Wrote Jennie Willoughby, last April.
Via Emily Yoffe at Twitter, who says "This statement by one of the ex-wives of Rob Porter, now former White House staffer, describes so well what it's like to be with an abuser and what makes you stay. I know because I've been there. If you're there, please get help and get out!"
ADDED: I'm seeing at the Jennie Willoughby site, that you can "Book Jennie" and that she does "Teaching & Speaking" with "Mindfulness/Meditation group lessons," "Corporate Training workshops," and "Resiliency/Learning keynote talks" in which you can "Hear me tell my story and inspire you to dig deeper as you recognize the beauty of life unfolding, adversity and all."
It's incredibly hard to think about what goes on inside a marriage, especially when you're listening to the story one participant chooses to take public after the marriage breaks up. In the case of Rob Porter, to attack him is also to go with flow of the torrent of raging attacks on the President of the United States and roiling #MeToo accusations.
Willoughby did, apparently, publish her statement last April, before #MeToo took off, but long after the presidential election, which was heavily focused on accusations of sexual harassment against Trump.
AND: At The Washington Post, "‘Your story is mine’: Rob Porter’s ex, Jennie Willoughby, inspires outpouring from abuse survivors." Excerpt:
“This could have been me writing the article,” one poster [i.e., commenter at Willoughby's post] wrote. “OMG, your story is mine also . . . for 19 years. Yes, we stay, and we hurt, and we try,” another added. “[A]nd others don’t see it, so we are alone.”...Video:
“Outside the house he was Mr. GQ, an Associate Director at one of our federal agencies,” one poster said. “At home, he terrorized me and our children. He belittled me, called me names, told me I had no friends, told me I was stupid, unattractive, evil, that I’d never make it on my own, a lousy mother, a lousy wife, a crack addict (never seen it), ad nauseum.”
Another stated: “I was attractive, well educated and confident; people can never understand why I stayed. He was charming, in a boy next door kind of way, and everyone loved him; people have a hard time believing that he wasn’t always so wonderful. Your ability to explain that he was not just some horrible person and you were not just a victim, was very accurate and left me in tears.”
पोस्ट्स
९२ टिप्पण्या:
It's great when people work on themselves.
You can wish them well in the hope they'll be better people in their next relationship.
Par for the Trump course.
Knew he didn't have security clearance and why, did not care.
50 Shades of Grey, the sequel.
How do you defend yourself against a former spouse who goes public with things like "He belittled my intelligence and destroyed my confidence." You can't reenact marital fights for the public. What did she say to him? What was this belittling of intelligence? In some context, he told her she was stupid?
My instinct, when I hear someone from a former couple make accusations is to try to understand what might have been the larger context and what's being left out of the story, but I don't think most people are like me. I see other people just siding with the person they're talking to and supporting that person. Life is easier that way, but I don't think it's ethical. I don't trust people who tell a story that favors their side and runs down a person who's not there to defend himself.
There is very little ambiguity here. Two wives and an ex-girlfriend tell similar stories and there are photos of one with a black eye.
"There is very little ambiguity here. Two wives and an ex-girlfriend tell similar stories and there are photos of one with a black eye."
I don't want you on my jury if I am ever accused of a crime.
There are also filed police complaints against him from his ex-wife. This has nothing to do with some imaginary anti-Trump conspiracy and everything to do with a guy who has issues with women.
That august journal the Daily Mail covers the story in their inimitable style.
Hedy Lamarr said her best acting (perhaps not that high a bar) was done in divorce court. She certainly had some acrimonious from both sides split-ups.
I find it odd that she doesn't name him. Legal reasons?
Everything I've read or heard says that women who put up with abuse as adults grew up with it. One reason the rest of us can't understand why they stay.
"There are also filed police complaints against him from his ex-wife. This has nothing to do with some imaginary anti-Trump conspiracy and everything to do with a guy who has issues with women."
I haven't pored over that Daily Mail article, but am I correct about this:
1. There is one police report, re the second wife, and it's about his refusing to leave her home on one occasion where he punched a window.
2. The photograph of the black eye on the other wife is being presented now with the explanation that he punched her, but she did not go to the police.
3. Everything else is about things that he said: He's verbally abusive.
Should every women with an ex husband go public about a husband who was verbally abusive and who ran down her self-confidence? Is the answer, yes, if only he ever did one thing physical, like grab her and pull her or shove her?
The answer can't ethically be: Yes, if he's involved now in a political faction that the ex-wife hates.
He should have just thrown lamps at her. Then Democrats would be A-OK with it.
"'In a sense I couldn't believe it was happening to me – I was a well-educated woman, he was well-educated man, we came from good families. It just didn't seem real, I think I was in denial. 'At times, the way he would be physically violent with me was very odd. He would throw me down on the bed, then put his full body weight on top of me, then grind a knee or elbow into my body, expressing rage. It was scary but it wasn't like it was life-threatening. For years, I would go to Mormon bishops and I would try to find the words to explain what was going on but I was at a loss beyond the explanation that he got physical with me." The violence escalated to where Porter was choking his wife. 'It was not hard enough for me to pass out but it was scary, humiliating and dehumanizing,' she said. 'It wasn't until I went to a secular counsellor at my work place one summer and told him what was going on that he was the first person, and not a male religious leader, who told me that what was happening was not okay."
There's also that, from the first wife.
The ex-wives claim all this was reported to the FBI when interviewed for his security clearance. How did the FBI present this to the White House when Porter was hired pending clearance? Or did they?
I think many women will read that passage and identify with that kind of intimidation. The physical things (up until the punch, which came later) are used to scare the wife, to intimidate her. They're not dangerous enough for her to feel she can go to the police, and she's still got her fortunes wedded to his. She won't want to ruin him. He's using methods of control and scaring and confusing her.
"The ex-wives claim all this was reported to the FBI when interviewed for his security clearance. How did the FBI present this to the White House when Porter was hired pending clearance? Or did they?"
I've been averting my eyes from this story. It makes me physically sick.
I'd like the answer to that question.
I guess this guy is very tall and good looking and smart and well-educated, so he keeps winning people over.
Ann Althouse said...
Should every women with an ex husband go public about a husband who was verbally abusive and who ran down her self-confidence? Is the answer, yes, if only he ever did one thing physical, like grab her and pull her or shove her?
The answer can't ethically be: Yes, if he's involved now in a political faction that the ex-wife hates.
This is how a partisan thinks. A non-partisan would say each of these woman has the right to tell her story at any time, just as Porter has a right to tell his. There are endless therapists out there telling some variant on this story and how it motivated them to become a therapist, just as there are endless ex-husbands sitting around in bars telling each what bitches women are.
How much of this is true and how much is just business promotion? By mentioning her workshops you help the promotion, Ann.
1) It gets her name out there.
2) Some people who may be on the edge might be tipped into hiring her out of sympathy. "Oh, the poor thing. She has a good program and needs our support. John Jones has a good program but he's a guy and will do just fine without us."
John Henry
Announcer: Tonight: "COPS" takes you to the streets of Little Rock, Arkansas.
[ dissolve to Officer #1 driving patrol car ]
Officer #1: 10-4. Right now, we got a domestic disturbance call. This is about the third call we've had this month at the same address. We gotta check 'em all out.
[ two officers approach the back door of Governor's Mansion ]
Officer #1: [ knocks on door ] Governor Clinton? We got some complaints about a domestic disturbance?
Bill Clinton: There's nothing wrong! Beat it!
Officer #1: You can open up the door now or not, sir, but we're coming in.
[ door is opened ]
Officer #1: [ sighs ] Alright, sir, you wanna tell us what happened here?
Bill Clinton: Nothing.
Officer #1: Nothing! It doesn't look like nothing to me! She beat you up pretty good, didn't she?
Bill Clinton: No one beat me up.
Officer #1: No one beat you up, huh? Hmm. Then, what happened, then?
Bill Clinton: [ hesitant ] Fell down.
Officer #1: You fell down? Well, that's not what it sounded like to the neighbors. They said they heard quite a brawl going on oer here!
Bill Clinton: I don't know.
Officer #1: You don't know? You don't know. Where's your wife, sir?
Bill Clinton: I don't know.
Officer #1: You don't know much, do you, sir?
Bill Clinton: I don't know..
[ Second Officer puts his ear against closet door ]
Officer #2: Bobby, it sounds like there's somebody in here..
Bill Clinton: [ defensive ] Nobody's in there! That's just a closet!
Officer #2: [ knocking on closet door ] Mrs. Clinton, could you come out here, please?
[ the sound of a pot hitting the floor ]
Officer #2: Mrs. Clinton, we know you're in there!
[ the closet door slowly opens, as a mussed Hillary Clinton teeters out, clutching a bottle of whiskey ]
Anyone can find the video. All I could find was the transcript from the old SNL sketch.
Judge Judy ought to be a government position, is the political idea.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Took her a while but the light bulb finally went off: "Hey, now is my chance to really hurt that SOB".
The reason she's being listened to has more to do with her being tall, rich and good looking than anything political. Otherwise, no one would care. Click to read more on Althouse's link and see what face she's putting on for the world.
Abuse happens all over the socio-economic spectrum, but there is a big pile of research saying well-educated people endure a lot less. They are just better able to tell a good story.
ARM lecturing about partisanship is pretty rich. Own what you are, ARM. Be proud. Or give us a good laugh in the morning. Your call.
"I was told, yes, he was deeply flawed, but then again so was I." Word. There are lots of marriages where the people abuse one another, and they can actually be good marriages, or turn out that way. It's the job of a marriage counselor to try to sort out the risks and the benefits.
One once told me: If one of them hits the other - and the other doesn't hit back - they get a divorce. If one of them curses or verbally abuses the other - and the other doesn't curse back - they get a divorce. Otherwise, we can try to work with it.
It is absolutely impossible to judge these cases listening to one side's story, and they shouldn't be publicizing them, and we shouldn't be reading them if they do.
The story is sickening, no wonder it makes anyone feel sick. Also sickening— Kelly knew for months that the President’s secretary physically abused two wives and was probably told so by the FBI. Also sickening, Kelly knew that Porter was currently in a relationship with another staffer, Hope Hicks, and that Porter still didn’t have a permanent security clearance and wasn’t going to get one. WaPo reports that dozens of staffers in the White House don’t have security clearances. What a shit show it is. Sickening.
“Should every women with an ex husband go public about a husband who was verbally abusive and who ran down her self-confidence? Is the answer, yes, if only he ever did one thing physical, like grab her and pull her or shove her?”
Yes. Especially if they are in a position of power over many people. He was the President’s secretary, saw everything the President saw, even without the correct security clearance. The man obviously has a serious problem and should not be in the White House so close to sensitive information. If he didn’t have the control not to beat his wives when he got angry at them for whatever reasons, he shouldn’t be trusted as a staffer in the White House.
"so he keeps winning people over." Not "people": women who prefer good-looking bad boys. Weeks after the wedding she discovered he had a temper: yeah, right.
"How do you defend yourself against a former spouse who goes public with things like "He belittled my intelligence and destroyed my confidence."" You can't. That's why women do it.
"to try to understand what might have been the larger context and what's being left out of the story, but I don't think most people are like me . . . I don't think it's ethical." I wish we lived in an Althousian world, but we don't. In the real world revenge is a dish, etc. etc. If it can be exploited by progs, even better.
Ann Althouse said...
"There is very little ambiguity here. Two wives and an ex-girlfriend tell similar stories and there are photos of one with a black eye."
I don't want you on my jury if I am ever accused of a crime.
Two ex-wives: the Dos Equis XX presumption?
McGahn knew more than a year ago, saw him as a “steadying influence”. Sickening.
Oh, so let me get this straight. When hiring, we should not ask if someone has a criminal background, as in convictions for misdemeanors or felonies, but we do have to delve into their private lives and divorce records.
#IngaKnew
#IngaDoesntCare
#IngaKnowsThat RetardedChimpsAreStupidAndInconsequential
Abuse is awful awful awful.
But I hate the current atmosphere where, to show your caring and purity, you must act on allegations. You must condemn allegations. You must not express concern that allegations may in part be political or domestic in nature, because that makes you a terrible person too.
Did you see what Jake Tapper said? No room for keeping someone on the job if you aren't sure they are guilty!!
The photo of the black eye exists, along with the 3rd girlfriend. The FBI interviewed one or both of the wives, apparently.
It's one thing to lie on a blog post, and something else to lie to the FBI, Mormon Bishops, and fake a black eye photo, and get a second wife and another girlfriend to say a similar story.
The evidence accumulates.
Also what I've read.
-Kicked a wife on his honey moon after for not having enough sex with him.
-Put his hand around her throat and throttled her, but not enough to put her unconscious.
-Grinding an elbow into her while holding her down.
-punched in the face.
GRW3 said...
Oh, so let me get this straight. When hiring, we should not ask if someone has a criminal background, as in convictions for misdemeanors or felonies, but we do have to delve into their private lives and divorce records.
Right?
Inga said: "Also sickening— Kelly knew for months that the President’s secretary physically abused two wives "
But isn't that the problem? Did Kelly know? What's the difference between being told there are allegations, and knowing something is true? At what point should someone lose his job?
I also would like to know what the FBI told Kelly. Did they say this guy has no criminal convictions but an ex-wife did get a protective order against him for not leaving the family home, which in retrospect does not tell the whole story, or did they provide Kelly all the information? Reading between the lines of the news reports, it looks like the former occurred.
If the FBI did not tell Kelly all the facts, did it leak the previously undisclosed information to the media? Unfortunately, based on what we are finding out about the FBI it would not surprise me if this was their play.
"The ex-wives claim all this was reported to the FBI when interviewed for his security clearance. How did the FBI present this to the White House when Porter was hired pending clearance? Or did they?"
This should be the real story. It currently takes the average Joe about a year or so to obtain a TS/SCI clearance. You would think background investigations for people working directly with the President could be completed a little quicker.
"Inga said...
Yes. Especially if they are in a position of power over many people. He was the President’s secretary, saw everything the President saw, even without the correct security clearance. The man obviously has a serious problem and should not be in the White House so close to sensitive information. If he didn’t have the control not to beat his wives when he got angry at them for whatever reasons, he shouldn’t be trusted as a staffer in the White House."
How fucking stupid is our resident dullard who writes the above but was completely silent about both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Porter was a presidential aide. Bill Clinton was the actual president, and Hillary almost was. Both were or would have been first spouses. Both had more power over people around them than Rob Porter.
#IngaKnew #IngaFineWithDNCRape #IngaThinksIceAdviceMakesitAllOK
A bit more about those security clearances...
White House chief of staff John Kelly learned several weeks ago that multiple White House aides, including staff secretary Rob Porter, would be denied full security clearances, Politico reported Thursday night, citing an unnamed administration official.
Kelly planned to fire those who were denied security clearances, but had not yet done so, according to Politico.
@Althouse,
The ex-wives claim all this was reported to the FBI when interviewed for his security clearance. How did the FBI present this to the White House when Porter was hired pending clearance? Or did they?"
I've been averting my eyes from this story. It makes me physically sick.
I'd like the answer to that question.
The answer to that question probably lies in the fact that it takes time, at a minimum six months, to complete FBI security investigations. If the subject has a "complicated" background (lots of foreign travel, older, lots of financial interests, etc) or if the agents are snowed under by lots of investigations, then it can take longer.
The big differentiator here is that Porter had no convictions. One conviction & he would have been out from the get-go. Since he had no convictions, the FBI had to investigate each & every charge in detail, which takes time. The FBI knows that ex-spouses lie, both covering up & making up misdeeds. They lie a lot. It always takes a long time to track down the details.
I worked in facility that everyone had to have FBI background investigations. It took over a year to get everyone done. In every case where the employee was divorced, the ex bad mouthed the employee to the FBI, & they took longer to clear than the single or happily-married employees.
What amazed me is that the company explained to every prospective employee what an FBI investigation involved, & yet time & time again, some miscreant would come on board thinking that a little thing like his arrest in college for selling drugs would just somehow go unnoticed. Well, it didn't & they would get promptly fired after the FBI found the arrest record.
Jared Kushner still does not have a permanent security clearance. Shouldn’t people be asking why?
YoungHegelian, good answer at 9:25 AM to Inga's questions. Not that she'll care.
It’s been well over a year, still no full security clearances. Why should these people be allowed to continue employment in the White House?
Ranking Democrats on three powerful House committees are demanding more information about how the Trump administration handles security clearances amid news that senior White house adviser Jared Kushner, who's also President Trump's son-in-law, is still using a temporary clearance.
Mr. Kushner’s case raises serious questions about whether his situation is an isolated one among White House senior staff. It also raises concerns about the clearance adjudication process for White House staff generally," they continue.
"It is unprecedented for fourteen individuals to have access to the highly classified President’s Daily Briefing, let alone a single individual who is unable to obtain security clearance all together.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370337-dems-want-answers-on-white-house-security-clearance-process
Kelly knew Rob Porter in a professional capacity and Rob Porter is an impressive and accomplished man.
My son met Porter when both clerked on athe DC Circuit. He is completely shocked by the allegations against Rob Porter. The cognitive dissonance is immense.
Apparently Rob Porter the husband was an abusive lout.
But just as Jill Messick was victimized by our new culture of unlimited information sharing and a willingness to accept statement as fact, so too might Rob Porter be victimized by the revealing to the world only the ex-wives’ version of their marital relationship.
So did the FBI leak this? Just asking.
We have only gotten one side of this story. The problem is that there is no room in this culture for Mr. Porter to defend himself. It would be impossible.
It is discouraging that there is no room for redemption here. No willingness to consider another point of view. I say this as someone who found Senator Franken's initial apology well done and did not feel he needed to resign.
No one who has ever done anything wrong, even, perhaps horribly wrong, should hold a job again. There. Welcome to the #metoo era. Be careful what you wish for, especially if you have a son.
Porter after Corey? Want to be fly on wall for Hicks conversation with mother on dating choices.
Holding any job is a different standard from keeping a job that requires top security clearance. Would he have been denied security clearance when the investigation finished? If so, he would have had to leave that particularly job eventually, no matter the politics.
The protective order his wife took out and photo & interviews with the wives -- can someone get top clearance with this type of background?
Porter after Corey? Want to be fly on wall for Hicks conversation with mother on dating choices.
Yeah. Was Corey married while she was dating him?
I agree with wwww, the evidence seems to all point to the same thing. He's an abuser.
But I am also glad that Althouse had cruel neutrality to start out with, at the beginning of the story. Skepticism is a good thing in most situations. And the second wife's allegations seem less serious than the black eye of the first. I can easily imagine a context where pulling someone out of a shower is not an abusive situation, but could be portrayed that way, after the fact.
Beyond that, trying to tag all the people who employed Porter with complicity seems to be a fool's errand. There's no way to know what they knew.
Who leaked? Who knows?
The White House officials told Hatch’s office that the story was the product of a “smear campaign” being orchestrated against Porter by his political enemies. Among those they pinpointed was former Trump campaign manager (and current outside adviser to the president) Corey Lewandowski, according to two sources familiar with the conversations. Multiple White House staffers told Hatch himself that Lewandowski “was digging into Rob’s previous marriages,” recalled one source, who said Porter himself was among the officials who fingered Lewandowski.
And yeah, knowing someone that is undergoing a security clearance right now--it takes a really, really long time. I can see how it wouldn't raise eyebrows that he hasn't received clearance yet.
It seems that to be on the Trump team you have to. burn through a few wives and girl friends, and as we have learned anything an ex says is political and fake.
"I don't trust people who tell a story that favors their side and runs down a person who's not there to defend himself. "
Did Rob Porter die? What's keeping him from defending himself?
"Did Rob Porter die? What's keeping him from defending himself?"
oh, well he's trying:
Rob Porter’s explanation for how his first wife ended up with a black eye: “They were arguing over a vase, which struck her.”
Tom Nichols, twitter:
Who among us hasn't had some random piece of home decoration unexpectedly self-detonate on a spouse during an argument?
Random Thoughts:
Corey Lewandowski is married with multiple kids. Porter's got issues.
Friends or parents of Hope Hicks should hold a dating choices intervention.
It’s especially bad to have 2 ex-spouses. They can operate as a team, and whe they do, most people will think you deserve it.
Whatever wife #1 says, if wife #2 comes along and says it happened to me too (to coin a phrase), you’re pretty well fucked. You shouldn’t have made TWO women into ex-wives.
It’s always interesting when woman #2 goes ahead and marries with consulting wife #1. Is there anything I need to know? She trusts the man, because she wants him, and she’s inclined the distance herself from the woman she believes she’s an improvement on.
And along comes a third woman...
“EXCLUSIVE: 'He can go from being the sweetest person to a complete abusive monster.' Woman who was living with Trump aide Rob Porter at the time he began dating Hope Hicks confided to his ex-wives about living in fear”
The two ex-wives of Rob Porter, the White House aide who resigned today in the wake of domestic abuse allegations, revealed to DailyMail.com they were in contact with a third woman who is believed to be his longtime girlfriend.
The woman, is 34 and works for the federal government in Washington D.C.
DailyMail.com is declining to name her because she is an alleged victim of domestic abuse and she has not come forward. Repeated attempts to contact her have been unsuccessful.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5365169/Woman-living-Hope-Hicks-lover-Rob-Porter-abused.html#ixzz56dEL86vH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Sad to say that my experience with vengeful ex-wives is that they are poison. I believe that ex-wives, much, much more often than ex-husbands, will poison everything to extract revenge. Children don't matter. They are merely pawns.
There should be polling/studies on this. These women are surrounded by other women who fully support their agenda. You go, girl. It's disastrous for the children of these marriages. This is evil and terribly scarring for everyone in the wake.
To divorce one wife may be regarded as a misfortune; to divorce two looks like carelessness.
The girl in the video's kinda cute. I'd hit it (to coin a phrase).
each of these woman has the right to tell her story at any time
Her story, yes. Do not mistake their stories for the truth.
It's impossible to know what goes on in a marriage. Two people know versions of the truth, and they won't be recalled the same.
tcrosse at 11:15: LOL!
#IngaKnew said...
And along comes a third woman..."
Long way to go before we get Clintonian numbers. Of which you were sildent
#IngaOKWithDNCRape
@MadMan you have always made such sense! FYI I still make turkey soup just the way you recommended here way back when (at least I think that was you).
It isn't partisan, ARM, to deploy skepticism as Ms. Althouse did. Indeed, partisans pretty much attack any skeptic found in their midst, as you just did.
The thing Ms. Althouse is noting here is you basically have one side of a story. Now, I think it likely that the exs' stories about Porter are true, but I don't know it, and I never will, and neither will you, John Kelly, or anyone else unless Porter confesses.
I related a story here several months ago about a good friend I had growing up and through college. I held this friend in high esteem, but just before I graduated from college I learned some very unflattering things about him from mutual acquaintance. At first, I was literally stunned- the related details in no way fit the person I thought I knew, and I said so defending him strenuously. However, I was in a position where I could check out the claims independently, and I eventually realized how wrong I was- embarrassingly so as it turned out- and I had to make two of the most shameful apologies I have ever had to make to two people I had all but accused of lying.
All of this to say that we don't even have full story of the FBI background checks. Maybe the full investigation shows the exs are fully truthful, or more likely they couldn't determine the truth because there was no clear-cut evidence, or there is other evidence that the exs might have a reason to lie. In any case, it likely that Porter couldn't be approved for security clearance in any case, and his time on the job was probably soon up. As others have noted- such investigations are not quick, and they are made longer if you are accused of something that could compromise you. The agents doing this don't just accept accusations- they have to literally dig deep to verify or disprove them.
If I’m an employer, and I have a background check done and see two divorces and a record reflecting domestic violence, I would not hire. That’s just good risk management. This guy deserves no sympathy and should never hand been onboarded in the first place.
For every Rob Porter there are inevitably dozens of others without the baggage and with equal skill. This is a no brainer, and the fact that people have even a second thought about it bewilders me.
We should never employ people who have done anything wrong at all. That's just good risk management.
Aside: When someone says to me "I will never trust _____ again. They are a liar." I ask: "Have you ever lied?" The responses are fascinating.
Supposedly...
“Meanwhile, the President has told associates he's dismayed at how the allegations involving his former staff secretary accused of domestic abuse were handled, but he isn't certain how to solve the mushrooming controversy, a person familiar with the conversations tells CNN.
Trump was not consulted when Hicks and several other aides drafted a White House statement defending Porter, and he is under the impression that Hicks has let her romantic relationship with Porter cloud her judgment, a source familiar said.
In the aftermath, Trump has told associates he feels that Hicks put her own priorities ahead of his. However, there is little to indicate that Hicks' standing is in jeopardy.”
How many times is Trump “not consulted”, I wonder?
It's like a Mexican soap opera Todos a Mi Ninos
Inga had no problem with Chelsea, Huma, and Hillary's maid running off copies of classified emails--as Hillary told the FBI. I wonder what is different?
Hillary threw closed fists at Mook and Podesta on election night, according to witnesses. Threw a $100K bottle of Champagne through a $1 million one-of-a-kind OLED big screen TV that the Saudis had gifted, too. Violent Fems/Dems are AO'K with some here.
Mental cruelty. That was the mutually agreed divorce reason given when no fault divorce didn't exist.
I thought mental cruelty was the only reason to stay married?
Apparently the FBI knew enough not to give Porter a security clearance, and really similar stories plus a restraining order are just so much fake news from women and we all know they are not to be believed any of them.
A real soap opera. No wonder they’re trying to blame Cory Lewandowski for the leaking of the Rob Porter wife abuse story.
President Trump‘s communications director Hope Hicks has now been romantically linked to not one but two ousted Trump aides who have been accused of violence against women.
The Daily Mail reported last week that Hicks, 29, has been dating former top aide Rob Porter, 40, who resigned on Wednesday amid allegations of abuse from his two ex-wives
In Michael Wolff’s explosive exposé Fire and Fury, the author claimed that Hicks and Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, 44, were involved in an on-off relationship.
The reported pairing prompted Trump to tell Hicks on one occasion that she was “the best piece of tail” Lewandowski will ever have, according to Wolff.
Yancey, your comment reminded me that some of the women who were abused by Larry Nassar vigorously defended him at first. People can be wrong. They can later learn more and respond accordingly.
Ann Althouse said...
It’s especially bad to have 2 ex-spouses. They can operate as a team, and whe they do, most people will think you deserve it.
Whatever wife #1 says, if wife #2 comes along and says it happened to me too (to coin a phrase), you’re pretty well fucked. You shouldn’t have made TWO women into ex-wives.
So logically, instead of divorce, men should murder objectionable spouses. Preferably without being suspected, of course. But on the bright side, even if he gets caught, she still loses.
"roesch/voltaire said...
Apparently the FBI knew enough not to give Porter a security clearance, and really similar stories plus a restraining order are just so much fake news from women and we all know they are not to be believed"
Where were you during the CLinton campaign. Like our resident dullard, #IngaKnew, not a fucking peep.
Poor chimp George. Can’t come up with anything but an old overused argument. Pathetic, unimaginative and stupid is no way to go through life little dumb monkey.
Apparently dumb chimp George forgot what Trump said about Clinton back then...
“...if you rewind to 1998, the Republican presidential nominee had a very different view of the 42nd president, defending him as the real "victim" in the wake of the fallout of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and blasting the accusers as "terrible" and "unattractive."
He also suggested that Clinton should have kept the scandal -- which he said "should have been nothing -- to himself."
Days after President Clinton admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Trump said Clinton was a “victim” and critiqued the physical appearances of various women with whom Clinton had been accused of having extramarital relations at different times.
“It’s like it's from hell, it's a terrible group of people,” Trump said in an interview with FOX News' Neil Cavuto on Aug. 19, 1998.
Asked by Cavuto if Clinton’s image as a “quasi-sex symbol” stood to somehow benefit from the alleged extramarital relations, Trump took issue with the characterization.
“I don't necessarily agree with his victims, his victims are terrible,” Trump said. “He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position.”
“The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group. I'm not just talking about physical," he said.
As far as his personal opinion of Clinton, Trump gave Clinton a strong rating.
“I think he's terrific. I think the guy's terrific. I just hate the way he tried to get out of this mess,” Trump said.
“In terms of myself, I love him as a president because business has been great, the economy's been booming. We have to give him credit,” he said.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flashback-donald-trump-called-bill-clintons-accusers-terrible/story?id=42686582
For every Rob Porter there are inevitably dozens of others without the baggage and with equal skill. This is a no brainer, and the fact that people have even a second thought about it bewilders me.
Add a D or an R following someone's name and otherwise intelligent people turn dopey.
The video of Wife #2 wasn't very persuasive to me. I could as easily believe she was at fault as that he was. And I have no first-hand information from Wife #1. I don't have enough evidence to form an opinion about whether this guy was an abusive husband or not. And so far as I can tell from the comments above, neither does anybody else. Of course, once the charges were made public, the White House had to throw him overboard, innocent or guilty. And I predict that, now that he's gone and no one can get any more anti-Trump mileage out of this issue, the strange case of Mr. Porter will disappear from piblic view. Let me know if you find out I'm wrong.
Nice pull, Inga. One can appreciate in hindsight how Trump became POTUS with that uncanny ability to talk out both sides of his ass at the same time.
"It’s especially bad to have 2 ex-spouses. They can operate as a team, and whe they do, most people will think you deserve it.
Whatever wife #1 says, if wife #2 comes along and says it happened to me too (to coin a phrase), you’re pretty well fucked. You shouldn’t have made TWO women into ex-wives.
It’s always interesting when woman #2 goes ahead and marries with consulting wife #1. Is there anything I need to know? She trusts the man, because she wants him, and she’s inclined the distance herself from the woman she believes she’s an improvement on.
Of all the millions of comments on the porter affair, this is by far the most moronic.
2nd White House staffer, speech writer David Sorenson, quits among allegations of domestic abuse. What a shit show in the White House.
I’m sure Trump will exclaim, “But he denies it!”
1.Pudzer
2.Bannon
3.Porter
4.Sorenson
See a pattern?
Oh and let us not forget Roy Moore.
Meanwhile, Ted Lieu, who called for Kelly's resignation today, dealt with a staffer who was found after an investigation to have committed sexual battery in front of witnesses by giving him a 3-day suspension and telling the female staffer to stay away from him.
Democrats.
If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा