Assault/Harassment thread

Rob Porter anyone? Personally not sure why he had to lose his job, since he was not charged with anything?

If he can’t get a security clearance, for any reason, he shouldn’t have that job. The FBI must have it’s reasons for not giving security clearances to serial domestic abusers. Maybe it has something to do with the statistical overlap they have with mass shooters.

And hasn’t it been a longstanding practice that appointees involved in personal scandals resign to avoid bringing embarrassment to their administrations? (Though good luck with that.)

He wasn’t given a security clearance because he could have been blackmailed. In other words, someone could have said to him, “Give me top secret information or I’ll expose your abusive past.”

There is still another top White House official working without a security clearance.

Rob Porter’s abuse doesn’t surprise me. I don’t know the guy, of course, but we all know that abuse doesn’t discriminate – it occurs in every economic and educational stratum. So the fact that he’s a Harvard grad earning big bucks and high up in the Republican food chain doesn’t protect him from the possibility of being an abuser.

IMO, the non-reaction of all the men around him isn’t surprising either, but it is tragic. It’s just an additional sign that men rule and that women are not taken seriously. This is basically another, “When did you stop beating your wife?” issue. Yes, he beat his wives, but no one gives a damn.

Along with #MeToo – actually, because of #MeToo – society now finally is starting to care.

ETA: From CNN:

And this is why you shouldn’t keep people with trouble in their past on the White House staff.

I don’t want to see anyone bleating, “Why don’t women complain?” ever ever ever again on this forum. Rob Porter’s ex-wives did complain. They told the FBI that their ex-husband had beaten them. One provided pictures to the FBI. The other provided links to police reports and an order of protection.

What happened? The people at the White House believed the guy, and didn’t believe the women. They discounted the women’s allegations, even though the FBI had to have told them there was proof.

My favorite part of the story is how Porter told his White House superiors that he had been arguing with his wife about a vase, and she was “somehow” hit with the vase. Somehow. He needs to train his ill-behaved vases better, because somehow they keep jumping up and hitting women in the face.

Aside from the fact that he can’t get a security clearance, and he is handling every single piece of classified information that gets in the President’s hands so he needs a security clearance, do we not expect the White House to have any moral standards at all? Do we think that men who beat up their wives are fine to work at the White House, as long as they have not been convicted of crimes?

This seems like a contradiction. If no one cares, then what is there to blackmail about? Just out with it.

Surprisingly, I don’t see a connection. He isn’t beating up women in the White House. Although he is apparently dating Hope Hicks, she has not come forward to say he is abusing her. Behind closed doors and all that. He also isn’t making policy so as to be trying to change the law back to the days when you could beat your wife with a switch the diameter of your thumb.

I would say I’m shocked that anyone would think it’s a good idea for a guy who beats his wives to be given power and influence at the highest levels, but after the last couple years in the news and here on CC, it’s just not surprising.
I’m just waiting for someone to come along and post that it doesn’t seem right that the guy’s life is being ruined when the wives were also at fault.

Rob Porter’s boss, Gen. John Kelly, has a bad record on covering up abuse of women. Kelly pretends he was “shocked” to learn about the violence allegations against Porter, but in fact he’d known about them for months. This is not the first time he has downplayed accusations of abuse.

In Kelly’s mind, a sexual harasser is a superb Marine officer. Last November this superb Marine colonel was arrested for seven counts of indecent liberties with a child.

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

Yeah, well, Porter tried to hush up his ex-wife, and he was fired when the allegations became public, so I’d say some people do care.

Hope Hicks is romantically involved with Porter and she was previously involved with Corey Lewandowski, who assaulted a female Breitbart reporter. I hope she gets any help she needs.

What is the connection?

Try to get the highest level of clearance with a few blemishes on your record, even if there were no charges filed in the end… why is it a good idea to give a temporary clearance to someone who is not likely to get that clearance? If we were to stick to the rules, they should be uniformly applied to all.

Here’s a very good editorial (IMO) in today’s New York Times. (You know the one – the failing New York Times.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/trump-porter-abuse-women.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials

I’m sorry, but perhaps I’m being dim here. Is it not obvious that if a guy thinks women are for beating up, we don’t want that guy making policy? Because we don’t want policies that encourage women being beaten up or otherwise mistreated? Is there something I’m missing here?

I somewhat have to agree with Sylvan8798 that I don’t get the connection. I am a tad disturbed that there is the assumption that because he and his ex’s fought that he would punch someone he works with. It will remain to be seen. I think the “blackmail” reason is a stronger reason to withhold security clearances than what happened in his former marriages. I’ve said before I know several men and women personally who had totally abusive relationships, got divorced and went on to find healthy relationships with other partners that were not combustible. I get what happened to him and his exs, but I don’t know if I can support the action of holding job performance over his head as retribution for things that happen in someone’s personal life that are totally separate from job performance.

Who made this assumption? No one.

Some things are so predictable.

If there are educated adults who can’t make basic connections like it’s a bad idea to give a violent, abusive man great power and authority, then it’s certainly beyond my ability to make those connections for them.

My guess is no one is asking for “connections” to be made.That is the heart of “opinions”…it is an individual belief. Someone might be potentially bad marriage material and be a fine co-worker with exceptional skill. That is my opinion. If they were never going to give him a security clearance because of risk of blackmail or personal issues leaving him exposed to threats that would impact his ability to do his job with integrity then so be it. The job has to go. But if the security clearance were granted previously and he never assaulted a co-worker that is an entirely different situation. I don’t see marital abuse as predictive of job behavior or potential for random assault in the workplace…and again that is my opinion.

Who is more likely to take the issue of violence against women seriously, a man who beats up women, or a man who does not beat up women?

I’m not beating my head against a brick wall.

For any young people in particular who are reading this thread, please know that a normal fight among a couple doesn’t result in the man grabbing or hitting the woman. Please know that when a man gives his wife a black eye or grabs her from on the shower in anger, that it is not simply a “bad marriage” or a fight among spouses. Please know that absolutely no one should be above repercussions for those actions. Don’t feel sorry for the abuser. Please, ignore those who make excuses and minimize those actions.