Political Roundtable Part XVIII

[nate33]

Imagine if the Obama Administration hired a 38-year-old black man who, in 2003, got involved in a gang altercation where he beat somebody up. He plead out to a misdemeanor and did some community service or something. In the following 15 years, he got his life together, got a degree and worked his way up in the world until the Obama Administration noticed him and hired him. It would be considered a success story. A troubled young man with a troubled past got it together and ended up working for the President of the United States. That's fantastic!

There are a couple big differences even if you buy the "Porter reformed" angle. First in your theoretical scenario the assault was presumably against someone of relatively equal strength. Also in the theoretical scenario the incident is out in the open(misdemeanor plea), so it doesn't have much value for blackmail purposes.

And regardless, continued allegations regarding a bad temper and potential for violence would be relevant.

Yeah, if he was going to be a cop or something. But he's in an office job. Again, do we really want to set a standard where a guy who has been alleged to have been involved in spousal abuse (admittedly alleged with good evidence) can't be permitted to hold down a job 15 years later?

[nate33]

Yes Nate but these things aren't remotely similar

Yes, because in my scenario, the Obama hiree was actually convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guess I have to spell it out for you.

It's that beating your wife at age 27 and being a reformed gang member are not moral equivalents. I know you'll never hear of it, but there are socioeconomic reasons to be in a gang. There are even cases where someone can be forced into a gang. Beating your wife on the other hand is pretty inexcusable across the board.

But this hypothetical is even more laughable when you consider that there is zero evidence Porter is even a reformed wife beater! In fact, there is only evidence to the contrary!

How do you demonstrate "evidence" that you no longer beat your wife? There have been no reports of violent abuse since.

[closg00]

There are a couple big differences even if you buy the "Porter reformed" angle. First in your theoretical scenario the assault was presumably against someone of relatively equal strength. Also in the theoretical scenario the incident is out in the open(misdemeanor plea), so it doesn't have much value for blackmail purposes.

And regardless, continued allegations regarding a bad temper and potential for violence would be relevant.

Yeah, if he was going to be a cop or something. But he's in an office job. Again, do we really want to set a standard where a guy who has been alleged to have been involved in spousal abuse (admittedly alleged with good evidence) can't be permitted to hold down a job 15 years later?

I am a little-bit troubled by this as-well. If he has been clean for the last 15 years with no issues even with current GF's, Porter should be permitted to hold "most' jobs. However, he wasn't in any-old-job, he is in the inner-circle of the WH handling important documents.
People with a domestic abuse background get a do not hire recommendation in the federal government which is why he was working without a clearance. On-paper, he would be a perfect target for blackmail or exploitation.

[gtn130]

Yes, because in my scenario, the Obama hiree was actually convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guess I have to spell it out for you.

It's that beating your wife at age 27 and being a reformed gang member are not moral equivalents. I know you'll never hear of it, but there are socioeconomic reasons to be in a gang. There are even cases where someone can be forced into a gang. Beating your wife on the other hand is pretty inexcusable across the board.

But this hypothetical is even more laughable when you consider that there is zero evidence Porter is even a reformed wife beater! In fact, there is only evidence to the contrary!

How do you demonstrate "evidence" that you no longer beat your wife? There have been no reports of violent abuse since.

He has had two wives. He has allegedly abused both of them by their accounts.

That's what you call a 'pattern'. Hope this helps

[nate33]

If Papadopolous was such a nobody, who are all these high level Trump officials that are talking to him that are being caught on his wiretap?

Trump officials are being tapped because of the Carter Page warrant. A FISA Title 1 warrant allows them to review all of Page's communications and all of the communications of any person Page has spoken to. It's a backdoor way to spy on everyone in the Trump campaign. And it's not wiretaps as we conventionally understand them. It's the right to review all communications going back in time (to times prior to the Page warrant) because the NSA records all communications from everybody in America.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But do you have a link detailing that a FISA title 1 warrant allows you to listen to other communication not involving Page? I have not heard of this.

I wanted to get back to you on this with a better link. Here it is:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=207195207

With 3 'Hops,' NSA Gets Millions Of Phone Records
July 31, 20136:19 PM ET
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Testimony before Congress on Wednesday showed how easy it is for Americans with no connection to terrorism to unwittingly have their calling patterns analyzed by the government.

It hinges on what's known as "hop" or "chain" analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone records, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and everyone who calls those people.

If the average person called 40 unique people, three-hop analysis would allow the government to mine the records of 2.5 million Americans when investigating one suspected terrorist.

As I understand it, it has been reduced to a 2-hop analysis, but that's still enough. With a Title 1 FISA warrant on Carter Page, they could look into all calls and emails made by Page, all calls and emails made by people Page has communicated with, and all calls and emails made by people who communicated with people who communicated with Page. And they could go backward in time indefinitely as far as NSA records are kept.

[nate33]

Guess I have to spell it out for you.

It's that beating your wife at age 27 and being a reformed gang member are not moral equivalents. I know you'll never hear of it, but there are socioeconomic reasons to be in a gang. There are even cases where someone can be forced into a gang. Beating your wife on the other hand is pretty inexcusable across the board.

But this hypothetical is even more laughable when you consider that there is zero evidence Porter is even a reformed wife beater! In fact, there is only evidence to the contrary!

How do you demonstrate "evidence" that you no longer beat your wife? There have been no reports of violent abuse since.

He has had two wives. He has allegedly abused both of them by their accounts.

That's what you call a 'pattern'. Hope this helps

There's a big difference between physical abuse and emotional abuse. One is easily definable, the other is not. Surely, this guy Porter was a d*ck in his private relationships with women, but that doesn't mean he can't hold down an office job.

[gtn130]

How do you demonstrate "evidence" that you no longer beat your wife? There have been no reports of violent abuse since.

He has had two wives. He has allegedly abused both of them by their accounts.

That's what you call a 'pattern'. Hope this helps

There's a big difference between physical abuse and emotional abuse. One is easily definable, the other is not. Surely, this guy Porter was a d*ck in his private relationships with women, but that doesn't mean he can't hold down an office job.

Porter's first wife, Colbie Holderness, alleged in an interview published Wednesday by the Daily Mail that he kicked her on their honeymoon, progressing to choking and punching her in the face. She provided pictures that were published with the story.

Porter's second wife, Jennifer Willoughby, told the Daily Mail earlier this week that he pulled her naked from the shower shortly after their first anniversary, and that he was verbally abusive. The Daily Mail also obtained a police complaint from 2010 of Porter allegedly punching the glass on a door at their home, which led to her filing a temporary protective order.

Willoughby told the Daily Mail that the FBI had interviewed her, along with Holderness. The Daily Mail claimed sources told them that Porter's "dark past" was the reason for his failure to secure security clearances.

Better to withhold judgment! It's just an office job, guys!

[nate33]

And regardless, continued allegations regarding a bad temper and potential for violence would be relevant.

Yeah, if he was going to be a cop or something. But he's in an office job. Again, do we really want to set a standard where a guy who has been alleged to have been involved in spousal abuse (admittedly alleged with good evidence) can't be permitted to hold down a job 15 years later?

I am a little-bit troubled by this as-well. If he has been clean for the last 15 years with no issues even with current GF's, Porter should be permitted to hold "most' jobs. However, he wasn't in any-old-job, he is in the inner-circle of the WH handling important documents.
People with a domestic abuse background get a do not hire recommendation in the federal government which is why he was working without a clearance. On-paper, he would be a perfect target for blackmail or exploitation.

Thank you for at least trying to open-minded about it. I agree with you. If there's any issue, it would be associated with his clearance, specifically, are these allegations something that could be used to blackmail him? As I understand it, it was Porter himself who took the photos of his wife's bruised eye. I don't think it was a secret. But I obviously don't know all the details.

I'd totally understand if the FBI did a background check on him and concluded that he shouldn't have a clearance. But as I understand it, the FBI DID complete a background check on him and cleared him:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/fbi-boss-says-rob-porter-background-check-completed-last-year-despite-white-house-claims.html

[Pointgod]

I don’t know why you guys are entertaining Nate and his stupid hypothetical scenarios. The right comparison would be a woman beater in the Obama administration vs scumbag #40 in the Trump administration.

[Ruzious]

I'm just curious. At what point in time did we decide as a society that a young 23-year-old man who lost his temper once and hit his wife shouldn't be permitted to hold down a job 15 years later? Are we prepared to scrutinize the past of every Democrat staffer in DC and hold them to the same standard?

Bullshyt. Firstly, both of his former wives accused him of abusing them. Secondly, it's rarely a one-time thing when there's physical abuse to a spouse. Thirdly, anyone else accused of this with photographic evidence, would and should normally lose his/her job immediately. Fourthly, if there's any similar legitimate evidence against a Democratic staffer OF COURSE they should be fired immediately. Stop making these clowns out to be martyrs - they are anything but. Everyone's got a skeleton in their closet, but a grown man physically abusing a women and giving her a black eye... implying that's ok in any way... seriously?

Firstly, his first wife said that he only hit him that one time on their honeymoon. Secondly, his second wife alleged "emotional abuse". The only physical abuse was one time when he grabbed her roughly by the shoulder and pulled her out of the shower. And there is no evidence of him physically hurting someone in 15 years following the first incident.

Clearly, the guy has (or at least had) anger issues. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter dating him. But there are literally millions of men in this world who have lost their cool, particularly while young, and may have done something effed up in the heat of the moment. Sure, a divorce seems warranted. Sure, maybe civil litigation would have been appropriate at the time. And if charges were pressed and proven, maybe the guy deserved the appropriate jail time. But charges were not pressed. No guilty verdict was rendered. They divorced and moved on. There are no known accounts of him striking a women in the ensuing 15 years. Does one moment of anger at age 23 mean a guy shouldn't be permitted to have a job 15 years later?

Imagine if the Obama Administration hired a 38-year-old black man who, in 2003, got involved in a gang altercation where he beat somebody up. He plead out to a misdemeanor and did some community service or something. In the following 15 years, he got his life together, got a degree and worked his way up in the world until the Obama Administration noticed him and hired him. It would be considered a success story. A troubled young man with a troubled past got it together and ended up working for the President of the United States. That's fantastic!

I think we need to stop communicating here, so we can still communicate elsewhere. This... ain't working.

[closg00]

I'd totally understand if the FBI did a background check on him and concluded that he shouldn't have a clearance. But as I understand it, the FBI DID complete a background check on him and cleared him:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/fbi-boss-says-rob-porter-background-check-completed-last-year-despite-white-house-claims.html

Ahhhh, but you see, his background check was "completed" meaning they were done, but he was by no means cleared, this is the heart of the entire mini-scandal. The WH saw the issues from the report, Porter gave his side and Kelly decided to let him continue working...and he was good at his job. There needs to be a public discussion about 2nd chances in this society. 15 years, IF he did therapy, was trouble-free etc, should he be barred from forever having gainful employment? But because of this particular job, the bar has to be higher.

[Ruzious]

I don’t know why you guys are entertaining Nate and his stupid hypothetical scenarios. The right comparison would be a woman beater in the Obama administration vs scumbag #40 in the Trump administration.

Thing is - there shouldn't be any comparison. This should NOT be about politics. There's something wrong when everyone's view is based on what particular party the criminal is from. It's just like the global warming issue. The human race is not doing well guys - to be blunt and honest. Insane in the membrane. We gotta stop f'n ourselves.

[stilldropin20]

I don’t know why you guys are entertaining Nate and his stupid hypothetical scenarios. The right comparison would be a woman beater in the Obama administration vs scumbag #40 in the Trump administration.

Thing is - there shouldn't be any comparison. This should NOT be about politics. There's something wrong when everyone's view is based on what particular party the criminal is from. It's just like the global warming issue. The human race is not doing well guys - to be blunt and honest. Insane in the membrane. We gotta stop f'n ourselves.

I have over four guys working for me right now that have Done serious time. I just don’t see how that’s a poor reflection on me. They don’t steal from my clients. They don’t steal from me. They don’t harass people. But they went through some things in the past. I think it’s a high reflection on me that I actually hired those guys and gave them a second chance. one of them in particular has worked for me for over 20 years

But leave it to CNN to talk about this 24 seven for a week straight when in fact as soon as the thing went public They fired the guy.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[verbal8]

One think in think the Porter situation shows is how Trump is really scrapping the bottom of barrell in terms of staff. Even if the issues were old, I can't see any other President putting up with them. They simply would have many better options. I don't harbor illusions that other administrations were full of angels. However if an issue this was presented to the chief of staff, the staffer would have been termininated.

[Ruzious]

I don’t know why you guys are entertaining Nate and his stupid hypothetical scenarios. The right comparison would be a woman beater in the Obama administration vs scumbag #40 in the Trump administration.

Thing is - there shouldn't be any comparison. This should NOT be about politics. There's something wrong when everyone's view is based on what particular party the criminal is from. It's just like the global warming issue. The human race is not doing well guys - to be blunt and honest. Insane in the membrane. We gotta stop f'n ourselves.

I have over four guys working for me right now that have Done serious time. I just don’t see how that’s a poor reflection on me. They don’t steal from my clients. They don’t steal from me. They don’t harass people. But they went through some things in the past. I think it’s a high reflection on me that I actually hired those guys and gave them a second chance. one of them in particular has worked for me for over 20 years


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

You have every right to do that - you're not running the US, thank God. Presumably they've paid their debt to society?

How much time has this guy done?

[stilldropin20]

I'm just curious. At what point in time did we decide as a society that a young 23-year-old man who lost his temper once and hit his wife shouldn't be permitted to hold down a job 15 years later? Are we prepared to scrutinize the past of every Democrat staffer in DC and hold them to the same standard?

Bullshyt. Firstly, both of his former wives accused him of abusing them. Secondly, it's rarely a one-time thing when there's physical abuse to a spouse. Thirdly, anyone else accused of this with photographic evidence, would and should normally lose his/her job immediately. Fourthly, if there's any similar legitimate evidence against a Democratic staffer OF COURSE they should be fired immediately. Stop making these clowns out to be martyrs - they are anything but. Everyone's got a skeleton in their closet, but a grown man physically abusing a women and giving her a black eye... implying that's ok in any way... seriously?

Firstly, his first wife said that he only hit him that one time on their honeymoon. Secondly, his second wife alleged "emotional abuse". The only physical abuse was one time when he grabbed her roughly by the shoulder and pulled her out of the shower. And there is no evidence of him physically hurting someone in 15 years following the first incident.

Clearly, the guy has (or at least had) anger issues. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter dating him. But there are literally millions of men in this world who have lost their cool, particularly while young, and may have done something effed up in the heat of the moment. Sure, a divorce seems warranted. Sure, maybe civil litigation would have been appropriate at the time. And if charges were pressed and proven, maybe the guy deserved the appropriate jail time. But charges were not pressed. No guilty verdict was rendered. They divorced and moved on. There are no known accounts of him striking a women in the ensuing 15 years. Does one moment of anger at age 23 mean a guy shouldn't be permitted to have a job 15 years later?

Imagine if the Obama Administration hired a 38-year-old black man who, in 2003, got involved in a gang altercation where he beat somebody up. He plead out to a misdemeanor and did some community service or something. In the following 15 years, he got his life together, got a degree and worked his way up in the world until the Obama Administration noticed him and hired him. It would be considered a success story. A troubled young man with a troubled past got it together and ended up working for the President of the United States. That's fantastic!

Here’s the funny thing Nate. Everyone of these guys were still a big fan of Gilbert Arenas post Mexican standoff in the locker room with the Sean Stephenson .

Probably from Famsa Ray Rice to After he knocked his Gf out.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

I'd totally understand if the FBI did a background check on him and concluded that he shouldn't have a clearance. But as I understand it, the FBI DID complete a background check on him and cleared him:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/fbi-boss-says-rob-porter-background-check-completed-last-year-despite-white-house-claims.html

Ahhhh, but you see, his background check was "completed" meaning they were done, but he was by no means cleared, this is the heart of the entire mini-scandal. The WH saw the issues from the report, Porter gave his side and Kelly decided to let him continue working...and he was good at his job. There needs to be a public discussion about 2nd chances in this society. 15 years, IF he did therapy, was trouble-free etc, should he be barred from forever having gainful employment? But because of this particular job, the bar has to be higher.

Fair enough. He received an interim clearance with a final decision of clearance still being reviewed by the White House security office.

As I said before, this really hinges on whether there was blackmail type of leverage that could be used against him. To what degree is his past transgressions already on the public record?

I don't have a problem with a conclusion that this made him a security issue. I'm just saying that if a guy hits his wife once, 15 years ago, it shouldn't preclude him from working in polite society for the rest of his life.

[Ruzious]

Bullshyt. Firstly, both of his former wives accused him of abusing them. Secondly, it's rarely a one-time thing when there's physical abuse to a spouse. Thirdly, anyone else accused of this with photographic evidence, would and should normally lose his/her job immediately. Fourthly, if there's any similar legitimate evidence against a Democratic staffer OF COURSE they should be fired immediately. Stop making these clowns out to be martyrs - they are anything but. Everyone's got a skeleton in their closet, but a grown man physically abusing a women and giving her a black eye... implying that's ok in any way... seriously?

Firstly, his first wife said that he only hit him that one time on their honeymoon. Secondly, his second wife alleged "emotional abuse". The only physical abuse was one time when he grabbed her roughly by the shoulder and pulled her out of the shower. And there is no evidence of him physically hurting someone in 15 years following the first incident.

Clearly, the guy has (or at least had) anger issues. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter dating him. But there are literally millions of men in this world who have lost their cool, particularly while young, and may have done something effed up in the heat of the moment. Sure, a divorce seems warranted. Sure, maybe civil litigation would have been appropriate at the time. And if charges were pressed and proven, maybe the guy deserved the appropriate jail time. But charges were not pressed. No guilty verdict was rendered. They divorced and moved on. There are no known accounts of him striking a women in the ensuing 15 years. Does one moment of anger at age 23 mean a guy shouldn't be permitted to have a job 15 years later?

Imagine if the Obama Administration hired a 38-year-old black man who, in 2003, got involved in a gang altercation where he beat somebody up. He plead out to a misdemeanor and did some community service or something. In the following 15 years, he got his life together, got a degree and worked his way up in the world until the Obama Administration noticed him and hired him. It would be considered a success story. A troubled young man with a troubled past got it together and ended up working for the President of the United States. That's fantastic!

Here’s the funny thing Nate. Everyone of these guys were still a big fan of Gilbert Arenas post Mexican standoff in the locker room with the Sean Stephenson .

Probably from Famsa Ray Rice to After he knocked his Gf out.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Dude, that's one of your more laughably stupid comments. Ray Rice is a good example - he basically lost his career for doing the same thing Porter did. Did you fight for Ray Rice? If not, why would you fight for Porter? Politics aside, do ya think it makes sense to hold football players to a higher standard to important people in the WH?

[nate33]

Dude, that's one of your more laughably stupid comments. Ray Rice is a good example - he basically lost his career for doing the same thing Porter did. Did you fight for Ray Rice? If not, why would you fight for Porter? Politics aside, do ya think it makes sense to hold football players to a higher standard to important people in the WH?

Ray Lewis won Superbowl MVP a year after being convicted of obstruction of justice in a murder trial. He was a first ballot HOFer as soon as he was eligible. The guy is a hero in Baltimore.

[nate33]