A normal White House — meaning any other from either party in modern history — does not attack the FBI based on ill-conceived conspiracy theories nor does it ignore a threat to our electoral system because it might make the president feel insecure about his victory. And never, ever does it hire a senior staffer who cannot pass a security check because of substantial evidence of spousal abuse. The photo of one of the staffer’s ex-wives, with a badly discolored, bruised eye, and a protective order granted to another ex-wife, take this far out of the realm of a “he said, she said.” And yet, in this White House, the reaction is not horror and revulsion, but determination to defend the alleged abuser, Rob Porter.
“If you had multiple incidents backed by strong evidence as here, the employee would’ve been immediately asked to resign and if they refused be subject to termination procedures (subject of course to due process),” says Norm Eisen, President Barack Obama’s former ethics counsel. “That is, unless they could offer compelling evidence the accusations were false.” He adds that with a political appointee “embarrassment to the president is a highly relevant consideration.”
Richard Painter, the ethics counsel for President George W. Bush, says one wouldn’t even need to get to the legal analysis. “I don’t think White House counsel or the chief of staff would reach a conclusion on the merits or whether he was someone to be trusted with women or otherwise,” he said. “I believe the relevant question is whether this is enough of a distraction to undermine the mission of the White House of carrying out the president’s agenda.” He added, “And with this strong evidence and his inability to prove the accusations were false, I would ask him to resign.”
Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who apparently allowed this to transpire, stunned even other White House employees, according to Gabe Sherman’s reporting:
Sources said Kelly was so quick to defend Porter because the two have grown very close since Trump appointed Kelly chief of staff last summer. Porter, a Rhodes scholar, has helped Kelly instill discipline in the West Wing. Kelly has told people that Porter has a “calming effect” on White House operations. For instance, it’s Porter who screens all the information that gets to Trump’s desk. Porter also helped Kelly conduct a West Wing organizational study that provided Kelly with a cudgel to sideline Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, two former West Wing officials told me. The officials also said Kelly supported Porter even after the FBI delayed granting Porter’s security clearance because they uncovered his alleged history of spousal abuse.”
And it gets worse. CNN reports:
By early fall, it was widely known among Trump’s top aides — including chief of staff John Kelly — both that Porter was facing troubles in obtaining the clearance and that his ex-wives claimed he had abused them. No action was taken to remove him from the staff. Instead, Kelly and others oversaw an elevation in Porter’s standing. He was one of a handful of aides who helped draft last week’s State of the Union address. He traveled instead of Kelly to the World Economic Forum in Davos last month. And he was one of a select group of aides who shook Chinese President Xi Jinping’s hand during a state visit to Beijing in November.
Wednesday night, as criticism of Kelly reached a fevered pitch, he declared himself to be “shocked” by the revelations — which he reportedly knew about for months. “I was shocked by the new allegations released today against Rob Porter. There is no place for domestic violence in our society,” he declared in what appeared to be a desperate effort to save his job and stem the tide of criticism over his failure to rid the White House of Porter long ago.
That’s a case of stunningly bad judgment and misplaced loyalties. Kelly’s obligation is first to hire people of good character to do the public’s business and then to avoid plunging the administration into back-to-back damage control crises. (On Monday, he suggested some “dreamers” were “too lazy” to sign up for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He also suggested the 10-page memo from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee was “pretty lengthy” for the president to read.)
As far back as Porter’s initial background check, a routine vetting would have picked up on the restraining order when Porter was first hired. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tells me, “Either the White House knew or it didn’t. Either the FBI disclosed it or it failed to do so.” He says, “There needs to be a fuller explanation . . . as to how he could be hired for a preeminent and powerful position in the White House” with this background.
The message the White House sends by hiring and keeping him on, then defending Porter to the hilt — until news outlets got the story — sends a disturbing signal. “We all should agree that there should be zero tolerance [for domestic abuse],” says Blumenthal. Kelly, who once said that, in the good old days, “Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor,” did not act on that sentiment by allowing Porter to remain. He did not respect the judgment of intelligence professionals that Porter was unfit to hold a security clearance (I’d like to see how Porter otherwise was able to do his job). Kelly confirmed that how one treats — or mistreats — women is not of concern to this White House. Neither Kelly nor Trump care one bit.
Whatever military skills Kelly possessed have not translated well into the political arena. The White House is as inept and scandal-ridden (if not more so) as when he arrived. The interactions between Congress and the White House have been chaotic and acrimonious. He has a poor antennae (as he demonstrated when caught flat-footed by Michael Wolffe’s book release) for anticipating a media firestorm. In refusing to apologize to a congresswoman after accusations proved false, smearing young immigrants (“lazy”), helping to sabotage a DACA deal, and now sheltering and singing the praises of someone against whom there is ample evidence of wife-beating, Kelly has revealed his character. He also has reminded us that military service does not necessarily produce men worthy of serving at the highest levels of government.
In short, he’s not helping Trump; instead — against all odds — he has arguably worsened Trump’s many flaws — including his lack of respect for women.