in porn for several years, he’s one of the few that actually flunked out of porn.

  • Diogenes Veritas

    why is everyone reacting to this as if gawker is npr? it’s essentially an online sensationalist gossip rag. there’s an article on there right now headlined, “bill clinton allegedly tried to sex bill de blasio’s press secretary.” these are the kind of stories they run. if you’re a major media mogul who tries hiring an escort, guess what the best way is to avoid having this kind of story come out about you? don’t fucking try hiring an escort!

  • James

    I said it last night and i’ll say it again he’s got issues even Dr. Freud couldn’t fix.

  • txsaneman

    No way! Another gay for pay male porn star is involved in another scandal? You mean he tried to shake down his client…over money?! Sarcasm aside, is anyone really surprised that the gay porn star turned out to be G4P? It’s getting to the point where this type of behavior is not a stereotype but a defining characteristic for them.

    All you “Johns” out there, whether you are a closeted, married man making a mockery of your commitment to your wife and family or you are a hedonistic millionaire/billionaire who hires escorts like children collect Pokemon cards, a piece of advice: BUY GAY! Not guaranteeing you won’t have issues with them, but there seems to be a lower probability that your rendezvous with them will make national headlines.

    • loyalty888

      I’m with you on everything, but he doesn’t strike me as g4p. What I see is someone that is so deeply closeted he compensates by being overtly homophobic. He rationalizes his sex work as a means to make money because “I have ptsd and can’t find work and the entire world is against me”.

  • ThatsEnoughGravy

    “A high profile public figure”? Twice you referred to him as a public figure. He is the chief accountant of a privately held publishing company. If his brother weren’t Timothy Geithner, nobody would even know/care who he is. Do you know Time Inc.’s chief financial officer’s name? Hearst’s? Would you call them high-profile public figures?

    • CK

      He’s the CFO of Conde Nast, a major mass media company. That’s not some obscure title at some small unknown company. Yes, when top executives screw up at major companies, it makes the news whether we know their name beforehand or not. Hell, did you know Donald Burns name before his outing? I didn’t and I doubt most people here did either.

      • ThatsEnoughGravy

        Dude, I’m not going to argue with you. He is not a “high-profile public figure.” His brother, yes. Look up what “public figure” means, for Christ’s sake.

        This shit is sleazy, and not that it matters to anyone, but I’m done with Gawker and done here too.

        • CK

          Bye. You will be missed. And just because you can’t be half assed to follow something more than the Kardashians, it doesn’t mean you get to determine who is and isn’t high profile. Geithner’s profile is huge in the publishing world.

        • Dazzer

          Why are you done here?

          This is a gay porn blog for fuck’s sake. By definition, if we’re reading this, we’re all a bit sleazy, But very few people who comment here are stupid. All of us might disagree with other people here, but there are precious few ignorant debates here.

          There are loads of fuckwits, obviously. But the fuckwitery usually depends on the time of day I’m reading the blog or how much alcohol I’ve consumed. (Yeah, that’s a thing.)

          But don’t go away, please. You’re either funny or you make me think. You’d be missed.


      He is a high profile figure. He’s the former executive vice president of Time Inc. which publishes Sports Illustrated, Travel + Leisure, Food & Wine, Fortune, People, InStyle, Life, and Entertainment Weekly. I’d say that is high profile in the publishing world. Plus his family has political ties. Also on the Conde Nast website, they have a huge picture of him on the About Us section.

      I’m ok with Gawker posting this. They didn’t out someone who was merely living their life as a gay man. They published a story about a wealthy, high profile figure in publishing hiring a deranged hooker so that he could be unfaithful to his wife. They even essentially revealed who the hooker was with the sprinkles of hints throughout the story.

      Its not like he was doing something good in the story and they shamed him for being gay. He was buying sex from a gay-for-pay guy who probably hears voices. I think lots of people have issue with this because Geithner is moderately good looking (even though it looks like he doesn’t have lips) and they had no issue with Don Burns being exposed because he’s nasty looking.

      • slipperyslope

        Here’s my problem with the story as it was posted: they completely protected the paranoid delusional crackpot hooker while flagrantly exposing the john. One cursory glance at Truitt’s Facebook page should have made the writer step back and say “Do I really want to get into bed with this one?” At the VERY LEAST, some mention of the crazy hooker’s craziness should have been included in the ‘sprinkles of hints’ that you claim outed the crazy hooker in the first place. But no. Not a whit.

        My takeaway was this: John hires hooker. Hooker says, “Hey, I figured out you’re rich and powerful. Help me out with this complex legal problem I have.” John quietly extricates himself and says “Keep the money, we’re good here.” Hooker goes to Gawker and says “This john wouldn’t help me with this complex legal problem I have so I want you to publish his name and personal information on the interwebs” Gawker says “SURE!”

        And you’re OK with that? For real for real?

        • Todd

          That’s what happens in the closeted lifestyles of the homophobic rich and famous.

          • slipperyslope

            Please provide evidence that David Geithner has ever used his money or influence to target gay people and I will concede that Gawker had a reason to run the story. Otherwise- it’s bullshit. Adultery in and of itself is not a crime and it’s possible he and his wife have an ‘agreement’- which is why he might have been trying to hire an escort in the first place.

            This is not like the case of Brendan Eich, who donated money to Prop 8 in an effort to restrict the civil rights of gay people and then was put into a high level position of a well-known company that asserts itself as a ‘progressive values’ alternative to other web browsers. Eich chose to step down rather than say “In the past six years, my own values have changed and I would like to see marriage equality for everyone.”

            What did David Geithner ever do to make this story justifiable? Are we so salacious that we demand intimate details of every single person on the planet? I’m not prude at all, but I don’t want to live in that world.

          • Todd

            Oh christ dude. Please provide evidence. Lol its a fucking gay porn blog and it’s my fucking opinion. They are all complicit, whether it be a little or a lot. And if I had stock in his company, I sure wouldn’t have much faith in him if he is making such poor personal decisions and not vetting his sexual trysts more carefully.

          • slipperyslope

            My mistake- I was trying to have a conversation, porn blog notwithstanding.

            When you accused Geithner of being ‘homophobic’ it seemed like a new piece of the puzzle, thereby casting this need to go through his personal life in a new light.

            I see now that you were just throwing insults around in an effort to make yourself feel better. I wish you much luck with that.

          • Todd

            Lol you’re funny dude.

          • slipperyslope

            I do try. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

            Cheers. 😉

  • ltlantnee

    I know I’m late to this thread but … Brodie Sinclair’s performances at CockyBoys and in Falcon’s Longboard were awful and wooden but he was (possibly is) insanely hot in a really stupid meathead way. Perpetually bored and boring (even in his solo scenes) I still have recovered files from a busted hard drive that drive me wild.

    If I had Donald Burns kind of money and apparent complete lack of sense and scruples I’d give him bank for a live, boring and bored performance. Jesse Santana definitely made the most of Brody in their scenes together.

    Can Zac please get a comment from Jesse on Brody? Other’s here also seem to have contact with porn people and I’d love to hear some behind the scenes info from him.

    I also love Gawker and it’s sister site Jalopnik (and follow Nolan Hamilton and Brian Moylan, ex Gawker writers on Twitter) this puts that site almost at the level of the evil, stupid and immoral Perez Hilton.

  • gnormie

    more more more

  • Kandel

    Outing people is so uncouth, whether said person is homophobic or not. If he was out, fine, tell the world, but clearly he wasn’t. I feel bad for his kids to be honest, and I hate kids.

    Donald Burns however, he’s already out, therefore fair game for his dirty laundry.

    • Todd

      There is nothing wrong with exposing hypocritical homophobic closeted gay men…NOTHING!

      • Benton Fraser

        How was he being a hypocrite? Closeted, yes. But what statement did he make that makes him a hypocrite?

        • Todd

          By being married and living the life of a str8 man while hiring gay prostitutes to satisfy his gay needs.

          • Benton Fraser

            Whilst he attempted to hire an escort/prostitute, the transaction was called off. As Zach and others have posted on this topic, “Man doesn’t end up cheating on wife” is not exactly headline news. He ((DG) is not on record as making anti-gay commentary, or hurting the gay community. His forcible outing does not help our community. Outing someone out of spite, for not helping the escort out with a housing dispute, is inappropriate. I do feel that Mr G should have been honest with himself and his wife, though there is a possibility that they have a marriage of convenience: we do not know the entire story, Gawker’s reporting was slip-shod and they have since taken the story off of their site.

          • Todd

            Lol, oh okay whatever. Smh And the chicken shit owners, probably a bunch of closeted homophobis themselves, voted to take it down…against the editorial boards’ wishes.

          • Benton Fraser

            They determined that DG is not a public figure (just related to one) and that since there is no public interest be served, the would be pulled from circulation.

          • Todd

            If it were a woman prostitute he was seeing , it would be reported and nobody would be having a problem with gawker, but because it also outs him, they have a problem. I think it would be homophobic of gawker to NOT report on it.

          • Benton Fraser

            Well, I can only speak for me and state that the sex/gender of the prostitute would not matter. I would hold Gawker to the same standard. “Man does not cheat on wife, and does not engage in prostitution (as that no meeting occurred” is not newsworthy. DG is a non-public/non-political figure and deserves privacy. The Gawker publishers should were correct to pull the poorly researched story.

      • Kandel

        But as far as we know, he wasn’t homophobic. It’s not like he even did anything that made him worth outing. It was a dick move on Gawker’s part just to take a swipe at reddit. Burns exposed himself when he went to prosecute Jerek, it became public record. This guy was just minding his own business, trying to get a hooker. His only mistake was picking this batshit crazy nut.

  • Spencer87

    I’m not trying to be funny,but so many “pornstars” (especially g4p) seem to be unhinged.Brodie was always hot,but of course boring as fuck in his scenes.

  • Diogenes Veritas

    the double standard of the outrage that this has engendered is what annoys me the most. if gawker had run a story of geithner’s attempting to secure the services of a female escort, no one would have had a problem with his being “outed.” in fact, many of the same outraged people’s reactions would have been, “well serves him right for cheating on his wife.” but because it has the hint of his being a closeted, gay male then the claws come out in his defense. complete and total bullshit.

    i’ve stated it once and i’ll state it again. you’re a c-suite executive at one of the largest, most influential media companies in the world. you don’t want shit like this coming out about you, don’t engage in the behavior in the first place. now scratch away everyone.


      Agreed. If you sleep with mutts, you’ll get fleas. He did this to himself

    • Dazzer

      Yeah, but the problem is that Geithner didn’t cheat on his wife because he called the deal off. And he didn’t solicit for sexual services in any communication when the deal was in the offing.

      Gawker basically made a story about a man who might have been considering cheating on his wife, but didn’t. And – with the evidence presented thus far – he did nothing criminally wrong because he wasn’t soliciting a prostitute for sex – merely companionship (I stress that this is what we know from the evidence presented).

      I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m right, all I’m saying is that this whole story is sketchy as fuck. And Gawker’s decision to run the story is the essence of fuckwittery when it comes to professional ethics or personal moralities.

      Essentially, it’s a non story that Gawker ran just to out someone who has never publicly attacked or discriminated against any gay person as far as we know.


        Even though this is speculation, I highly doubt this is the first time Geithner solicited a prostitute since he knew how everything worked and even offered to fly Truitt to where he was visiting.

        Thinking that the money was merely for “companionship” would be the same as believing that Don Burns solicits all of these men because he’s depressed over a break up and just wants friends. Geithner even said “you’re killing me” when Truitt sent a cock pic. I don’t think companions exchange cock pics.

        Whether he had sex with Truitt or not, its still illegal to make deals with prostitutes. That’s how undercover stings work. They don’t wait until the John has sex with the undercover cop. Just making the deal is illegal.

        Its far from sketchy when Truitt has evidence and it is not a non-story considering how high profile Geithner is in the publishing world. If he was some poor nobody then the story wouldn’t have been published.

        • Dazzer

          Yeah, but the simple fact remains that in all the released communications between Geithner and Truitt, Geithner did not offer to pay for sex with Truitt.

          This is a simple fact. You might chose to disagree, but according to the information in public at the moment, there’s no smoking gun. For all we know, Geithner might have been wanting to give a helping hand to a vet from Iraq wih PTSD who was clearly anti-gay but was having to survive through prostitution with other men.

          Yeah, I know. It’s unlikely. But on current evidence, that scenario is as likely as any other.

          The comparison with Donald Burns is a non-argument.Burns was clearly soliciting other men for paid-for sex and was also employing pimps to find him sexual partners whom he would then pay.

          There’s no evidence to suggest that this is Geithner’s modus operandi.

          And as for the nonsense that Geithner was ‘high profile’ in the publishing world, I’m pretty sure that most people in New York publishing (and, indeed, a substantial number of people working at Conde Nast) wouldn’t have been able to pick him out of a police line-up three days ago.

          Finance officers – chief or otherwise – usually don’t get invited to publishing parties.

          • Todd

            That scenario IS NOT as likely as any other. SMH Idiot.

          • Dazzer

            Yeah, but you don’t have any proof – at the moment – that it’s wrong. We both know it’s unlikely, but what we ‘know’ doesn’t amount to proof. All we have are assumptions based on other gay men’s patterns of behaviour.

            Both of us think my scenario is unlikely – based on our communal understanding of closeted gay/bi male behaviour – but we don’t have any proof to back up that assumptions and that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying.

            All I’m going on is the information that’s in the public domain at the moment. Unless you have information that no-one else has – and are prepared to release it to everyone – on the data that we all have available to us, any number of scenarios can be imprinted on the narrative.


            So according to you, you think its likely that Geithner wanted to help out a veteran who has PTSD and instead of donating to the Wounded Warrior Project, Geithner decided to browse RentBoy for a veteran to help out?


          • Dazzer

            As I said, on the information we have available, it’s as likely as anything else.

            No other escort has come forward – even anonymously – to suggest that Geithner was a client of theirs. And as this story is still big, you’d have thought that some enterprising hooker would have tried to sell a story by now.

          • Diogenes Veritas

            interesting though that when geithner was contacted by gawker and given the opportunity to provide any of these reasons he chose instead to call the situation a “shake down.” then again, perhaps all of these plausible explanations just left his ability to recall.

          • Dazzer

            I found that interesting as well.

            We don’t know whether that was the sum of all communications that Gawker had with Geithner or that is all that Gawker saw fit to print.

            It might be that Geithner is slaving over an office of hot lawyers at the moment and didn’t want to make any other comments.

            Frankly, there isn’t enough context to know exactly what he meant by that, and I daresay we won’t know for some time. But, yes, it was a noticeable thing for him to say.

  • Todd

    Any closeted gay man, especially one seeking out psycho closeted gay prostitutes IS supporting homophobia.

    • loyalty888

      I don’t understand the logic. Is he homophobic by association because he hired an escort who happened to be homophobic?

  • Mark Anthony Vitelli

    Am I the only one who thinks that most Gay (for pay??) porn actors (They are not stars) are mental cases?.

  • The really gross, scary part is the echo chamber of lunatics he has sequestered himself with in his paranoid little bubble. Have you read the comments of support from the other cuckoos posting on his Facebook rants? He has that famous East TX Kool-Aid drinking bunch of bible-thumping birthers putting more and more crazy into his head, and his head was already pretty damned full of cray from the PTSD he claims to have suffered while enlisted. I don’t excuse what that little shit did for one second, but I don’t wish the kind of crazy boiling in that boy’s brain on anyone.

  • badgamer1967

    Another psycho gay4pay, I am so sick of these idiots, I just want to see hot gay men fuck other hot gay men. Not this juvenile ideation of straight meat is the dream. Just screwed up, those who debase themselves doing it, produce it and most importantly us sad assholes who allowed this to be the “gay porn” gold standard.