Sean

Kelly in trouble?

Recommended Posts

He seems like an insensitive prick anyway. But I guess you don’t have to be a nice guy to do what he does. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/trump-rob-porter-hope-hicks-john-kelly

“HE WAS F---ING PISSED”: WITH ROB PORTER GONE, THE HEAT ON JOHN KELLY IS INCREASING

Trump is not happy with the chaos; Jared and Ivanka are trying to right the ship; and even Hope Hicks, one of the president’s closest confidants, is in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans covering for domestic abusers? Typical. What’s the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I got....

aaaaaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahafuckahahahahhahahahahahhcoughcoughhahahahahahahahahahaha...

Morons Are Governing America !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

After allegations of domestic abuse against former White House staff secretary Rob Porter were made public, Chief of Staff John Kelly gave Porter a glowing review, saying he was a "man of true integrity".

After more details emerged about the alleged abuse, including images of Porter's first wife with a black eye, Kelly changed his tune and said he was "shocked" by the latest allegations.

But Kelly knew about the protective order against Porter for months before his resignation. The order was standing in the way of Porter receiving full security clearance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

you know it's against federal law to ask a prospective employee about his personal life, being a wife beater etc. right?

It wasn't really a secret.    A man of great integrity.  Ya right

Quote

Willoughby’s blog post detailing her abuse did not name Porter, but it did use her own name.
It has been live since April 24, 2017. She wrote: “The first time he called me a ‘fucking bitch’ was on our honeymoon. (I found out years later he had kicked his first wife on theirs.)” Porter reportedly begged her to take it down because anyone who read it had to have known it was referencing Rob Porter, the guy at the White House. Another thing that is clear from the blog post is that the police knew: Willoughby filed for a protective order in Arlington, Virginia, in 2010, and she called them on at least one other occasion. Both women reported the abuse to elders in their church and to counselors. Holderness told her brother and his girlfriend. And then, as their mutual ex-husband was being cleared for his job in the White House last spring, both women told the FBI. They actually thought, at that point, somebody might care.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/rob-porters-history-of-domestic-abuse-wasnt-a-secret.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

you know it's against federal law to ask a prospective employee about his personal life, being a wife beater etc. right?

You know it's SOP for those obtaining government security clearance to have their history inspected as part of the vetting, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nice! said:
14 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

you know it's against federal law to ask a prospective employee about his personal life, being a wife beater etc. right?

You know it's SOP for those obtaining government security clearance to have their history inspected as part of the vetting, right?

And the reason Porter was on a temporary security clearance was because of the abuse allegations, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long has he had temporary clearance? 

Or, put it another way,

How long have they been aware and covering for him? Did they really expect this to just go away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And the reason Porter was on a temporary security clearance was because of the abuse allegations, right?

Ya, and Kelly knew what the snag was to Porter getting his security clearance.  

These Trump 'tards are the worst fuck-stains ever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mad said:

How long has he had temporary clearance? 

Or, put it another way,

How long have they been aware and covering for him? Did they really expect this to just go away?

I gather they knew right from the get-go, they must do some sort of screening or they would end up with people like Carter Page on the team.

Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

I gather they knew right from the get-go, they must do some sort of screening or they would end up with people like Carter Page on the team.

Oh, wait...

Exactly, how many more times can this lot keep getting away with this? If and when he goes, how many does this add up to that have been fired or resigned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a Porter deep in Watergate?

Any relation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And the reason Porter was on a temporary security clearance was because of the abuse allegations, right?

You know this how?   Not defending Porter - but, the only people who typically have access to any information about security clearance proceedings are the subject, the investigator, and the decision authority for the agency that will hold the clearance.  So, short of a disclosure, I don't know how anyone could know that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I gather they knew right from the get-go, they must do some sort of screening or they would end up with people like Carter Page on the team.

Oh, wait...

Well, it seems that they had to fill the swamp before they could start draining it.  Priebus, Flynn, Bnnon, Omagault, Gorka, Harvey, Scaramucci, Spicer, Schiller, Price, Page, McFarland, Porter.  The "best people".

How many of that "serial liar" Obama's staff were forced to resign under a cloud?  Oh?  None?  Gosh, they weren't even trying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I stayed.

 

The first time he called me a "fucking bitch" was on our honeymoon. (I found out years later he had kicked his first wife on theirs.) A month later he physically prevented me from leaving the house. Less than two months after that, I filed a protective order with the police because he punched in the glass on our front door while I was locked inside. We bought a house to make up for it. Just after our one year anniversary, he pulled me, naked and dripping, from the shower to yell at me.

Everyone loved him. People commented all the time how lucky I was. Strangers complimented him to me every time we went out. But in my home, the abuse was insidious. The threats were personal. The terror was real. And yet I stayed.

When I tried to get help, I was counseled to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career. And so I kept my mouth shut and stayed. I was told, yes, he was deeply flawed, but then again so was I. And so I worked on myself and stayed. If he was a monster all the time, perhaps it would have been easier to leave. But he could be kind and sensitive. And so I stayed. He cried and apologized. And so I stayed. He offered to get help and even went to a few counseling sessions and therapy groups. And so I stayed. He belittled my intelligence and destroyed my confidence. And so I stayed. I felt ashamed and trapped. And so I stayed. Friends and clergy didn't believe me. And so I stayed. I was pregnant. And so I stayed. I lost the pregnancy and became depressed. And so I stayed.

Abuse is indifferent to education level, socio-economic status, race, age, or gender. And no one can ever know the dynamics of another's relationship. My cycle continued for four more years. Afterward, I let go and welcomed the hard work of healing and forgiveness. My experience made me stronger and able to love more deeply. But my heart breaks for him. In the end, who is the real victim of his choices?

http://www.bornebackceaselessly.com/journal/2017/4/24/why-i-stayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They all say that - almost word for word.

I will never understand women putting up with it. The first time it happens should be the end of the relationship - it never gets better, only worse until they end up dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You know this how?   Not defending Porter - but, the only people who typically have access to any information about security clearance proceedings are the subject, the investigator, and the decision authority for the agency that will hold the clearance.  So, short of a disclosure, I don't know how anyone could know that. 

With two family members who have worked in the White House, I can confidently say that if the FBI says they can't give someone security clearance, that is a huge red flag.  Time to put that someone on "injured reserve" until it gets sorted out.  Not provide them with "temporary clearance."  

They are the swamp.  Time to give up your preciously held "rational stance and open mind about these people. It's been a good schtick for you for a year now.  But they've proven who they are.  They are the swamp.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

They all say that - almost word for word.

I will never understand women putting up with it. The first time it happens should be the end of the relationship - it never gets better, only worse until they end up dead.

I worked on domestic violence cases while I was in the Army.  I have very strong feelings about men who abuse women.  The reasons that women stay in these relationships are very complex.  Domestic violence is a terrible problem that is difficult to stop.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You know this how?   Not defending Porter - but, the only people who typically have access to any information about security clearance proceedings are the subject, the investigator, and the decision authority for the agency that will hold the clearance.  So, short of a disclosure, I don't know how anyone could know that. 

I heard it reported in similar terms on NPR earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked at the US Army HQ Europe (HQUSAREUR).   Just about everybody that worked there needed at least a secret clearance a large number of people had TS/SCI clearances. You couldn't even get into the G2 (Intelligence) building, or the secure conference room and War Room over at the G3 (Operations) building without a TS clearance.  

In my experience, if during the interview process, the investigator gets information such as Porter apparently revealed, there is no way they would issue an interim clearance.  Especially at that level, I would imagine he was being cleared for some kind of TS/code word clearance.  

It seem to be an obvious conclusion that someone high up the chain put pressure to give Porter an interim clearance.   How in the hell the White House thought somehow they could make the allegations disappear is beyond me.  Porter should have never been cleared for that job and somebody has some explaining to do.  I think a good place to start is Kelly.  I think his days as CoS are numbered.  What a clusterfuck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I worked at the US Army HQ Europe (HQUSAREUR).   Just about everybody that worked there needed at least a secret clearance a large number of people had TS/SCI clearances. You couldn't even get into the G2 (Intelligence) building, or the secure conference room and War Room over at the G3 (Operations) building without a TS clearance.  

In my experience, if during the interview process, the investigator gets information such as Porter apparently revealed, there is no way they would issue an interim clearance.  Especially at that level, I would imagine he was being cleared for some kind of TS/code word clearance.  

It seem to be an obvious conclusion that someone high up the chain put pressure to give Porter an interim clearance.   How in the hell the White House thought somehow they could make the allegations disappear is beyond me.  Porter should have never been cleared for that job and somebody has some explaining to do.  I think a good place to start is Kelly.  I think his days as CoS are numbered.  What a clusterfuck.

The depravity of this administration lacks a bottom.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Hope. 

Change. 

I mentioned this earlier - they have Hope - she hitched her wagon to Trump at the beginning and will be there to the end.

Change?  We don't need no stinkin change - we don't have to show you no stinkin change. Suck it losers Bigly!  We won you lost.

So Porter has been pulling down $180k with all the perks without a security clearance. I have a security clearance and could do twice the job that manly wife beater does, I just couldn't do it for Trump and don't have the Daddy Legacy to get me in the door anyways.....  missed it by that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy Porter is a real scumbag. One of HJ's people; they don't condone wife beating but apparently aren't averse to "looking the other way". 

Salt Lake Tribune -

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/08/white-house-officials-ex-wives-say-their-mormon-bishops-were-no-help-when-they-were-abused/

Excerpt -

“When I tried to get help, I was counseled to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career,” Willoughby wrote in a blog post last year, adding later, “Friends and clergy didn’t believe me. And so I stayed.”

She also told The Intercept that when she went to her bishop about Porter’s anger issues, he cautioned that it could hurt Porter’s image. “Keep in mind, Rob has career ambitions,” she recalled the local LDS leader saying, according to the online news outlet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

This guy Porter is a real scumbag. One of HJ's people; they don't condone wife beating but apparently aren't averse to "looking the other way". 

Salt Lake Tribune -

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/08/white-house-officials-ex-wives-say-their-mormon-bishops-were-no-help-when-they-were-abused/

Excerpt -

“When I tried to get help, I was counseled to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career,” Willoughby wrote in a blog post last year, adding later, “Friends and clergy didn’t believe me. And so I stayed.”

She also told The Intercept that when she went to her bishop about Porter’s anger issues, he cautioned that it could hurt Porter’s image. “Keep in mind, Rob has career ambitions,” she recalled the local LDS leader saying, according to the online news outlet.

He's a Mormon?  So he doesn't drink and was stone cold sober when he beat his ex wives. He can't even blame demon Rum.  What a piece of shit. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I mentioned this earlier - they have Hope - she hitched her wagon to Trump at the beginning and will be there to the end.

Change?  We don't need no stinkin change - we don't have to show you no stinkin change. Suck it losers Bigly!  We won you lost.

So Porter has been pulling down $180k with all the perks without a security clearance. I have a security clearance and could do twice the job that manly wife beater does, I just couldn't do it for Trump and don't have the Daddy Legacy to get me in the door anyways.....  missed it by that much.

Star crossed lovers working in government are bad...sometimes. I wonder if the Deep State has their texts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

They all say that - almost word for word.

I will never understand women putting up with it. The first time it happens should be the end of the relationship - it never gets better, only worse until they end up dead.

Just to be clear - it's not just women. I concede it is them in the vast majority, but I have known a man that could have written almost the exact same summary of his first years of marriage before divorce. In the past five years my family went through the wringer trying to help a young woman to escape it and, in the end, the work of restarting her life was more daunting than just putting up with the abuse. She's still there and still not accepting help from anyone for it, let alone going to the police.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is "Ladder day" anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You know this how?   Not defending Porter - but, the only people who typically have access to any information about security clearance proceedings are the subject, the investigator, and the decision authority for the agency that will hold the clearance.  So, short of a disclosure, I don't know how anyone could know that. 

In the past backlogged applications just got a temporary clearance by default. That was a long time ago though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when the president is your boss I would assume "clearance" is just a formality.  That is what has scared the living crap out of anyone in the know since the beginning... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

I think a good place to start is Kelly

Ivana is already measuring the carpet and drapes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mid said:

Why I stayed.

 

The first time he called me a "fucking bitch" was on our honeymoon. (I found out years later he had kicked his first wife on theirs.) A month later he physically prevented me from leaving the house. Less than two months after that, I filed a protective order with the police because he punched in the glass on our front door while I was locked inside. We bought a house to make up for it. Just after our one year anniversary, he pulled me, naked and dripping, from the shower to yell at me.

Everyone loved him. People commented all the time how lucky I was. Strangers complimented him to me every time we went out. But in my home, the abuse was insidious. The threats were personal. The terror was real. And yet I stayed.

When I tried to get help, I was counseled to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career. And so I kept my mouth shut and stayed. I was told, yes, he was deeply flawed, but then again so was I. And so I worked on myself and stayed. If he was a monster all the time, perhaps it would have been easier to leave. But he could be kind and sensitive. And so I stayed. He cried and apologized. And so I stayed. He offered to get help and even went to a few counseling sessions and therapy groups. And so I stayed. He belittled my intelligence and destroyed my confidence. And so I stayed. I felt ashamed and trapped. And so I stayed. Friends and clergy didn't believe me. And so I stayed. I was pregnant. And so I stayed. I lost the pregnancy and became depressed. And so I stayed.

Abuse is indifferent to education level, socio-economic status, race, age, or gender. And no one can ever know the dynamics of another's relationship. My cycle continued for four more years. Afterward, I let go and welcomed the hard work of healing and forgiveness. My experience made me stronger and able to love more deeply. But my heart breaks for him. In the end, who is the real victim of his choices?

http://www.bornebackceaselessly.com/journal/2017/4/24/why-i-stayed

 I believe she is saying there is more to this than meets the eye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I believe she is saying there is more to this than meets the eye. 

fairly obvious what meet the eye .

 

porter-1_0.jpg.39f8371f52c84c9dbcb1af7018900bbc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top White House officials knew of abuse allegations against top aide for months

Quote

 

White House Counsel Donald McGahn knew one year ago that Staff Secretary Rob Porter’s ex-wives accused him of domestic violence but allowed him to serve as an influential gatekeeper and aide to President Trump, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Chief of Staff John F. Kelly learned this fall about the allegations of spousal abuse and that they were delaying Porter’s security clearance amid an ongoing FBI investigation. But Kelly handed Porter more responsibilities to control the flow of information to the president.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-white-house-officials-knew-of-abuse-allegations-against-top-aide-for-months/2018/02/08/2faddcf2-0ce9-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?utm_term=.701c9b01a318

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kelly Issues New Statement After Catching Flak for Initial Response to Aide Accused of Abuse

Quote

“There is no place for domestic violence in our society. I stand by my previous comments of the Rob Porter that I have come to know since becoming Chief of Staff, and believe every individual deserves the right to defend their reputation. I accepted his resignation earlier today, and will ensure a swift and orderly transition.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/kelly-issues-new-statement-on-aide-accused-of-abuse-after-criticism-no-place-for-domestic-violence/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hardest worker in the White House ?

Who ever is in damage control :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unwelcome Attention for John Kelly, the Man Enlisted to Bring Calm

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — Among the many people agitated this week over John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, was President Trump. And among the people the president called to express dissatisfaction, according to those close to him, was none other than Reince Priebus, the previous chief of staff, who also irritated Mr. Trump.

The idea that the president would confide grievances over Mr. Kelly with the person he pushed out to hire Mr. Kelly is yet another indication of how upside-down Mr. Trump’s world can be. In the West Wing, various characters fall in and out of favor with such rapidity that it is never entirely clear who has the president’s ear.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/us/politics/kelly-trump.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Trump tore out Ivana's hair in a fit of rage..she "modified" the rape allegation...but not the assault.

What a lovely crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They all say that - almost word for word.

I will never understand women putting up with it. The first time it happens should be the end of the relationship - it never gets better, only worse until they end up dead.

You need to understand the reasons women "put up with it".

Until people do understand,it will never stop.

It's no different than why men stay in abusive relationships.

As Ed said, the reasons are complex, emotional, and varied..just like any relationship.

When people say things like "they will never understand" It actually is implying that it should be a simple move, Thus implying the "victim" is somehow at fault. It doesn't help.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Left Shift said:

With two family members who have worked in the White House, I can confidently say that if the FBI says they can't give someone security clearance, that is a huge red flag.  Time to put that someone on "injured reserve" until it gets sorted out.  Not provide them with "temporary clearance."  

They are the swamp.  Time to give up your preciously held "rational stance and open mind about these people. It's been a good schtick for you for a year now.  But they've proven who they are.  They are the swamp.

If you have family members with clearances - then you know that divulging details about an investigation is something that's strictly forbidden.  That's the point I was making - and that's exactly what I said.   

Clearances DO get put on hold for things that simply take a while to sort out - foreign-born relatives (in-laws, spouse, etc),  foreign property ownership?  Did your wife inherit Grandpa's little cottage in Greece?  Do you have a vacation getaway in Ireland?   

So - while I get your point w/r/t the delay in granting a clearance (investigations can take upwards of a year, now, BTW) potentially being a red flag- suggesting that someone knows the details of WHY a clearance was denied or delayed implies an inappropriate disclosure, and nothing I'd heard until this AM's NPR report suggested that that had happened.    None of this is intended to be a defense of Porter, rather to point out that it's dumb to repeat things that "I heard" w/out understanding the basis of the comment. 

As to keeping an open and rational mind?   It's one of the things that separates me from the drooling dregs. I'll keep it that way, thanks just the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I worked on domestic violence cases while I was in the Army.  I have very strong feelings about men who abuse women.  The reasons that women stay in these relationships are very complex.  Domestic violence is a terrible problem that is difficult to stop.

The emotional me thinks that it wouldn't hurt to take the abuser out and summarily kick his ass and promise him that if he touched a woman in anger ever again, that it'd be the last time he touched anything wouldn't hurt.  The rational me realizes that in many of these cases, it's exactly that kinda thing that contributed to the guy being the abuser he is. About the only thing that angers me more is someone hurting a kid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The emotional me thinks that it wouldn't hurt to take the abuser out and summarily kick his ass and promise him that if he touched a woman in anger ever again, that it'd be the last time he touched anything wouldn't hurt.  The rational me realizes that in many of these cases, it's exactly that kinda thing that contributed to the guy being the abuser he is. About the only thing that angers me more is someone hurting a kid.  

Speaking from bitter observation, the first person such assholes take their hurt pride out on is the one you are trying to save from them in the first place. Oh, they'll stew on it a bit first but then when they think they can get away with it, they start it again. Once they get it in their head that the victim is going to allow it, there is nothing outsiders can do to scare them off that power trip outside repeatedly breaking their hands and kneecaps.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The emotional me thinks that it wouldn't hurt to take the abuser out and summarily kick his ass and promise him that if he touched a woman in anger ever again, that it'd be the last time he touched anything wouldn't hurt.  The rational me realizes that in many of these cases, it's exactly that kinda thing that contributed to the guy being the abuser he is. About the only thing that angers me more is someone hurting a kid.  

Thing is, that just reinforces the might makes right system they live by already AND they'll beat their wife half to death once the coast is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Thing is, that just reinforces the might makes right system they live by already AND they'll beat their wife half to death once the coast is clear.

Hence the "rational me" part of the comment - you're right, but, it doesn't change what I'd like to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Hence the "rational me" part of the comment - you're right, but, it doesn't change what I'd like to see. 

I know this from dealing with someone in my extended family, but even worse is the guy takes off and the girl ends up with abuser number 2. Some people have an incredible talent for picking abusive partners over and over :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I know this from dealing with someone in my extended family, but even worse is the guy takes off and the girl ends up with abuser number 2. Some people have an incredible talent for picking abusive partners over and over :(

I've got a big secluded hollow, lime and a pig-pen close by... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nice! said:

You know it's SOP for those obtaining government security clearance to have their history inspected as part of the vetting, right?

 

Shit, we won't rent to a Section 8 Tenant, without a background check!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The emotional me thinks that it wouldn't hurt to take the abuser out and summarily kick his ass and promise him that if he touched a woman in anger ever again, that it'd be the last time he touched anything wouldn't hurt.  The rational me realizes that in many of these cases, it's exactly that kinda thing that contributed to the guy being the abuser he is. About the only thing that angers me more is someone hurting a kid.  

In my experience it was difficult dealing with the perpetrators and victims (women* and children) of domestic violence but the hardest part of my job was dealing with the victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse.  At times it required great self restraint on my behalf not to jump out of my chair and hurt the individual sitting next to my desk.  It is truly amazing what humans can and will do to other humans.

*I did deal with one male victim of domestic violence.  There are female perpetrators, but it isn't as common, and men are often reluctant to report abuse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So - while I get your point w/r/t the delay in granting a clearance (investigations can take upwards of a year, now, BTW)"

So would, in your experience, substantial allegations of spousal abuse be reason to withhold top level security clearances?  According to an NPR interview with O's staff secretary , the job requires sorting paperwork before the President sees it, about 20% of which is classified at very high levels.  Leads to the question, was Porter not doing his job because he couldn't see highly classified documents or was he seeing highly sensitive documents without clearance?

Another issue that isn't mentioned much is Hope Hicks' defense of Porter without getting T's signature, will Hope be lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"So - while I get your point w/r/t the delay in granting a clearance (investigations can take upwards of a year, now, BTW)"

So would, in your experience, substantial allegations of spousal abuse be reason to withhold top level security clearances?  According to an NPR interview with O's staff secretary , the job requires sorting paperwork before the President sees it, about 20% of which is classified at very high levels.  Leads to the question, was Porter not doing his job because he couldn't see highly classified documents or was he seeing highly sensitive documents without clearance?

Another issue that isn't mentioned much is Hope Hicks' defense of Porter without getting T's signature, will Hope be lost?

According to CNN, Hicks drafted Porters resignation letter, OUCH!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

 

 the job requires sorting paperwork before the President sees it, about 20% of which is classified at very high levels.  Leads to the question, was Porter not doing his job because he couldn't see highly classified documents or was he seeing highly sensitive documents without clearance?

 

 

This could be HUGE.  The whole crooked Hillary e-mail brouhaha was related to people without clearance seeing TS info.  If this was happening under Donnie nose and with the knowledge of his current CoS and presumably the previous CoS- all the Republican arguments against Hillary come back to roost in POTUS's office. 

 

If this was anyone else, Donnie would be screaming like hell about incompetence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Snore said:

 

This could be HUGE.  The whole crooked Hillary e-mail brouhaha was related to people without clearance seeing TS info.  If this was happening under Donnie nose and with the knowledge of his current CoS and presumably the previous CoS- all the Republican arguments against Hillary come back to roost in POTUS's office. 

 

If this was anyone else, Donnie would be screaming like hell about incompetence.

 

 

Huge? It's a nothingburger. Trump is (in theory) a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Snore said:

 

This could be HUGE.  The whole crooked Hillary e-mail brouhaha was related to people without clearance seeing TS info.  If this was happening under Donnie nose and with the knowledge of his current CoS and presumably the previous CoS- all the Republican arguments against Hillary come back to roost in POTUS's office. 

 

If this was anyone else, Donnie would be screaming like hell about incompetence.

 

 

Huge part is reportedly Kelly knew a couple weeks ago more than one aide wouldn't be granted a permanent clearance and he kept them in their job.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/08/john-kelly-rob-porter-security-clearance-400987

guess that's what happens when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get "the best people".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Washington Post -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/08/thirty-seven-administration-officials-whove-resigned-or-been-fired-under-trump/

Excerpt -

President Trump’s administration has seen more turnover than “The Apprentice.” Quite literally, in fact. Trump’s television show would lose 15 people a season; Trump’s administration has lost at least 37 in just over a year. Two-and-a-half seasons of drama, packed into just over 12 months.

Fired

  • Sally YatesDeputy attorney general. Days with administration: 11. Refused to enforce Trump’s entry ban.
  • Preet BhararaU.S. attorney. Days with administration: 51. Part of purge of U.S. attorneys.
  • James B. ComeyFBI director. Days with administration: 110. Allegedly pressured by Trump to scale down investigations.
  • Rich HigginsDirector, NSC. Days with administration: 176. Fired after writing a conspiracy-filled memo.
  • Derek HarveySenior director, NSC. Days with administration: 182. Fired following power shift under national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
  • Anthony ScaramucciCommunications director. Days with administration: 11. Fired by Kelly.
  • Ezra Cohen-WatnickSenior director, NSC. Days with administration: 188. Fired following power shift under McMaster.

Resigned under pressure

  • Michael FlynnNational security adviser. Days with administration: 23. Ostensibly fired for having misled Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
  • Katie WalshDeputy chief of staff. Days with administration: 68. Moved out of administration to work for a pro-Trump PAC.
  • K.T. McFarlandDeputy national security adviser. Days with administration: 118. Pushed out following power shift under McMaster.
  • Tera DahlDeputy chief of staff, NSC. Days with administration: 166. Reassigned following power shift under McMaster.
  • Michael ShortAssistant press secretary. Days with administration: 185. Scaramucci told media that Short would be fired.
  • Reince PriebusChief of staff. Days with administration: 188. Resigned in favor of Kelly.
  • Stephen K. BannonChief strategist. Days with administration: 209. Bannon left after giving a negative interview to American Prospect.
  • Sebastian GorkaDeputy assistant. Days with administration: 211. Butted heads with Kelly.
  • William BradfordDirector, Energy. Days with administration: About 120. Past racist comments were made public.
  • Tom PriceDirector of Health and Human Services. Days with administration: 232. Under fire for taking expensive charter flights.
  • Jamie JohnsonDirector, DHS. Days with administration: About 230. Past racist comments were made public.
  • Carl HigbieChief of external affairs, Corporation for National and Community Service. Days with administration: 153. Past racist comments were made public.
  • Taylor WeyenethDeputy chief of staff, Office of Drug Control Policy. Days with administration: About 340. Questions about experience and details on résumé.
  • Rob PorterStaff secretary. Days with administration: 385. Allegations of spousal abuse became public.

Resigned

  • Michael DubkeCommunications director. Days with administration: 89. Personal reasons.
  • Walter ShaubDirector of Office of Government Ethics. Days with administration: 181. Concern over ethics rules.
  • Mark CoralloLegal team spokesman. Days with administration: 59. Apparently concerned about handling of Trump Tower story.
  • Sean SpicerPress secretary. Days with administration: 181. Uncomfortable with hiring of Scaramucci.
  • Elizabeth SoutherlandDirector, EPA. Days with administration: 193. Disagreement with direction of department.
  • Carl IcahnSpecial adviser. Days with administration: 211. Resigned in advance of an article about conflicts of interest.
  • George SifakisPublic liaison director. Days with administration: 204. Sifakis was an ally of Priebus.
  • Maliz BeamsCounselor, State. Days with administration: 97. Reported differences with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
  • Elizabeth ShackelfordPolitical officer, State. Days with administration: 323. Disagreement with direction of department.
  • Paul WinfreeDeputy director. Days with administration: 330. Returning to Heritage Foundation.
  • Dina PowellDeputy national security adviser. Days with administration: 304. Personal reasons.
  • Omarosa ManigaultDirector of communications, Office of Public Liaison. Days with administration: 364. Resigned to “pursue other opportunities.” Now stars on CBS’s “Big Brother.”
  • Jeremy KatzDeputy director, NEC. Days with administration: About 340. Personal reasons.
  • Thomas ShannonUnder secretary of state for political affairs. Days with administration: 385 and counting. (Resignation announced but not yet in force.) Personal reasons.
  • John FeeleyAmbassador to Panama. Days with administration: 385 and counting. Disagreement with administration.
  • Rick DearbornDeputy chief of staff. Days with administration: 383 and counting. Joining private sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"So - while I get your point w/r/t the delay in granting a clearance (investigations can take upwards of a year, now, BTW)"

So would, in your experience, substantial allegations of spousal abuse be reason to withhold top level security clearances?  According to an NPR interview with O's staff secretary , the job requires sorting paperwork before the President sees it, about 20% of which is classified at very high levels.  Leads to the question, was Porter not doing his job because he couldn't see highly classified documents or was he seeing highly sensitive documents without clearance?

Another issue that isn't mentioned much is Hope Hicks' defense of Porter without getting T's signature, will Hope be lost?

Porter had an 'interim' or temporary clearance pending the investigation for the full clearance.  The interim clearance allows for full access to material up to the level of the clearance.  Basically your boss vouches for you and says; we know enough about this person that we will let them have access while they wait for the investigation to be finished.  This is a pretty common practice, otherwise it would impair the agency while waiting for everyones clearance to be processed, especially for civilians that have never worked for the government before.

My experience beyond my own security clearance process as a civilian employee, was limited as to involvement the actual process.  As a soldier working in mental health, I was sometimes involved in medical record reviews and interviews involving clearance investigations, for example interviewing a candidate about prior incidents and allegations, to get more information.   I also was in or around the military for 20 years, so you get a good idea of what's going on with the process in general.  I have known several individuals that were turned down for or lost their for TS/SCI clearances for seemingly minor things.  They are quite careful in the investigative process, that's why it is time consuming and expensive.  A good example is any negative report from the IRS regarding proper and prompt reporting and payment of income tax, is almost always an automatic disqualification for even a secret clearance.  The vetting for a secret clearance is pretty basic, an NICS check and a couple of other things and that's it, it takes a month or so.  Vetting for higher clearances are much more involved and time consuming.

I can safely say that any average individual applying for any clearance, especially a high level clearance, that a substantiated charge of domestic abuse would be an automatic disqualifier.   An allegation, that hadn't resulted in a conviction is a little more difficult and can be subjective.  There is a right to due process after all.  However, even an allegation, when applying for a high level clearance is a definite red flag.  I think it would depend on what other questionable behavior was discovered.  

In my personal opinion, from what I have read, there was enough credible evidence in the Porter case that there shouldn't even have been an interim clearance issued.  I don't think a person that would give his wife a black eye should be trusted with secrets at the highest level of the government.  This kind of behavior would indicate a severe lack of integrity in my eyes, and would make for an unacceptable risk.  

I can imagine the conversation with Porter when he started to apply for the clearance went like this:

WH Staffer:  So is there anything in your background that might cause a problem getting a high level security clearance?

Porter:  No, not that I can recall.  Oh, wait, my ex-wife and I had a little scuffle years ago when we were married and somehow she ended up with a black eye.

WH Staffer:  Shit, were you arrested and convicted?

Porter:  No, no, she told some folks, and there are some photos of her black eye out there, but it was never reported it to the police. 

WH Staffer:  OK, that's good.  Look, I need to run this past the chief, but I don't think it's anything we can't take care of, we really want and need you here.  In the mean time we'll get you an interim clearance so you can start working soon.  It takes some time to do the investigation but it's really just a formality, don't worry, working for the president has some advantages, if you know what I mean.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

"So - while I get your point w/r/t the delay in granting a clearance (investigations can take upwards of a year, now, BTW)"

So would, in your experience, substantial allegations of spousal abuse be reason to withhold top level security clearances?  According to an NPR interview with O's staff secretary , the job requires sorting paperwork before the President sees it, about 20% of which is classified at very high levels.  Leads to the question, was Porter not doing his job because he couldn't see highly classified documents or was he seeing highly sensitive documents without clearance?

Another issue that isn't mentioned much is Hope Hicks' defense of Porter without getting T's signature, will Hope be lost?

Such allegations would & should require further investigation, and if substantiated, would result in denial of a clearance. My point is that those who were adding 2+2 and getting an answer of 8 were pulling stuff outta their butts, as it's such a disclosure from a background investigation for a clearance would not have happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it comes out that Porter either omitted information or lied during the process, then the shit will really hit the fan.  Since his integrity is already under question, even though he did reveal there could be a problem, it makes you wonder what he might not have come clean about.  When being investigated for a high level clearance, what you don't say is almost as important as what you do say. In todays cyber world, it is really difficult to hide from your past.  Failure to reveal or trying to conceal derogatory information on a clearance is a sure way to be denied any clearance, even a lowly secret one, for the rest of your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WaPo - 

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly “instructed senior staff to communicate a version of events about the departure of staff secretary Rob Porter that contradicts the administration’s previous accounts,” the Washington Post reports.

“During a staff meeting, Kelly told those in attendance to say that he took action to remove Porter within 40 minutes of learning that the allegations brought by his two ex-wives were credible… That version of events contradicts both the public record and accounts from numerous other White House officials in recent days as the Porter drama unfolded.”

Some staffers “after the meeting expressed disbelief with one another and felt his latest account was not true.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

If it comes out that Porter either omitted information or lied during the process, then the shit will really hit the fan.  Since his integrity is already under question, even though he did reveal there could be a problem, it makes you wonder what he might not have come clean about.  When being investigated for a high level clearance, what you don't say is almost as important as what you do say. In todays cyber world, it is really difficult to hide from your past.  Failure to reveal or trying to conceal derogatory information on a clearance is a sure way to be denied any clearance, even a lowly secret one, for the rest of your life.

THAT shit will be on him.  And probably the F.B.I. for not finding it.  But it will insulate the Potus and Kelly some.

I find it hard to believe that he was left in that position for so long.

I heard an interview last night from a guy that used to do that job.    He said that the guy is always around top secret material, and stuff that's even higher than that, where the name of it is actually secret.  And he mentioned a "burn bucket" I think it was called under the desk, where the stuff that isn't passed to the POTUS is placed, to be burned.

 

Who's to say that he wasn't compromised, and gave information to spies, and the reason that the issue is in the news now is because he stopped?

Tin-foil hat stuff, I know.  But there's a reason for a background check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mike G said:

THAT shit will be on him.  And probably the F.B.I. for not finding it.  But it will insulate the Potus and Kelly some.

I find it hard to believe that he was left in that position for so long.

I heard an interview last night from a guy that used to do that job.    He said that the guy is always around top secret material, and stuff that's even higher than that, where the name of it is actually secret.  And he mentioned a "burn bucket" I think it was called under the desk, where the stuff that isn't passed to the POTUS is placed, to be burned.

 

Who's to say that he wasn't compromised, and gave information to spies, and the reason that the issue is in the news now is because he stopped?

Tin-foil hat stuff, I know.  But there's a reason for a background check.

These days a background check consists of "Are you loyal to Trump?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

 it should be a simple move

It IS a simple move - you leave.

Much like getting out of a burning house and leaving all your treasures behind.

I've known women who did it. One's husband was so bad that he later ended up murdered and dumped in the woods - she and her kids thrived.

All the rest is excuses and/or weakness.

"He really loves me"

"He's sorry"

"He said he'll never do it again"

"I still love him"

"Where would I go"

All the hand wringing about complexity etc. simply enables them staying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

These days a background check consists of "Are you loyal to Trump?"

and a search of said applicants twitter feed to make sure they've never said disparaging things about Trump <- actual practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Washington Post -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/08/thirty-seven-administration-officials-whove-resigned-or-been-fired-under-trump/

Excerpt -

President Trump’s administration has seen more turnover than “The Apprentice.” Quite literally, in fact. Trump’s television show would lose 15 people a season; Trump’s administration has lost at least 37 in just over a year. Two-and-a-half seasons of drama, packed into just over 12 months.

Fired

  • Sally YatesDeputy attorney general. Days with administration: 11. Refused to enforce Trump’s entry ban.
  • Preet BhararaU.S. attorney. Days with administration: 51. Part of purge of U.S. attorneys.
  • James B. ComeyFBI director. Days with administration: 110. Allegedly pressured by Trump to scale down investigations.
  • Rich HigginsDirector, NSC. Days with administration: 176. Fired after writing a conspiracy-filled memo.
  • Derek HarveySenior director, NSC. Days with administration: 182. Fired following power shift under national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
  • Anthony ScaramucciCommunications director. Days with administration: 11. Fired by Kelly.
  • Ezra Cohen-WatnickSenior director, NSC. Days with administration: 188. Fired following power shift under McMaster.

Resigned under pressure

  • Michael FlynnNational security adviser. Days with administration: 23. Ostensibly fired for having misled Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
  • Katie WalshDeputy chief of staff. Days with administration: 68. Moved out of administration to work for a pro-Trump PAC.
  • K.T. McFarlandDeputy national security adviser. Days with administration: 118. Pushed out following power shift under McMaster.
  • Tera DahlDeputy chief of staff, NSC. Days with administration: 166. Reassigned following power shift under McMaster.
  • Michael ShortAssistant press secretary. Days with administration: 185. Scaramucci told media that Short would be fired.
  • Reince PriebusChief of staff. Days with administration: 188. Resigned in favor of Kelly.
  • Stephen K. BannonChief strategist. Days with administration: 209. Bannon left after giving a negative interview to American Prospect.
  • Sebastian GorkaDeputy assistant. Days with administration: 211. Butted heads with Kelly.
  • William BradfordDirector, Energy. Days with administration: About 120. Past racist comments were made public.
  • Tom PriceDirector of Health and Human Services. Days with administration: 232. Under fire for taking expensive charter flights.
  • Jamie JohnsonDirector, DHS. Days with administration: About 230. Past racist comments were made public.
  • Carl HigbieChief of external affairs, Corporation for National and Community Service. Days with administration: 153. Past racist comments were made public.
  • Taylor WeyenethDeputy chief of staff, Office of Drug Control Policy. Days with administration: About 340. Questions about experience and details on résumé.
  • Rob PorterStaff secretary. Days with administration: 385. Allegations of spousal abuse became public.

Resigned

  • Michael DubkeCommunications director. Days with administration: 89. Personal reasons.
  • Walter ShaubDirector of Office of Government Ethics. Days with administration: 181. Concern over ethics rules.
  • Mark CoralloLegal team spokesman. Days with administration: 59. Apparently concerned about handling of Trump Tower story.
  • Sean SpicerPress secretary. Days with administration: 181. Uncomfortable with hiring of Scaramucci.
  • Elizabeth SoutherlandDirector, EPA. Days with administration: 193. Disagreement with direction of department.
  • Carl IcahnSpecial adviser. Days with administration: 211. Resigned in advance of an article about conflicts of interest.
  • George SifakisPublic liaison director. Days with administration: 204. Sifakis was an ally of Priebus.
  • Maliz BeamsCounselor, State. Days with administration: 97. Reported differences with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
  • Elizabeth ShackelfordPolitical officer, State. Days with administration: 323. Disagreement with direction of department.
  • Paul WinfreeDeputy director. Days with administration: 330. Returning to Heritage Foundation.
  • Dina PowellDeputy national security adviser. Days with administration: 304. Personal reasons.
  • Omarosa ManigaultDirector of communications, Office of Public Liaison. Days with administration: 364. Resigned to “pursue other opportunities.” Now stars on CBS’s “Big Brother.”
  • Jeremy KatzDeputy director, NEC. Days with administration: About 340. Personal reasons.
  • Thomas ShannonUnder secretary of state for political affairs. Days with administration: 385 and counting. (Resignation announced but not yet in force.) Personal reasons.
  • John FeeleyAmbassador to Panama. Days with administration: 385 and counting. Disagreement with administration.
  • Rick DearbornDeputy chief of staff. Days with administration: 383 and counting. Joining private sector.

That's some fine human resources management going on......

The swamp is being drained....

The white house is the waste drain....

Everyone involved is twirling around the drain waiting to get sucked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kelly-offers-account-of-porter-exit-that-some-white-house-aides-consider-untrue/2018/02/09/119feb7e-0db1-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&utm_term=.f0e4ba953650

 

Kelly offers account of Porter exit that some White House aides consider untrue

 

ShockedToFindGambling.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

It IS a simple move - you leave.

Much like getting out of a burning house and leaving all your treasures behind.

I've known women who did it. One's husband was so bad that he later ended up murdered and dumped in the woods - she and her kids thrived.

All the rest is excuses and/or weakness.

"He really loves me"

"He's sorry"

"He said he'll never do it again"

"I still love him"

"Where would I go"

All the hand wringing about complexity etc. simply enables them staying.

Wonder how a suit for breach of contract would fly? Do marriage vows matter? Doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

You don't see this coming on yer wedding day.

No you don't. But they all knew about it when they tried to get him a security clearance and covered for him anyway.

The best people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:
21 hours ago, Mid said:

you know it's against federal law to ask a prospective employee about his personal life, being a wife beater etc. right?

It's not against the law to ask about that stuff when trying to get a security clearance though. Which Porter couldn't get, at least not a permanent one. They still had him looking at secret stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Wasn't there a Porter deep in Watergate?

Any relation?

Neither of them to me, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

It's not against the law to ask about that stuff when trying to get a security clearance though. Which Porter couldn't get, at least not a permanent one. They still had him looking at secret stuff.

... ah, what's that called ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It IS a simple move - you leave.

Much like getting out of a burning house and leaving all your treasures behind.

I've known women who did it. One's husband was so bad that he later ended up murdered and dumped in the woods - she and her kids thrived.

All the rest is excuses and/or weakness.

"He really loves me"

"He's sorry"

"He said he'll never do it again"

"I still love him"

"Where would I go"

All the hand wringing about complexity etc. simply enables them staying.

no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sources: Chief of Staff John Kelly expressed to President Trump willingness to resign

Quote

 

President Donald Trump, furious over the handling of domestic abuse allegations involving one of his closest aides, has spoken to confidantes about the possibility of replacing embattled Chief of Staff John Kelly, sources close to the president tell ABC News.

One confidante — longtime friend and former executive chairman of his inaugural committee, Tom Barrack — was approached to gauge his interest in the chief of staff position, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News. Barrack said he won’t take the job, the source said.

Kelly has made clear to the president in the last 24 hours that he's willing to resign in light of the president's dissatisfaction over the West Wing's handling of the allegations against former Staff Secretary Rob Porter, according to sources who have spoken with Trump and Kelly.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sources-chief-staff-john-kelly-expressed-president-trump/story?id=52970133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites