Do you think that they really give a shit? He's gone and this won't affect the rest of them in any way.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I cannot tolerate men who abuse their wives. But do you want to live in a society where men are fired as soon as an allegation comes out? I mean that is kind of happening now, but I would kind of prefer that an investigation take place first. Wouldn't you?

I would hope that they had a discussion with him when they first surfaced and made a decision to let the investigation proceed. Or would you prefer that we always take the word of accusers without any investigation before ruining someone's career?

Who would do the investigation?

Sounds like the FBI wasn't too keen on what they learned.

If there are allegations that prevented the President's staff secretary from getting a security clearance, then that person should not be in that position until a security clearance can be obtained. Failing that, he's gone. Why do you think Porter couldn't get the SC? Pretty sure they do an investigation into anyone applying for a security clearance (hell, they talked to my college roommate when I applied for one).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Well there was clearly enough smoke to make the FBI stop the security clearance. So yes, he should have been dismissed. And having Hope Hicks, who is romantically involved with said abuser, draft Kelly’s initial statement is just stupid.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

I wonder if they thought, well if we get the woman he is currently involved with to go to bat for him that will look good.

Yeah, Kelly said last night he was "shocked" by the "new allegations " that he's known about since last fall. Shocked I say!

So, a couple of things to note. It appears that Mr. Porter did have a clearance. What he had was an interim clearance, which most people get when they're in the process of getting a new clearance, pending the background investigation and receipt of a "final clearance." The issue here is that Mr. Porter continued to work under an interim clearance for so long.

Second, the FBI didn't necessarily hold up granting a final clearance because there was "smoke" to the allegations. It appears that they felt the allegations were items that could be used to blackmail him, which put him in a potentially dangerous position. That doesn't imply that the charges were accurate or proven, only that they could be used against Mr. Porter in attempts to get him to divulge classified information. It doesn't appear, as of yet, that the FBI or any law enforcement agency has found the allegations serious or credible enough to open a criminal investigation.

I'm not arguing that Mr. Porter did or did not do the things his ex-wives allege he did, just correcting a couple of things that get lost in translation when the media (who generally don't have a clue about how these processes work) report on this sort of thing.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

He should've been suspended on the first allegation then an initial investigation should've been conducted to ascertain the validity of the allegations. He then should've been advised the first review has shown the allegations to be credible therefore he's terminated. The remainder of the investigation is then conducted to ensure a solid defense if the sues for wrongful termination.

It's really not that complicated - whether it's a public or private employee.

Having said that - he's out and that is the only important factor. Lighting up Kelly or the WH is just minor partisan politics IMO. But, such is the nature of life these days.

Well, it seems like it would be kind of important to see if he actually committed these offenses, right? Or are we just fine with disgracing, smearing, and ruining people's careers based solely on allegations now?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Who does the investigation? FBI in this case? As a private employee who would do such an investigation? Just curious.

A buddy of mine's brother is a Secret Service agent. They went back and talked to his teachers. One was a 3rd grade teacher.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

As deplorable as Porter's actions were, he's by no means the worst amongst the cast of characters in the WH.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Yikes. You think someone has done worse than beat their wife?! Pray tell...

HR would do the initial investigation - as should've been the case with a WH staffer. If there's a possibility of a crime being committed then the authorities should be alerted.

Otherwise, on the allegation for this type of issue a quick review by internal HR should be done (days) to ascertain the credibility of the allegations. To respond to the other post regarding taking actions on allegations alone - given this particular type of allegation I would recommend asking the individual to either take a few days off or work from home (partial suspension) and ask for a quick initial HR review.

IMO - in this case that would have been sufficient to determine the allegations were credible and action needs to be taken. It is also possible he lied on his job application but I don't know about that.

I will admit that I haven't read much on this situation.

In a situation like this I'm not sure who would conduct the investigation. I assume that the agency conducting it for the clearance would continue it in order to determine if the allegations are credible.

Having said that, I also assume that the agency would only seek to determine if the allegations are credible and the only action they would take would be to deny the clearance.

Klehner mentioned that his job would most likely require a TS clearance. I would assume that once the agency determined he was not eligible, they would notify the WH who I am sure would act with all due haste and transparency in terminating his employment. Okay - I almost got the last part out with a straight face.

I am not losing any sleep over his dismissal. If he abused his ex-wives, he has some issues/problems and should not have been kept in his position.

To be clear, I doubt he needed a TS clearance. He never got a Secret clearance, apparently.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Alleged. Carry on...

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Reports indicate he got an interim clearance. At what level, I don't know. But an interim clearance is still a clearance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You and your "facts". Aren't you in Russia? Who, exactly are you working for Mr. slowguy? What do you know about the election?!? WE DEMAND ANSWERS!!!

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Kelly's indefensible attack on the California Congresswoman (I was on his side before the facts came to light) pretty well shattered my hopes and expectations for what he'd help restore to the office.

He's turning out to be every bit the disaster I've come to expect at every level of this administration.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Three women with near identical stories of abuse, with a photo of an injury that he (mostly) doesn't deny inflicting. There comes a point when it's reasonable to part ways with people like this, in high profile positions, regardless of whether he's been given due process in court.

Sarah Sanders reading his flat out denials was just...well, it was just another day in the White House Press Room. It's laughable on its face. Why even read it aloud? Part ways and move along.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Kelly needs to go with most inWH now. Kelly has turned into a liar too. This episode and black congresswoman episode. What next? And mad dog needs to tell Bone Spurs (did u see his Cadet marching picture-no spurs there)to stick the parade up his rather large arse.

She makes Baghdad Bob look like Walter fucking Cronkite...

At least when Spicer was trying to feed us a load of bullshit, he'd kinda blink and make a scrunchy face like he could actually still taste the shit coming out of his mouth.

Lol! I miss Spicey...

Well, I'm hearing rumors that the other women were willing to "go to bat for him" as well.

In this case there was an investigation as part of his background check

https://www.vox.com/...ns-abuse-allegations

“But multiple reports suggest the federal government knew about the allegations. The Intercept reported Wednesday that the FBI was aware of the abuse allegations against Porter, which they uncovered during a background check for security clearance. The bureau interviewed both ex-wives during the check, and Holderness — Porter’s first wife — told the Intercept she’d sent the FBI the photo of herself with a black eye which she said happened after Porter hit her in Florence.

A federal law enforcement source also confirmed to CBS News that the FBI was aware of the abuse allegations after the background review. Per CBS News: “That information was passed on to the White House.””

The second wife also had a temporary order of protection in 2010

Porter could not get top security clearance, but handled it anyway. Wonder if that dumarse nunes will call for investigation of improper handling of sensitive documents?

Trump promised he would hire the "best" people. I guess seeing as Ivana accused Trump of abuse, Steve Bannon was accused of abuse, and Andrew Puzder, Trump's first nominee to be secretary of labor, was also accused of domestic abuse, maybe Trump thinks Porter was indeed the best.

Trump said recently he's not a feminist. I think we can all agree on that.

That said, I think this reflects most poorly on Kelly. What a disappointment that guy's been.

That’s just not true. I have conducted some of the background investigations from SF86’s back in the day, which is generally part of new agent hazing, er, training, and the only people we will go and actually talk to are former employers, listed references, neighbors, close family members, roommates dating back 10 years (if any), and follow up leads that may have developed from those interviews. When it comes to education we only obtain transcripts and records from schools to corroborate you actually went there and received the degree you stated. Maybe we would speak to a teacher/professor if listed as a reference or possibly if the attendance at the school fell within the 10 year window prior to the SF86. A third grade teacher wouldn’t fit that bill since the person is about 8 years old in third grade and the minimum age for entry to the USSS is 23.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Agreed. The only reason to talk to a 3rd Grade teacher is if the person being investigated listed that teacher as a reference on their SF86. For instance, if the person listed their home address from within the last 5-10 years, and listed the 3rd Grade teacher as a current contact who knows them from when they lived at that address.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I must have misunderstood then and she was maybe a character reference. Thanks for explaining.

Sorry, I understand this is the LR and I should just double down but I’ll take your word and figure I was mistaken.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Great statement today from Trump on Porter. No mention of the victims. Fucktard.

Trump tweet yesterday:

“Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused — life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?”

Let's see, what evidence is there here:
3 women's allegations
Photo of a black eye
Police report
Restraining order
FBI withholding a security clearance

Only problem here is the White House completely failed in doing its process. And speaking of Due Process, when will the women who have accused Trump of sexual impropriety have their Due Process?

How about we be fair here, and ditch some of the emotion.

-3 allegations aren’t evidence. They’re allegations. And there are really only 2 official allegations that I’m aware of, and one of the women claims a third approached her about abuse.
-The photo may or may not be evidence of domestic abuse. People get black eyes in all sorts of ways, and Porter claims he took the photo himself, which would be odd if you’re the one who gave her the black eye.
-The police report and protective order also aren’t evidence of abuse, just evidence that the second wife requested the protection. This happened after Porter allegedly punched a glass door,...not the wife, by the way.
-Withholding the final security clearance also isn’t evidence of abuse. It simply evidence that the FBI didn’t think Porter would pass his background check.

So where is the actual evidence that Mr. Porter committed domestic abuse? He may or may not have done so, I don’t really have any idea and neither do you. However, we haven’t seen much actual evidence yet.

As to when the alleged victims receive due process, well, they get the protection of the law when a crime comes to the attention of law enforcement. If they keep quiet about abuse for years, and then make accusations during interviews later, I’m not sure what “due process” you expect to happen. Since Porter and his second wife divorced 5 years ago, my guess is that the statute of limitations has expired on any battery or abuse charges. I understand that it can be extremely difficult for victims of abuse to come forward, but the process is in place for a reason. You can’t just wait for years and years and then make allegations against someone that most likely can’t be proven or disproven because of the time that’s passed since the alleged crime.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

His two ex wives gave statements to the FBI, under threat of perjury if they lied. We don't know what is in those statements, but we do know Porter did not receive security clearance. Both women have made public statements that he abused them, so it seems likely they said the same to the FBI. At the least there is a mass of circumstantial evidence they WE know of.

The point is that Trump has a history of dismissing women's allegations of abuse and his public statements on this in the last few days have made no mention of the alleged victims. Of course we all know why.

-3 allegations aren’t evidence. They’re allegations. And there are really only 2 official allegations that I’m aware of, and one of the women claims a third approached her about abuse.

The problem is that the women did everything right. They are always told to go to the police (not on social media), present any independent evidence (photos), hopefully have it corroborated (more than 1 person) and then let them investigate. The women did that in 2017, over a year ago, quietly and behind the scenes.

They did everything right and it's still being dismissed as only allegations and are not being taken seriously. That's a problem for the Whitehouse.

Well, no, not really. The women made these allegations when they were approached for background interviews. They didn't take their allegations to law enforcement voluntarily or in a timely fashion.

Again, I'm not saying the allegations are or are not true. However, one of the things we have to continue to work on in the area of domestic violence is getting victims to come forward when the crime takes place, not 4-10 years after the fact, and not only when someone comes to them for a background interview. We have very little in the way of actual evidence or corroboration. These accounts don't corroborate each other. They are separate alleged incidents, years apart. The second wife claiming she was abused doesn't corroborate the first wife's account. The photo doesn't prove anything except that, at some point in time, the woman had a black eye.

As tough as it is, the longer victims wait, the harder it is to prove their allegations, and the more doubt will be cast upon them. And the accused is entitled to due process and protection under the law just as the alleged victim is.

While the current climate arising from things like the Weinstein allegations has forced some forward progress in terms of women telling their stories and abusers being held accountable, it has also led to the assumption that anyone accused is automatically guilty, and all it takes is an accusation to have severe negative impacts on the alleged perpetrator, whether or not they are ever charged or convicted.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well there's evidence he did, the question is whether someone believes it demonstrates he committed abuse or not.

What would be "actual evidence" in your estimation?

Eyewitness (and why couldn't that person be lying just like the accuser?), video of it?

Of course there's evidence. It's just that not much of what Kay offered really constitutes evidence. An allegation isn't evidence.

The photo may or may not be evidence of abuse. It could also be evidence that his wife got into a fight at the grocery store, or that she fell and knocked herself in the face, or any other number of things. An eyewitness account could be evidence, except I don't think we've heard of any of those. Obviously video, testimony from medical professionals who treated her at the time of injury, corresponding injury to Mr. Porter indicating he hit her (bruised or abraded knuckles, etc), corresponding witness accounts of loud violent shouting or screams at the time of the alleged abuse, etc.

That's part of the problem with not reporting abuse until years later. It can be difficult enough to prove at the time of the abuse. It's much harder to prove actual evidence 5 or 10 years after the fact.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Why isn't someone's word evidence?

Someone's word might be evidence. For example, in a witness statement.

You'll have to check with an actual lawyer, because I don't know where a victim's allegations fall in terms of whether they constitute actual evidence or not. I would tend to think that an allegation does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of wrongdoing. If it did, then an alleged perpetrator would be at a disadvantage from the start, because just making the allegation would be evidence of the guilt of the accused. An allegation is just that, an allegation, not evidence that the allegation has merit. The allegation can't be evidence of its own merit. You take an allegation, find out the facts/evidence, and then the facts show whether the allegation has merit or not.

If I say that you stole my pen, is that evidence that you stole my pen? Or is that simply an allegation that may or may not convince police to look for actual evidence that you committed that crime?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The women made these allegations when they were approached for background interviews. They didn't take their allegations to law enforcement voluntarily or in a timely fashion.

They did go to the FBI a year ago and my understanding is that his security clearance was held up for that reason. If that is the case, why would he be allowed to work as the WH Staff Secretary, and have access to classified information while only having temporary security clearance? Wouldn't it have been smarter to just give him another job until his permanent clearance was approved?

what difference does it make to who to believe if multiple people independently say you steal pens? For many of the things we do in life there can't be a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, it comes down to a decision based on the balance of the information. When 2 ex-wives and a girlfriend come forward independently with stories of physical violence and one of them has the real-time restraining order it just seems incredibly unlikely that they all just made it up.

I don't think they "went to" the FBI. From reports I've seen, they were approached by the FBI as part of the normal clearance interview process, and made their allegations at those interviews.


For sure, he should have been moved to a position without access to classified information, or let go altogether when it became clear he wasn't eligible for a permanent clearance. It was not a good move to keep him there, either from a national security perspective, or from a public perception perspective.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, we typically find an allegation more believable if it's corroborated by multiple independent accounts. Not sure why this would be mysterious to you.


Well, two ex-wives didn't come forward. They made allegations when they were approached. The third woman hasn't, I don't think, come forward. She's just said to have called the White House counsel to let him know about the allegations made by the ex-wives.

That said, I'm not saying that a person can't make a choice to believe or disbelieve the allegations based on the accounts we've heard. Feel free to make a judgment about the believability of the ex-wives or of Mr. Porter. What I'm saying is simply that there's very little evidence that has been made public to support the allegations. Surely, sometimes there simply isn't much physical or circumstantial evidence, and that doesn't make the allegations untrue. But it does make it difficult to prove the allegations true, and that problem is compounded when the allegations aren't made in a timely fashion using the law enforcement process in place to handle these crimes.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Wait.

He's bemoaning the destruction of the guy's career, when it's entirely up to him whether he's able to continue working in the White House?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Easy for you to sit there and say abused women should do this and that. I'm sure walking a mile in their shoes might wake you up to the reality of their horrors and the difficulty in knowing the best way to handle it.

That said, one DID contact the police, and it was the police who recommended she obtain a temporary restraining order.

Also, when his first ex wife had him take photos of her with a black eye, she had insisted he did that as part of her attempting to rehabilitate him.

Read this:
https://www.cnn.com/...ite-house/index.html

Yes, it's much easier for me to sit here and say it. If you could take a tiny break from your tired self-righteous act, you'd have seen that I acknowledged the difficulty that victims of abuse have in reporting their abuse. I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do, however, it's plain fact that the longer the period between when abuse occurs and when it's reported, the more difficult it is to hold abusers accountable. That may be a reality you need to wake up to.


No shit. I referenced the police report and the protective order on more than one occasion.


Super. She says she made him take photos "in contrition." Not sure what that has to do with anything.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

So which is it? Evidence, including a police report, or no evidence?

Because apparently you're too busy maintaining your position up on that high horse to actually read, here it is again:

"-The police report and protective order also aren’t evidence of abuse, just evidence that the second wife requested the protection. This happened after Porter allegedly punched a glass door,...not the wife, by the way. "

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Learn the law. Testimony is evidence, and is often enough to convict someone of physical abuse.

What testimony has been given regarding domestic abuse in this case, Kay?

Learn to have civil discourse instead of acting like a tool.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Both ex wives testified to the FBI.

You seem particularly sensitive today.

Neither wife testified to anyone that I’m aware of. Talking to the FBI during a background investigation is not testimony. I’ve had a clearance for 24 years, and had my background checks and spoken to investigators on behalf of other persons background checks. It’s not testimony.

I’m not sensitive, but you might consider the tone you use, and how it comes across to others (accusative, condescending, etc). You should especially consider that when you say things like “Learn the law” while incorrectly presuming that speaking to investigators is “testimony.”

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Everybody who starts a government job that requires a security clearance initially gets an interim clearance pending the outcome of their background check. We had a guy where I work who's background check found some problems and he wasn't granted a clearance. He lost his job because of that.

You can't start an administration and wait for everybody's clearances to go through. The investigations take a bit of time and you can't just put the government on hold. While those investigations are in progress they work under an interim clearance. I am not sure if there are limitations to what they can see under an interim clearance. (Though Jared Kushner is apparently reading the PDB with his interim clearance..) I've read reporting that 30-40 members of the WH staff are still working under interim clearances.

More info on interim clearances here.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

I believe that you cannot view Top Secret SCI stuff with an interim clearance (at least from my experience and what I have read), Top Secret and Secret stuff is fine though. But it may be moot since the president is the authority for classification, so maybe the normal rules don't apply if the president just says that person can view it? Sure it would be really bad to do, since the rules exist for a reason, just that it may be legal.

But yes, you are granted an interim clearance first while your clearance is evaluated, since the lowest level takes at least 3 months. Which was just silly when I had to apply for a clearance for an internship, because I did not get the clearance until months after the internship ended. I think because they cannot grant an interim clearance if you are not applying for a clearance to begin with.

I thought condescension was a prerequisite for the LR?! ;)

Anyway, I go back to what you wrote earlier:

"Someone's word might be evidence. For example, in a witness statement.
You'll have to check with an actual lawyer, because I don't know where a victim's allegations fall in terms of whether they constitute actual evidence or not. I would tend to think that an allegation does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of wrongdoing."

You and I will have to agree to disagree. If the FBI comes to interview you, then you may perjure yourself if you lie to them. What you say to them can be considered "testimony." And yes, it is evidence.

Yes, it might be believable or not depending on what other types of evidence are available, but it's evidence nonetheless.

We are operating in the realm of personal and public opinion here. We can choose to take for evidence whatever we want. There is no law or for that matter even everyday expectation that for someone to form an opinion about something based on some evidence that that evidence needs to be vetted in a court of law of some sort.

In this particular case, the guy isn't on trial let alone been convicted of anything so whether there is "actual evidence" or not is irrelevant. He could have simply not resigned or his bosses could have chosen not to fire him (whatever actually happened).

Based on what we know it's not unreasonable, in fact it's probably quite reasonable, to conclude this guy did what he is accused of doing. If people want to hang their hat on over-reach due to the Metoo movement and the social climate it's created then go for it. But it strains credibility to say this guy's problem is he is being framed, the problem would have to be that the punishment is excessive for the crime (which almost no one seems willing to say).

When I went to work for Boeing many decades ago, I wasn't allowed anywhere near the project for which I was hired until I got my TS clearance.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

It is evidence but without any independent corroboration, it can mean very little in the court of law when it comes to he said, she said.

In Porter’s case, ex wife says he abused her. He said he didn’t. Who do we believe in the absence of other evidence?

No other evidence exists other than a photo showing a woman with a black eye.

When was the picture taken (something that can definitely date it, not someone’s word)?

Who took the picture?

How long after the injury was the picture taken?

By the way - this is my experience with my ex wife when she filed and was granted an ex parte order of protection against me because she thought I had a suspended driver’s license. Needless to say, the protective order was dismissed after a court hearing. An hour later, she went to the police saying I sexually abused our daughter. After the police and CPS investigated, their letter to me said “no evidence existed that I abused my daughter”.

So no, allegations in and of themselves does not constitute evidence of abuse. And, women DO make false statements to police and FBI all the time for their own agenda. Please note - all of these allegations were made against me 4 weeks before a custody hearing.

Well, other than the 2 other women who said he treated them the same way.

So either he is lying or we have 3 psycho women he happened to get into relationships with who are saying he abused them.

Sure you can. But just because you choose to take whatever you want for evidence doesn't make it actually evidence, or reliable evidence.


Obviously, hence the thrust of my previous posts highlighting the disparity between what we demand in a court of law to ensure fairness and protection of the rights of victims and accused, vs the wild west of social media, public opinion, and gossip.


Well, no, it's not irrelevant. If a person is going to resign/get fired, and his reputation is going to be ruined, and he's going to be excoriated in the press, it would be really nice if we had evidence of his wrongdoing instead of just allegations. Regardless, the reason the concept of evidence is being discussed is because Kay contended that there is all sorts of evidence, and I refuted that by characterizing her "evidence" as what it was, allegation, tangential reports and situations, and unsubstantiated evidence that could point to different possible scenarios.


That's fine, and as I said before, I'm not arguing for or against his guilt. I'm just asking that we be honest when portraying the circumstances leading to his downfall. No testimony has been given. Very little evidence has been offered. He's essentially been convicted in the court of public opinion based almost solely on the allegations themselves.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Don't ever tell anyone to "learn the law" again, because it's pretty clear that you don't understand it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You can't start an administration and wait for everybody's clearances to go through. The investigations take a bit of time and you can't just put the government on hold.

I understand that but in this case, there were doubts about his clearance (for a full year) and he had a job where he was privy to all of the classified information. Surely there was someone in Washington who has security clearance who could have filled that job until Porter obtained his clearance.

I'm fine with recognizing the circumstances as being what they are.

This is the most immediate issue for me. The allegations of his domestic abuse, if true, are nasty, and I wouldn't want to hire someone like that. However, that's the kind of individual employee issue all sorts of employers have to deal with. The bigger concern for me is that he had access to national security information for as long as he did, when his final clearance was specifically withheld because of the risk of blackmail due to these allegations. And the problem is that he's not, by a long shot, the only administration staffer who still doesn't have a final clearance after more than a year. It raises concerns about how seriously the administration and White House staff take the issue of preserving national security related information. It's particularly troubling given that we have a retired Marine Corps General as WH CoS, a man who should take this stuff as seriously as anyone.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I have to ask this again, because I'm still not quite clear as to what President Grievance is getting at here:

Quote:

“Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused — life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?”

Is he chastising the women for coming forward with these allegations?

Is he sniping at his Chief of Staff for firing them without his authorization, or for not refusing to accept their resignations without a thorough internal investigation (i.e. due process)?

Is he forgetting the fact that he decides who does and does not work at the White House? I mean, no one's career is "gone" if he doesn't fire them, right?

Is he just virtue/grievance signaling to his base, or is he just parroting the latest Fox and Friends segment?

What the hell's going on here?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I believe the main reason is that it's another effort to throw out the message that not all accusations of abuse or sexual harassment are valid, which he hopes his base will latch onto and repeat whenever the media reports about his accusers. Of course he is right - there are indeed instances where people are falsely accused, and some of Trump's accusers may have done that, including possibly his ex wife Ivana.

Of course in this case given the timing there is also the innuendo that Trump believes Rob Porter's claims of innocence, but this is classic Trump where he has plausible deniability... "What? No, my statement was a general statement. It was not specifically about Rob Porter. What do you mean?!"

And as if on cue, yesterday KellyAnne Conway came on TV to say exactly that.

To her credit, however, Conway also said she was "horrified" by the allegations, and said, "I have no reason not to believe these women."
"In this case, you have contemporaneous police reports, you have women speaking to the FBI under threat of perjury ... you have photographs, and when you look at all of that pulled together, Rob Porter did the right thing by resigning."

I wonder if Trump was happy she said that.

Ok...but, why tweet about it if he believes his people are innocent and didn't deserve to lose their jobs? He's complaining about the lack of due process while not affording his own employees due process?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Because he doesn't really care about the things in his tweet. He's just trying to imply that the women who have accused him of things are lying.

Nope.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The "SCI" portion of TS-SCI requires getting read on to each specific program as is necessary to do your job. So no you're not going to get read on to anything until your whole packet is approved. So no access to these named programs/activities. Unless of course you're a Guatemalan housekeeper asked to print out SAP documents--then all bets are off. It took nearly a year for my TS-SCI to get approved so i could start my current contractor gig. Very intrusive process.

---

Steve

Steve, I would agree normally. However, I doubt that the SSO has been as strict with the 30 or so White House staffers who are reported to still have interim clearances, as they would be with you or me in active duty or as a contractor.

If President Trump has granted an interim TS clearance to, say, his son-in-law, I don't have too much problem imagining that he also directed whoever manages their clearances to go ahead and read him into the SCI programs, so he could give him access to whatever information he wants him to have.

I don't know if this has happened or not, but I don't think it's a tremendous stretch to imagine thats how it's working.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Article written by Porter's first wife...

Interesting that she says his abuse didn't start until 3 years into their relationship. I'm sure she's relieved they didn't have any children together.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-20180213-story.html