Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per Kellyanne: Trump has "full faith" in John Kelly.

He'll be gone by next weekend.

I don’t think he’ll be gone for a while. No one great to replace him with.

Anonymous wrote:This is terribly sad that no bad behavior can be punished unless it's worse than that of our Commander in Chief.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/9/16994784/rob-porter-donald-trump-john-kelly-white-house

The White House had to protect Rob Porter to save Donald Trump

For the White House, the politics are simple: Protect Trump. Because Trump himself is accused of assaulting dozens of women, they’ve had to lower the bar for male behavior so that even he can meet it. Any allegation of misconduct made against anyone close to Trump, then, must be dismissed as if it were being made against Trump himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything President Trump does or says is calculated (albeit not always carefully) to serve a purpose or convey a message.

It was important - even essential - that President Trump make this statement of faith in, and praise of, former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter.

Trump is reciprocating to Rob Porter the faith and loyalty that Trump expects Rob Porter to maintain to him going forward, and Trump is telegraphing to Porter the potential future Porter still has with this administration, the Trump organization, and/or its connections. "We still believe in you", is the loud-and-clear message. Remember that Rob Porter is an ambitious man who has just seen his future prospects substantially diminished, if not eviscerated. Trump has just thrown Porter some a lifeline of hope for a future career.

The understood caveat is that President Trump will maintain that future career hope for Porter, but only if, Porter reciprocates that loyalty and faith back to Trump. Recall that Rob Porter is a man who has observed and heard many private conversations, and seen many classified documents, and could potentially serve as an important witness in the Mueller investigation. Trump just sent Porter a message to discourage him from doing so. Trump has rightly calculated that it is better to experience some public blow back for supporting and praising Porter, than to risk alienating Porter and turning him into a friendly witness for Mueller.

Well, true. But Trump will turn around and f--k him in the a-- if he needs to. He swore loyalty to his friend Mike Flynn, too, an@ d turned on him in a flash.

You are right previous poster, the New York Times is reporting that President Trump had privately referred to Rob Porter in at least one phone conversation as "bad garbage". It appears that Trump is privately 'trashing' Porter, and publicly supporting him -- perhaps in order to maintain Porter's loyalty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per Kellyanne: Trump has "full faith" in John Kelly.

He'll be gone by next weekend.

I don’t think he’ll be gone for a while. No one great to replace him with.

The White House had to protect Rob Porter to save Donald Trump

For the White House, the politics are simple: Protect Trump. Because Trump himself is accused of assaulting dozens of women, they’ve had to lower the bar for male behavior so that even he can meet it. Any allegation of misconduct made against anyone close to Trump, then, must be dismissed as if it were being made against Trump himself.

Anonymous wrote:Per Kellyanne: Trump has "full faith" in John Kelly.

He'll be gone by next weekend.

Anonymous wrote:Per Kellyanne: Trump has "full faith" in John Kelly.

He'll be gone by next weekend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how Trump & Friends will defend this guy: Trump campaign chair, KY who has pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of minors.

http://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=AttorneyGeneral&prId=497

Only the best.

He’s still better than Jeremiah Wright or Farrakhan or Ayers.

White child molesters are totally the best, right??

He pleaded guilty to using drugs, threats of arrest and threats of eviction to force women and girls under the age of 18 into sex acts, according to the charges read in court by Judge Kathleen Lape. Nolan pleaded guilty to 21 counts dating back to 2004. In addition to human trafficking and attempted human trafficking, the charges included giving drugs and alcohol to minors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how Trump & Friends will defend this guy: Trump campaign chair, KY who has pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of minors.

http://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=AttorneyGeneral&prId=497

Only the best.

He’s still better than Jeremiah Wright or Farrakhan or Ayers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a serious error in professional judgment for any communications director -- much less for that of the world's arguably most important organization -- to continue to participate in a public relations crisis in which they have such a clear conflict of interest. The White House's initial response in drafting, issuing, and approving certain statements, including that of John Kelly, illustrates how that personal conflict of interest may have affected the WH judgment. In any Fortune 500 company that lapse could get one fired, but this is luckily a family-run outfit.

+1 Trump is praising Hicks so highly now because he knows it's more logical for her to start singing like a canary about everything she knows to Mueller and get out of that circus. We'll see if Hicks is smart enough to get out while she still can. I doubt it.

Hope Hicks should take a cue from Rachel Brand and resign. Ms. Hicks can honestly say that she feels like she has become a distraction to the White House. Given her telegenic looks I think she has the potential for a lucrative broadcasting career.

The last thing the WH wants to do is have her leave. She's distraught and she is a key potential witness against Trump. They will do everything under the sun to keep her close.

Anonymous wrote:Politico reports that Porter's temporary security clearance expired on Jan 15. Yet he continued to handle highly classified information. Kelly could be in big trouble for that.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/10/rob-porter-john-kelly-national-security-216964

In Porter’s case, the interim security clearances had been temporary: 180 days with the option for extension (another 180 days). Porter appears to have started on January 20, 2017 – Inauguration Day. Assuming he was given that “interim” clearance on Day 1, it would have expired on January 15, 2018.

The fact that Chief of Staff Kelly -- a former military officer and former secretary of homeland security -- would not have seen this as a problem is staggering. He would know better than anyone that managing highly restricted information is essential to American national security.

Every person who has access to the most sensitive pieces of intelligence must be supremely trustworthy -- capable of being kept in the highest cones of silence. If they leak information, they potentially jeopardize lives of intelligence agents or sources in the field.

So, in essence, Kelly either (a) allowed a key aide in the chain of information access to TS/SCI information without a clearance, (b) waived the process entirely or (c) created a system that worked around him.

If Kelly knowingly allowed Porter access to TS/SCI information without formally approving it, that’s an extraordinary security breach.

If Kelly waived off the TS/SCI restrictions, he likely would have done that formally -- including either with the White House counsel, the FBI, or the president himself. That would require understanding fully the reason Porter was still “interim” – a restraining order preventing him from contacting a former wife who alleged that he physically abused her.

Lieu tweeted “This is a very disturbing article. If in fact Rob Porter’s interim security clearance expired on Jan 15 and John Kelly continued to let him handle highly classified information, then Kelly must resign. Also, giving someone classified info who is not cleared to see it is a crime.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a serious error in professional judgment for any communications director -- much less for that of the world's arguably most important organization -- to continue to participate in a public relations crisis in which they have such a clear conflict of interest. The White House's initial response in drafting, issuing, and approving certain statements, including that of John Kelly, illustrates how that personal conflict of interest may have affected the WH judgment. In any Fortune 500 company that lapse could get one fired, but this is luckily a family-run outfit.

+1 Trump is praising Hicks so highly now because he knows it's more logical for her to start singing like a canary about everything she knows to Mueller and get out of that circus. We'll see if Hicks is smart enough to get out while she still can. I doubt it.

Hope Hicks should take a cue from Rachel Brand and resign. Ms. Hicks can honestly say that she feels like she has become a distraction to the White House. Given her telegenic looks I think she has the potential for a lucrative broadcasting career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a serious error in professional judgment for any communications director -- much less for that of the world's arguably most important organization -- to continue to participate in a public relations crisis in which they have such a clear conflict of interest. The White House's initial response in drafting, issuing, and approving certain statements, including that of John Kelly, illustrates how that personal conflict of interest may have affected the WH judgment. In any Fortune 500 company that lapse could get one fired, but this is luckily a family-run outfit.

+1 Trump is praising Hicks so highly now because he knows it's more logical for her to start singing like a canary about everything she knows to Mueller and get out of that circus. We'll see if Hicks is smart enough to get out while she still can. I doubt it.