The Rise and Fall of John Kelly's Reputation

[Tennesseer]

The Rise and Fall of John Kelly's Reputation
The White House chief of staff is facing new scrutiny for his defense of a staffer who has resigned following accusations of physical abuse from two ex-wives.

There’s only ever really one story arc in Washington. A new face arrives in town, impresses people, and reaches dizzying new heights. Before too long, however, the capital becomes disillusioned and turns on him (or occasionally her).

That’s the story of Rob Porter, the White House staff secretary, who announced his departure on Wednesday after published allegations of abuse from his two ex-wives. And more broadly, it’s also the story of John Kelly, the White House chief of staff who was Porter’s boss and defender.

Unlike many members of the White House cast, Porter is not a household name, but he had rocketed to an important role directly by President Trump’s side. He controlled the flow of information to Trump and spent a great deal of time with him. “Porter had good relationships across the ideological spectrum of the White House—from Stephen Miller to Gary Cohn, was one of Kelly’s most trusted aides, and was in charge of the weekly trade policy meetings, Jonathan Swan reports.”

Complete article here: The Rise and Fall of John Kelly's Reputation

[happyhoix]

I heard on the news this AM that when Kelly was in the military, he was asked to testify at the court marshal of another officer who had been accused of sexual misconduct (including with a child). Kelly gave the guy a glowing testimonial about what a great officer he was - which parallels how he apparently treated Porter - worth while to have around, even if they did sometimes abuse women.

Can't find a link for the story, but if it's true, it points to a fairly common attitude, I think, especially in this White House that values loyalty enough to overlook serious character flaws.

I had high hopes for Kelly, since he came from the military, maybe being able to inject some discipline and honor to this chaotic White House, but maybe this White House has a morally corrosive effect on even the most diligent people who work there.

[NastyWoman]

There is a Dutch saying that is very apropos here:" wie met pek omgaat wordt ermee  besmeerd"

Translated: he who works with tar gets covered by it. Something to consider for decent people to contemplate before joining the tarpit of the current administration 

[Deleted]

Kelly was hired by Trump - the serial rapist and philanderer. No surprise he tows the "real man" line that's against women and their rights.

He needs to lose his job for letting someone unable to obtain a security clearance have access to secure information.

[dezii]

Not all military Generals are with out flaws...George Patton  was one of the great if not the greatest offensive generals of the second war...personally brave too...MOH I believe in the first war...but personally flawed ? Big time....Eisenhower knew it...also knew how to control and use him....Same could be said of McCarthur...not all Generals are Marshall .... Bradley....Admiral Halsey....

[Deleted]

You can have flaws. All people do. But you don't allow people access to confidential information who are unable to obtain a security clearance. 

[dezii]

Feb 9, 2018 18:32:33 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

You can have flaws. All people do. But you don't allow people access to confidential information who are unable to obtain a security clearance. 

Supposedly Kelley offered to resign to our Donald but for now he's needed...no replacement. Yet.

[happyhoix]

Kelly came into the white house and tried to instill some rules. Instead of everyone hanging around in the oval office, or popping in and out when they want to, he controlled access to the president and made people get appointments, even his kids. Since it's common knowledge in the white house that Trump will go along with whatever the last person told him on an issue, there is a lot of jockeying to get into the Oval Office right before big decisions are made, so you can push your opinion on the president and hope he makes it his own. There was a lot of resentment of Kelly when he came in with his new rules, and, in the way politics normally happen, there's a lot of long knives out now that they smell his blood due to this wife beater incident.

I don't think Kelly will be there a lot longer. Time to churn the shit stew and rotate the characters.

[Virgil Showlion]

"And more broadly, it’s also the story of John Kelly, the White House chief of staff who was Porter’s boss and defender. ..."

Tabloid trash.

Disregard, and move on.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2018 11:12:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Feb 12, 2018 8:51:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tabloid trash.

Disregard, and move on.

The Atlantic is NOT a tabloid.  But, whatevs...... 

who needs journalism when you have zerohedge?

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 12, 2018 11:12:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Feb 12, 2018 8:51:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tabloid trash.

Disregard, and move on.

The Atlantic is NOT a tabloid.  But, whatevs...... 

I didn't mean to imply it was. A non-tabloid can still publish tabloid trash.

If you can't get rid of a fellow like John Kelly, smear his job performance.

If you can't smear his job performance, smear his credentials.

If you can't smear his credentials, smear his person.

If you can't smear his person directly, smear him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows.

When reasonable people don't care that you're smearing him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows, smear them too.

When they don't care about that either, the world is a better place.

[happyhoix]

Feb 12, 2018 13:27:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 12, 2018 11:12:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The Atlantic is NOT a tabloid.  But, whatevs...... 

I didn't mean to imply it was. A non-tabloid can still publish tabloid trash.

If you can't get rid of a fellow like John Kelly, smear his job performance.

If you can't smear his job performance, smear his credentials.

If you can't smear his credentials, smear his person.

If you can't smear his person directly, smear him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows.

When reasonable people don't care that you're smearing him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows, smear them too.

When they don't care about that either, the world is a better place.

Actually, the ones intent on smearing him the most are the ones within the White House. They have something to gain by Kelly getting fired.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2018 14:08:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:27:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I didn't mean to imply it was. A non-tabloid can still publish tabloid trash.

If you can't get rid of a fellow like John Kelly, smear his job performance.

If you can't smear his job performance, smear his credentials.

If you can't smear his credentials, smear his person.

If you can't smear his person directly, smear him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows.

When reasonable people don't care that you're smearing him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows, smear them too.

When they don't care about that either, the world is a better place.

Actually, the ones intent on smearing him the most are the ones within the White House. They have something to gain by Kelly getting fired.

sure.  but it is highly unlikely.

smearing a pretty solid publication with a one sentence ad hominem seems less plausible than anything the Atlantic publishes.

NOTE: this is a comparative statement.  and it does not really invite debate.

[Deleted]

When you are in charge of confidential information and protect someone who is unable to get a security clearance, you deserve to lose your job. Period. 

What about Kershner and others unable to obtain one? Why are they still privy to state secrets? 

And, the bigger question, why is Congress sitting back and watching it happen?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2018 14:31:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The Atlantic is an excellent, first rate publication.  I had a subscription to it at one time that I did not renew for lack of time to adequately read the thing, but it is excellent journalism.  


Which means, in Trumpspeak, it is fakeNews  

i've never subscribed, but i have read some excellent articles from that publication.

one of them (Reward -vs- Creativity) has become the basis for how we treat employees at one of my enterprises.  yeah.  it was that good.  it concluded that extrinsic reward is inversely related to creativity based on a series of experiments.  very thought provoking, and it turned out to work for my enterprise. 

[dezii]

Feb 12, 2018 14:08:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:27:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I didn't mean to imply it was. A non-tabloid can still publish tabloid trash.

If you can't get rid of a fellow like John Kelly, smear his job performance.

If you can't smear his job performance, smear his credentials.

If you can't smear his credentials, smear his person.

If you can't smear his person directly, smear him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows.

When reasonable people don't care that you're smearing him on the basis of his defending the character of somebody he knows, smear them too.

When they don't care about that either, the world is a better place.

Actually, the ones intent on smearing him the most are the ones within the White House. They have something to gain by Kelly getting fired.

Easier Access to our heavily flawed POTUS....LAST TO SEE HIM...THE ONE TO HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE ON HIM...TILL THE NEXT DAY  and we start all over again..great way to run our administration...

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 12, 2018 14:31:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The Atlantic is an excellent, first rate publication.  I had a subscription to it at one time that I did not renew for lack of time to adequately read the thing, but it is excellent journalism.  


Which means, in Trumpspeak, it is fakeNews  

The Atlantic has its own slant and its own perspective, like all media outlets. My comment honestly wasn't intended to deride the Atlantic, but to point out that this story is (IMNSHO) "tabloid trash". Gossip, in other words.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 12, 2018 14:56:19 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

When you are in charge of confidential information and protect someone who is unable to get a security clearance, you deserve to lose your job. Period. 

What about Kershner and others unable to obtain one? Why are they still privy to state secrets? 

And, the bigger question, why is Congress sitting back and watching it happen?

This isn't what this article or this thread are about.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 12, 2018 14:24:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:08:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Actually, the ones intent on smearing him the most are the ones within the White House. They have something to gain by Kelly getting fired.

sure.  but it is highly unlikely.

smearing a pretty solid publication with a one sentence ad hominem seems less plausible than anything the Atlantic publishes.

NOTE: this is a comparative statement.  and it does not really invite debate.

You deride my citing ZeroHedge, but I'll admit right now they publish tabloid trash articles occasionally too.

Perhaps it's because I'm younger than most here and grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article.

I'm not being disingenuous to say I'm denouncing the article and not the institution. I've cited the Atlantic several times [2] [3] on P/CE. (Also, o ye of little faith, ZH has cited The Atlantic countless times, and republished parts of their articles under fair use rules.)

If I believed The Atlantic was a tabloid, I'd have no qualms calling it that.

[dezii]

Feb 13, 2018 8:54:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:24:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure.  but it is highly unlikely.

smearing a pretty solid publication with a one sentence ad hominem seems less plausible than anything the Atlantic publishes.

NOTE: this is a comparative statement.  and it does not really invite debate.

You deride my citing ZeroHedge, but I'll admit right now they publish tabloid trash articles occasionally too.

Perhaps it's because I'm younger than most here and grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article.

I'm not being disingenuous to say I'm denouncing the article and not the institution. I've cited the Atlantic several times [2] [3] on P/CE. (Also, o ye of little faith, ZH has cited The Atlantic countless times, and republished parts of their articles under fair use rules.)

If I believed The Atlantic was a tabloid, I'd have no qualms calling it that.

"grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article. "

Your a more informed individual and connected person then I..I just don't have the connections u seem to have to know what is really happening in the world of politics and national doings...I admit, I have to rely on media sources...more and more internet searches...favorite media folks..Zakaria for one..some of the CNN folks..Lemon comes to mind...A few magazines I subscribe to.."TIME" and "Foreign Affairs".....not counting "National Geographic..."    and the Htfd Courant...on line...

kudos to u.....

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 13, 2018 9:08:45 GMT -5 dezii said:

Feb 13, 2018 8:54:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You deride my citing ZeroHedge, but I'll admit right now they publish tabloid trash articles occasionally too.

Perhaps it's because I'm younger than most here and grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article.

I'm not being disingenuous to say I'm denouncing the article and not the institution. I've cited the Atlantic several times [2] [3] on P/CE. (Also, o ye of little faith, ZH has cited The Atlantic countless times, and republished parts of their articles under fair use rules.)

If I believed The Atlantic was a tabloid, I'd have no qualms calling it that.

"grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article. "

Your a more informed individual and connected person then I..I just don't have the connections u seem to have to know what is really happening in the world of politics and national doings...I admit, I have to rely on media sources...more and more internet searches...favorite media folks..Zakaria for one..some of the CNN folks..Lemon comes to mind...A few magazines I subscribe to.."TIME" and "Foreign Affairs".....not counting "National Geographic..."    and the Htfd Courant...on line...

kudos to u.....

CNN I visit sparingly since 2016. Their fixation with Pres. Trump is all-consuming. My God help me, I wouldn't show as much contempt for my worst enemy as they show for Pres. Trump on a daily basis. Fact and fiction, clarity and distortion, relevance and irrelevance are all tainted by hatred. I regard CNN the same way I regard Breitbart's reporting on Pres. Obama: to be taken with a truck full of salt.

My exposure to National Geographic is usually in the form of animal documentaries, of which I am an avid consumer. I'm not familiar with the Courant.

TIME is a classic hit-or-miss publication. I've seen some phenomenal articles by TIME writers and some absolute duds. Unfortunately, like CNN, they've been largely caught up in the Trump obsession since he took office. If they were the only publication really tearing into him, or if they had something to report beyond what can be found circulating the blogosphere any given day, I'd peruse their online publication more. As it stands, they report the same stories and opinions I see in a dozen other places, weeks or months after the fact, adding no value.

This doesn't make TIME a bad publication per se, just... redundant.

[happyhoix]

Feb 13, 2018 8:54:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:24:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure.  but it is highly unlikely.

smearing a pretty solid publication with a one sentence ad hominem seems less plausible than anything the Atlantic publishes.

NOTE: this is a comparative statement.  and it does not really invite debate.

You deride my citing ZeroHedge, but I'll admit right now they publish tabloid trash articles occasionally too.

Perhaps it's because I'm younger than most here and grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article.

I'm not being disingenuous to say I'm denouncing the article and not the institution. I've cited the Atlantic several times [2] [3] on P/CE. (Also, o ye of little faith, ZH has cited The Atlantic countless times, and republished parts of their articles under fair use rules.)

If I believed The Atlantic was a tabloid, I'd have no qualms calling it that.

Honey, I was a little girl in the sixties - a time when distrust in public institutions was at it's height, followed by Watergate, which stabbed public trust right through the heart with a stake.

I will say, though, that at that time public trust in the media was a lot higher, I think because there were just the 3 main TV news programs for half an hour each evening, and all 3 stuck to journalistic standards. I think pretty much everyone trusted Walter Cronkite. It seemed all 3 networks when to great pains to remain objective, you could flip from one to the other and the lead stories would be pretty much the same.

Our problem today is the media consumer market is segmented into small pieces, with each piece crafted to appeal to that particular market. I think the best you can hope for is to read widely and try to stick to the sites which seem to have journalistic standards, or to at least recognize the bias your favorite sites have. I love the New Yorker for it's in depth reporting and excellent writing, but I realize it leans liberal.

 

[dezii]

Feb 13, 2018 10:02:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 13, 2018 9:08:45 GMT -5 dezii said:

"grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article. "

Your a more informed individual and connected person then I..I just don't have the connections u seem to have to know what is really happening in the world of politics and national doings...I admit, I have to rely on media sources...more and more internet searches...favorite media folks..Zakaria for one..some of the CNN folks..Lemon comes to mind...A few magazines I subscribe to.."TIME" and "Foreign Affairs".....not counting "National Geographic..."    and the Htfd Courant...on line...

kudos to u.....

CNN I visit sparingly since 2016. Their fixation with Pres. Trump is all-consuming. My God help me, I wouldn't show as much contempt for my worst enemy as they show for Pres. Trump on a daily basis. Fact and fiction, clarity and distortion, relevance and irrelevance are all tainted by hatred. I regard CNN the same way I regard Breitbart's reporting on Pres. Obama: to be taken with a truck full of salt.

My exposure to National Geographic is usually in the form of animal documentaries, of which I am an avid consumer. I'm not familiar with the Courant.

TIME is a classic hit-or-miss publication. I've seen some phenomenal articles by TIME writers and some absolute duds. Unfortunately, like CNN, they've been largely caught up in the Trump obsession since he took office. If they were the only publication really tearing into him, or if they had something to report beyond what can be found circulating the blogosphere any given day, I'd peruse their online publication more. As it stands, they report the same stories and opinions I see in a dozen other places, weeks or months after the fact, adding no value.

This doesn't make TIME a bad publication per se, just... redundant.

" I wouldn't show as much contempt for my worst enemy as they show for Pres. Trump on a daily basis"

trust me..if u and I were in a one on one back and forth...regarding the "Donald"...contempt and worse..u would find me worse regarding the "Donald" and my feelings about him then what u feel is CNN  doings...in fact if I was public in what I would like to see regarding the "Donald"..either naturally or unnaturally..I believe u would be calling certain authorities...
-----------------------------------------------------
Owned by  Tribune now........established 1764..[pretty impressive..some big awards too]  Keeps me informed on Alma Mater....UConn....plus am a Ct Yankee at heart no matter where I live and kids still in New England...grand kids too..
--------------------------------------

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Courant

[dezii]

Feb 13, 2018 10:43:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Feb 13, 2018 8:54:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You deride my citing ZeroHedge, but I'll admit right now they publish tabloid trash articles occasionally too.

Perhaps it's because I'm younger than most here and grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article.

I'm not being disingenuous to say I'm denouncing the article and not the institution. I've cited the Atlantic several times [2] [3] on P/CE. (Also, o ye of little faith, ZH has cited The Atlantic countless times, and republished parts of their articles under fair use rules.)

If I believed The Atlantic was a tabloid, I'd have no qualms calling it that.

Honey, I was a little girl in the sixties - a time when distrust in public institutions was at it's height, followed by Watergate, which stabbed public trust right through the heart with a stake.

I will say, though, that at that time public trust in the media was a lot higher, I think because there were just the 3 main TV news programs for half an hour each evening, and all 3 stuck to journalistic standards. I think pretty much everyone trusted Walter Cronkite. It seemed all 3 networks when to great pains to remain objective, you could flip from one to the other and the lead stories would be pretty much the same.

Our problem today is the media consumer market is segmented into small pieces, with each piece crafted to appeal to that particular market. I think the best you can hope for is to read widely and try to stick to the sites which seem to have journalistic standards, or to at least recognize the bias your favorite sites have. I love the New Yorker for it's in depth reporting and excellent writing, but I realize it leans liberal.

 

Being a senior, senior I admit it takes me longer to catch on to what is happening especially regarding the media..

It took me a while to realize how intrusive and dangerous Blogs could be...in fact I didn't even know what a Blog was until relatively recently.....

I have a second cousin who lives in California...never met him but was very close to his late father, his Mom too and his dads sister..my Moms closest girl friend...and he puts up a very conservative Blog...

Has , according to another cousin , who lives near him out there, he has about a hundred or so followers of this blog...Some how or other we became friends on face book..no idea how or why..While I am on face book , never , ever post on my site beyond a new picture that my kids will take with us when visiting...thus friends and family still know I am alive.  I digress...

So every day his comments..[Blog ?] show up...and very conservative and so biased...putting out misinformation..not by my feelings..proven wrong..like our Donalds comments that are then proven to be wrong...fact checking..so at times I would comment on his posts and go search out by googling the articles that prove his posts are wrong.....Guess what...? He and his followers did not like that...even when the posted article I put up questions, shows his posts are incorrect.....
So after complaining he got his revenge...Yup, he unfriended me...

It's ok , I live with it...but seriously, it showed me how dangerous these social media sites are...how so many folks don't want the truth or real facts and that is how our elections are going to be run...insidious, deceitful....to many just want to hear what they believe and make their decisions on that type of information being given... scary sh*t to me...Seems all those hundreds of $ spent on advertising during elections may just be a waste of $....blogs are the way to go?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 13, 2018 9:08:45 GMT -5 dezii said:

Feb 13, 2018 8:54:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You deride my citing ZeroHedge, but I'll admit right now they publish tabloid trash articles occasionally too.

Perhaps it's because I'm younger than most here and grew up in an era of distrust in public institutions, but I place little value on the origin of any given political article.

I'm not being disingenuous to say I'm denouncing the article and not the institution. I've cited the Atlantic several times [2] [3] on P/CE. (Also, o ye of little faith, ZH has cited The Atlantic countless times, and republished parts of their articles under fair use rules.)

If I believed The Atlantic was a tabloid, I'd have no qualms calling it that.

so you are backpedaling your backpedaling?

cool.  then you won't have any issue with me calling ZeroHedge a repository of half-truths for conspiracy driven, English-Speaking, AnarchoCapitalist radicals, will you?

i have literally not met ONE supply side zombie or Hayekian crazy who did NOT use it.  if it is also a source for moderates, i have yet to see it.  it is far easier to dismiss for that reason than the Atlantic, which you, yourself, have cited.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 13, 2018 13:25:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 13, 2018 9:08:45 GMT -5 dezii said:

so you are backpedaling your backpedaling?

cool.  then you won't have any issue with me calling ZeroHedge a repository of half-truths for conspiracy driven, English-Speaking, AnarchoCapitalist radicals, will you?

i have literally not met ONE supply side zombie or Hayekian crazy who did NOT use it.  if it is also a source for moderates, i have yet to see it.  it is far easier to dismiss for that reason than the Atlantic, which you, yourself, have cited.

Maybe now I'm backpedaling on my backpedaling on my backpedaling.

You revile ZH for one simple reason (the same reason you revile the MRC, The National, The Heritage Foundation, The Pembina Institute, The Fraser Institute, RT, the WSJ, and literally hundreds of other sources you've dismissed with "a one sentence ad hominem", as you put it): it doesn't confirm your worldview.

You know as well as I do that crapping on sources with one-liners is so ingrained in your M.O. that giving it up was what I asked for in exchange for your litany of requests vis a vis quoting years ago, and you still couldn't help yourself. Hence it shouldn't surprise me that you'd mistake my criticism of the article for a blanket criticism of the Atlantic, or that you'd refuse to believe me when I claimed otherwise. You're talking to me as though I were you, and your M.O. is to enthusiastically crap on sources, not articles. If all the backpedaling of the backpedaling of the backpedaling is confusing you, that's because it's part of the machinery needed to bludgeon me into you.

I view many challenges to my worldview with deep skepticism, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've dismissed an article based on its source over the years. You'll dismiss anything or anyone in a matter of ten words or less, in the blink of an eye, unrepentantly. If it publishes so much as a single article you don't like, the whole works is anathema.

Alas, we've had this argument before. I won't waste my time asking for introspection and reform, but perhaps you can try not accusing me of backpedaling on my backpedaling on whatever, accept my explanation at face value (a.k.a. give me the benefit of the doubt), I can do the same for you, and we can live in a magical, happy world where each of us just... believes... what the other says.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I find it interesting that President Trump is now more reasonable than almost everyone else on an issue. A major contributing factor to American Exceptionalism is due process- especially the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. I understand that Democrats are completely without principle now, and Rob Porter is their favorite "key right hand man assistant chief of the universe for Trump" whom no one has ever heard of until now, but I'm very principled when it comes to these kinds of things. Assault and battery are crimes. If he can't be charged and convicted, then as far as I'm concerned- then the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. This is yet another obvious hit job timed to coincide with President Trump's rising poll numbers (ever notice how uncannily these flare-ups coincide with good news for President Trump?). And of course, once again you have the party that defended their own serial sexual predator for the last 20 some odd years- a man credibly accused of rape, a man who had to settle a sexual harassment claim for over three-quarters of a million dollars, a man who was disbarred for lying to a grand jury about his inappropriate sexual relationship while President of the United States with a 19 year old intern-- whose wife was an accessory after the fact, who famously ran the Clinton White House's "Bimbo Eruptions Unit", and who was the party's latest Presidential nominee. Sorry, but Democrats long ago surrendered the right to credibly chime in on such matters.

[Deleted]

I guess a photo of a beaten wife isn't proof? /smh

[djAdvocate]

i hear men do this a lot.  "the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt".

my response is generally this: "either both do, or neither do"

[thyme4change]

CNN is making a fortune with their constant anti-trump programming. I think Trump is a dumpster fire, but I can't watch CNN anymore.