Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Senator questions whether Kelly ‘covered up’ staffer’s record

Posted by   + Show Post

Dem senator questions whether Kelly ‘covered up’ staffer’s record

Dem senator questions whether Kelly ‘covered up’ staffer’s record
© Getty Images

A Democratic senator on Thursday questioned White House chief of staff John Kelly's handling of allegations of domestic abuse against a senior aide who resigned this week.

In a tweet, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said that President Trump's chief of staff needed to resign if he "covered up" allegations of domestic abuse against Rob Porter, the White House staff secretary who resigned on Wednesday.

"If it is true that President Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly covered up Staff Secretary Rob Porter’s record of domestic violence then he should resign immediately," Heinrich wrote.


Porter resigned a day after two ex-wives, Colbie Holderness and Jennifer Willoughby, told The Daily Mail they experienced physical and emotional abuse at Porter's hands years ago, before he joined the Trump administration.

The aide denied any wrongdoing in a statement, calling the allegations "false" after photos of his first wife's bruised face emerged online.

“These outrageous allegations are simply false. I took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described. I have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but I will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign,” Porter said in a statement announcing his departure.

Heinrich's comments mirror those from fellow Democrat Rep. Don Beyer (Va.), who called Kelly's judgement "appalling" and remarked that he would fire the chief of staff were he in Trump's position.

"If I found out my Chief of Staff was aware of convincing allegations that a subordinate engaged in repeated domestic abuse, and acted to shield them or keep them on my team, I would fire my Chief of Staff," Beyer tweeted. "John Kelly’s judgment is appalling."

White House spokesman Raj Shah refused to comment during a press conference Thursday as to when Kelly became aware of the allegations against Porter, including whether he knew about them before the Mail's report. 

by on Feb. 8, 2018 at 7:49 PM
Replies (21-26):
SlightlyPerfect
by Babushka Blockparty on Feb. 8, 2018 at 10:08 PM
How do you reconcile that ideological stance with the breaking news of his being fully aware of this background?

Quoting PPCLC:

I think he's very "old school" in his approaches on many things which in today's society, doesn't always translate well.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm telling you. I don't like him. Never did. Look more closely. Something is off. Idk what it is yet. But it's something.

Quoting PPCLC:

Does any of this surprise you, though, with this administration?

Again, we'll see what the next few days to weeks bring.

I like Kelly and I like to think he may have been duped or Porter fell under his radar but some valid points have been made so who knows?

We shall see.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm willing to go a step further and say he and Trump knew Porter had this background information as well as related temp clearances. I can't figure out how they couldn't. Trump WH said tonight he (the President) didn't know. I don't buy it.

I look at Kushner and am just like, "Seriously?"

You can't do your job without a security clearance.


Quoting PPCLC:

Valid points.

We'll see how this progresses over the coming days.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: This is just a guess, but he'd have to know whether someone in the WH had a temp or non-perm security clearance. Especially someone he worked side by side with.

That whole "women were sacred" thing he touted always rubbed me the wrong way, for the record. I think this is a product of that rhetoric. To make a point of something, to elevate something in discourse--something that's natural and common, like one's sex--there is a motive there. It might present itself as misogynistic or equality or sexist, but it exists.

And I think Kelly is showing his traditionalism in the framework of Trumpism, which is not a good thing.


Quoting PPCLC:

In this instance and especially being that it's Kelly, I do not believe he covered anything up.

I think someone---Porter---slinked under Kelly's radar.

You don't want to naturally conclude that everything is wrong with those you work with (or they work FOR you). You want to conclude that they've been vetted enough that anything bad, such as DV, cannot fall through the cracks.

You also want to give that worker the benefit of doubt and this could go for any "boss" with a subordinate.

SlightlyPerfect
by Babushka Blockparty on Feb. 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM
That was my point.

The communications staff has lied or covered up blatantly. No other WH staff has been this lackadaisical, to put it mildly.

The difference with Porter is that Hicks leads the communications staff.


Quoting francee89: But the fact that they were willing to let him transition out slowly and stressed they didn�t pressure him to resign speaks volumes.
Quoting SlightlyPerfect: Porter left earlier today. Just to collect his belongings.
Quoting PPCLC:

I believe Porter will only be sticking around temporarily and to help with a "smooth transition."

That's not unheard of.

As for the rest, who knows? As I wrote just a moment ago, we'll see what transpires in the coming days.

Quoting francee89: How would Porter not being able to get a security clearance for over a year be something that Kelly just missed? It�s his job to know these things. It seems they either covered it up or didn�t bother to look into it further.

Neither is good.



Why did Kelly release a statement praising him, and say he stood by that assessment even after the photos were released? If domestic violence actually bothered them, why would Sanders say he wouldn�t be leaving immediately? They�ve fired people for much less serious things without a replacement waiting.



I mean, Kelly�s still willing to work for a President who enthusiastically endorsed a child molester for the Senate, so why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt here in thinking domestic violence wouldn�t be something he�d be willing to overlook in someone he otherwise wanted to work with?



Quoting PPCLC:

In this instance and especially being that it's Kelly, I do not believe he covered anything up.

I think someone---Porter---slinked under Kelly's radar.

You don't want to naturally conclude that everything is wrong with those you work with (or they work FOR you). You want to conclude that they've been vetted enough that anything bad, such as DV, cannot fall through the cracks.

You also want to give that worker the benefit of doubt and this could go for any "boss" with a subordinate.

PPCLC
by Lisa on Feb. 8, 2018 at 10:48 PM

I've not stated an "ideological stance" and I have stated a few times now that we'll see in the coming days how this is all going to play out further.

I won't speculate further, personally.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: How do you reconcile that ideological stance with the breaking news of his being fully aware of this background?
Quoting PPCLC:

I think he's very "old school" in his approaches on many things which in today's society, doesn't always translate well.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm telling you. I don't like him. Never did. Look more closely. Something is off. Idk what it is yet. But it's something.
Quoting PPCLC:

Does any of this surprise you, though, with this administration?

Again, we'll see what the next few days to weeks bring.

I like Kelly and I like to think he may have been duped or Porter fell under his radar but some valid points have been made so who knows?

We shall see.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm willing to go a step further and say he and Trump knew Porter had this background information as well as related temp clearances. I can't figure out how they couldn't. Trump WH said tonight he (the President) didn't know. I don't buy it. I look at Kushner and am just like, "Seriously?" You can't do your job without a security clearance.
Quoting PPCLC:

Valid points.

We'll see how this progresses over the coming days.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: This is just a guess, but he'd have to know whether someone in the WH had a temp or non-perm security clearance. Especially someone he worked side by side with. That whole "women were sacred" thing he touted always rubbed me the wrong way, for the record. I think this is a product of that rhetoric. To make a point of something, to elevate something in discourse--something that's natural and common, like one's sex--there is a motive there. It might present itself as misogynistic or equality or sexist, but it exists. And I think Kelly is showing his traditionalism in the framework of Trumpism, which is not a good thing.
Quoting PPCLC:

In this instance and especially being that it's Kelly, I do not believe he covered anything up.

I think someone---Porter---slinked under Kelly's radar.

You don't want to naturally conclude that everything is wrong with those you work with (or they work FOR you). You want to conclude that they've been vetted enough that anything bad, such as DV, cannot fall through the cracks.

You also want to give that worker the benefit of doubt and this could go for any "boss" with a subordinate.


SlightlyPerfect
by Babushka Blockparty on Feb. 8, 2018 at 10:50 PM
You said he's old school. What does that mean? And how does that inform his public statements?

Quoting PPCLC:

I've not stated an "ideological stance" and I have stated a few times now that we'll see in the coming days how this is all going to play out further.

I won't speculate further, personally.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: How do you reconcile that ideological stance with the breaking news of his being fully aware of this background?



Quoting PPCLC:

I think he's very "old school" in his approaches on many things which in today's society, doesn't always translate well.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm telling you. I don't like him. Never did. Look more closely. Something is off. Idk what it is yet. But it's something.



Quoting PPCLC:

Does any of this surprise you, though, with this administration?

Again, we'll see what the next few days to weeks bring.

I like Kelly and I like to think he may have been duped or Porter fell under his radar but some valid points have been made so who knows?

We shall see.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm willing to go a step further and say he and Trump knew Porter had this background information as well as related temp clearances. I can't figure out how they couldn't. Trump WH said tonight he (the President) didn't know. I don't buy it.



I look at Kushner and am just like, "Seriously?"



You can't do your job without a security clearance.




Quoting PPCLC:

Valid points.

We'll see how this progresses over the coming days.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: This is just a guess, but he'd have to know whether someone in the WH had a temp or non-perm security clearance. Especially someone he worked side by side with.



That whole "women were sacred" thing he touted always rubbed me the wrong way, for the record. I think this is a product of that rhetoric. To make a point of something, to elevate something in discourse--something that's natural and common, like one's sex--there is a motive there. It might present itself as misogynistic or equality or sexist, but it exists.



And I think Kelly is showing his traditionalism in the framework of Trumpism, which is not a good thing.




Quoting PPCLC:

In this instance and especially being that it's Kelly, I do not believe he covered anything up.

I think someone---Porter---slinked under Kelly's radar.

You don't want to naturally conclude that everything is wrong with those you work with (or they work FOR you). You want to conclude that they've been vetted enough that anything bad, such as DV, cannot fall through the cracks.

You also want to give that worker the benefit of doubt and this could go for any "boss" with a subordinate.

francee89
by Gold Member on Feb. 8, 2018 at 10:55 PM
They can’t even get their communications story straight here. As one reporter tweeted it best “He was terminated, he quit, they accepted his resignation, his final day isn't set, his final day was yesterday, they weren’t aware of photos, weren’t “fully aware,” not the guy they knew, “not going to get into specifics””

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: That was my point.

The communications staff has lied or covered up blatantly. No other WH staff has been this lackadaisical, to put it mildly.

The difference with Porter is that Hicks leads the communications staff.


Quoting francee89: But the fact that they were willing to let him transition out slowly and stressed they didn�t pressure him to resign speaks volumes.
Quoting SlightlyPerfect: Porter left earlier today. Just to collect his belongings.
Quoting PPCLC:

I believe Porter will only be sticking around temporarily and to help with a "smooth transition."

That's not unheard of.

As for the rest, who knows? As I wrote just a moment ago, we'll see what transpires in the coming days.

Quoting francee89: How would Porter not being able to get a security clearance for over a year be something that Kelly just missed? It�s his job to know these things. It seems they either covered it up or didn�t bother to look into it further.
Neither is good.

Why did Kelly release a statement praising him, and say he stood by that assessment even after the photos were released? If domestic violence actually bothered them, why would Sanders say he wouldn�t be leaving immediately? They�ve fired people for much less serious things without a replacement waiting.

I mean, Kelly�s still willing to work for a President who enthusiastically endorsed a child molester for the Senate, so why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt here in thinking domestic violence wouldn�t be something he�d be willing to overlook in someone he otherwise wanted to work with?

Quoting PPCLC:

In this instance and especially being that it's Kelly, I do not believe he covered anything up.

I think someone---Porter---slinked under Kelly's radar.

You don't want to naturally conclude that everything is wrong with those you work with (or they work FOR you). You want to conclude that they've been vetted enough that anything bad, such as DV, cannot fall through the cracks.

You also want to give that worker the benefit of doubt and this could go for any "boss" with a subordinate.

PPCLC
by Lisa on Feb. 8, 2018 at 10:58 PM

His approach, IMO, has never been to impress or attempt any type of political correctness, even when perhaps he should.

In today's society, this is often frowned upon but from his generation, it's been a norm for many ("old school").

There have been mistakes made with this latest controversy concerning Porter and yes, Kelly has been caught up in it.

Once more, we're seeing a White House confused, on the defensive, and scrambling with the latest controversy...something that SHOULD NOT be happening but that THIS White House always seems to be doing.

But once more (I write ad nauseam), I would personally like to see what transpires in the coming days. The POTUS is reported to be very upset by all of this, and not happy with how it's been handled and this leads me to want to do a wait and see.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: You said he's old school. What does that mean? And how does that inform his public statements?
Quoting PPCLC:

I've not stated an "ideological stance" and I have stated a few times now that we'll see in the coming days how this is all going to play out further.

I won't speculate further, personally.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: How do you reconcile that ideological stance with the breaking news of his being fully aware of this background?
Quoting PPCLC:

I think he's very "old school" in his approaches on many things which in today's society, doesn't always translate well.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm telling you. I don't like him. Never did. Look more closely. Something is off. Idk what it is yet. But it's something.
Quoting PPCLC:

Does any of this surprise you, though, with this administration?

Again, we'll see what the next few days to weeks bring.

I like Kelly and I like to think he may have been duped or Porter fell under his radar but some valid points have been made so who knows?

We shall see.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: I'm willing to go a step further and say he and Trump knew Porter had this background information as well as related temp clearances. I can't figure out how they couldn't. Trump WH said tonight he (the President) didn't know. I don't buy it. I look at Kushner and am just like, "Seriously?" You can't do your job without a security clearance.
Quoting PPCLC:

Valid points.

We'll see how this progresses over the coming days.

Quoting SlightlyPerfect: This is just a guess, but he'd have to know whether someone in the WH had a temp or non-perm security clearance. Especially someone he worked side by side with. That whole "women were sacred" thing he touted always rubbed me the wrong way, for the record. I think this is a product of that rhetoric. To make a point of something, to elevate something in discourse--something that's natural and common, like one's sex--there is a motive there. It might present itself as misogynistic or equality or sexist, but it exists. And I think Kelly is showing his traditionalism in the framework of Trumpism, which is not a good thing.
Quoting PPCLC:

In this instance and especially being that it's Kelly, I do not believe he covered anything up.

I think someone---Porter---slinked under Kelly's radar.

You don't want to naturally conclude that everything is wrong with those you work with (or they work FOR you). You want to conclude that they've been vetted enough that anything bad, such as DV, cannot fall through the cracks.

You also want to give that worker the benefit of doubt and this could go for any "boss" with a subordinate.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)