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