I also had met with a bishop in the Mormon Church about his anger. It came to a head and in February or March 2010, I was so worn down and exhausted by the anger that I requested we have a separation.

I never received specific threats from Rob he was just often angry and it was oppressive and I started to take on the blame and the weight of his lack of self-worth.

‘Over the course of the years of our marriage, I can think of several times where I was collapsing on the ground in tears and saying, “just leave me alone, just stop” because the anger and the insults were too much.

[He would say] “That I was worthless, that I was a liar” this is not one instance, these are things that he might have said in a rage. That I always got my way, that I was selfish, that I didn't care about him about his needs. Any version of those types of statements, heard enough times, with enough force behind them are devastating.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5359731/Ex-wife-Rob-Porter-Trumps-secretary-tells-marriage.html#ixzz56OpBZDfG

But will there be a court of love to ascertain his commitment to the Gospel?

Still waiting on Cliven Buundy...

Not if his tithing is all paid up...

Has B**** offended LDSInc.?

Sorry if I am behind the curve on this topic, I've followed the case but not the LDSInc. related back story.

I read the article. Sounds like he lost two LDS wives because of abuse. My husband is like this in some ways. Always making everything seem like my fault, I don’t love him enough, gaslighting etc. I can relate. Driven high achieving men everyone loves and thinks the world of seem to like to torture their wives into giving them the love they think they are owed. Funny how you can’t beat a woman down to make her love you more. Glad the wives got away. Hope Hicks better run. He’s no good Mormon guy.

Anonwife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glad the
> wives got away.

Bednar's didn't.

Hey, I love a good "good mormon man is secretly a dick" story as much as the next guy. I know many I could share myself. However, In all fairness, The Daily Mail is tabloid journalism. So a he said/she said domestic dispute story in the Daily Mail is hardly something that should necessarily be taken as credible.

And anybody can apply for a restraining/protective order. They are usually granted on a temporary or emergency basis without any independent investigation or very much backup needed. That is the purpose of them, to put a protective field between parties UNTIL there can be more of an investigation. And there is usually a short period of time before a hearing on whether to continue it.

So often people say "I had to get a restraining order" when all they did was make application for a temporary or "emergency" one. So few of them are made permanent after a hearing. So often the application was just a power play by someone who's mad at someone else. But then they have that word "restraining order" to throw around. And they can take pictures of it, post it online and act like it's some kind of proof of something. Usually it's only proof of how desperate they are to make up a story about someone they're mad at. Notice it's only the application that is pictured, not a permanent order. And the sad thing is that they are the people who dilute the importance of them for people who really have need of one.

Not saying Porter isn't an ass. I'm sure he is. But there is nothing in this story that is worth being called news. If it were about a Democrat, it's the kind of thing that would be reported on Fox "News."

Nooooooo, Norma Rae. You've been one of my favorite RfM posters for over a decade, but I respectfully disagree this time.

My son has high-level security clearance in his military position in Washington D.C. Our ENTIRE extended family was background checked before he could be issued his clearance. The government takes that vetting process extremely seriously,

I PROMISE you the FBI didn't stall Porter's clearance for months just based on what little bit we've read in a British tabloid. Undoubtedly there is much more to the story than scorned ex-wives. But we will probably never know the extent of the FBI's findings, or why Rob Porter so easily "walked" without a fight....because it's CLASSIFIED. ;o)


P.S. Now I'm gonna have to remember my old RfM password because this topic has sucked me in, and now I'm hooked!

Oh, trust me. I only gave him the benefit of the doubt when the reports were strictly from The Daily Mail and their "proof" was an application for a protective order. The above post was from the first day before any of the FBI security clearance info was released.

There has been enough come out now to corroborate it that there is no doubt. I'm just really sensitive to tabloid-type news.

In fact, I'm kinda loving the story now and feel a little vindicated by it. Holier-than-thou mormon prick gets outed as the ass he is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2018 06:01PM by NormaRae.

Ha!

NormaRae Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I love a good "good mormon man is secretly a
> dick" story as much as the next guy. I know many
> I could share myself. However, In all fairness,
> The Daily Mail is tabloid journalism. So a he
> said/she said domestic dispute story in the Daily
> Mail is hardly something that should necessarily
> be taken as credible.
>
> And anybody can apply for a restraining/protective
> order. They are usually granted on a temporary or
> emergency basis without any independent
> investigation or very much backup needed. That is
> the purpose of them, to put a protective field
> between parties UNTIL there can be more of an
> investigation. And there is usually a short period
> of time before a hearing on whether to continue
> it.
>
> So often people say "I had to get a restraining
> order" when all they did was make application for
> a temporary or "emergency" one. So few of them are
> made permanent after a hearing. So often the
> application was just a power play by someone who's
> mad at someone else. But then they have that word
> "restraining order" to throw around. And they can
> take pictures of it, post it online and act like
> it's some kind of proof of something. Usually it's
> only proof of how desperate they are to make up a
> story about someone they're mad at. Notice it's
> only the application that is pictured, not a
> permanent order. And the sad thing is that they
> are the people who dilute the importance of them
> for people who really have need of one.
>
> Not saying Porter isn't an ass. I'm sure he is.
> But there is nothing in this story that is worth
> being called news. If it were about a Democrat,
> it's the kind of thing that would be reported on
> Fox "News."


Norma Rae, do you have specific inside information about this situation? I'm not speaking of generalities here. I'm asking if you personally know Rob Porter or either of the exes or somehow have access to information regarding this specific situation that the rest of us do not have.

NormaRae Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If it were about a Democrat,
> it's the kind of thing that would be reported on
> Fox "News."


It is being reported about on Fox News--quite a lot, in fact.

If he can't get a security clearance, he definitely has problems somewhere in his life.

Yep

This thread just got a lot more interesting.

I attended a university ward in California. The hunky, perfect looking star swimmer with a bright future married a nice beautiful young woman in the ward. The perfect couple. I was really surprised when their marriage didn't last a year. He was severely verbally abusive to her, always putting her down and breaking her spirit. She had enough and divorced him. What's with these Mormon men who appear perfect on the surface but then abuse their wives in private. Creepy.

You are all missing the real story, Trump just found out Porter was making happy feet with his girlfriend!

Very quick exist if you ask me

Melania is the real catch and Trump married her

I thought you were going to say Stormy Daniels

I mean...do ex-wives ever say anything good about there former spouses? I don't think they do. I have no empirical evidence to back me up on this, but in my experience - most ex-wives say really bad stuff. People can say anything about you, and it doesn't make it true. I am quite sure this guy has a side to his story. For all we know, both ex-wives ganged up on him and are full of ****. He may have been a nice guy. We really don't know. I hate it when people conclude guilt on the basis of she vs he allegations and no objective evidence. How would you like it if someone said something really bad about you - and people believed it on face value. My ex said all sorts of really bad stuff about me in the divorce and after - none of it was true. She had been cheating on me through a 23 year marriage (TBM mind you), was a habitual liar, slapped me around (big woman about an inch taller than me), called me names all the time, put me down, insulted me, etc. Was extremely verbally and emotionally abusive to me. I don't ever believe stories like this unless there is factual evidence. You shouldn't either.

You are right that abuse goes both ways, many divorced people say bad things about their ex-spouses, and people should not reach conclusions without facts.

This is not such a situation. There are two women describing similar experiences, photos, at least one investigation by an arguably decent paper, and a resignation. I repeat: a resignation. It is possible that Porter is not a wife-beater, but I think the evidence is well past the 50% standard that applies to people in anything but a criminal trial.

Again, I don't challenge your arguments: just the application to this particular case.

Madam I am sorry we'll just have to agree to disagree. Unless the man was convicted of domestic assault, the photo of a black eye is still heresay. I've known individuals in domestic cases that have fabricated photos of bruises to prove their allegations. For example, in an unrelated case one woman took bic ball point pen, drew a big circle on her arm, and then smeared it all around to create a large bruise. She then went to the ER to have it documented. If not for the ER doctor accidentally swabbing it w/ alcohol and finding that it was ink - the man could have been in trouble. Photos, bruises, a resignation, a so called investigation by a "decent paper" - are all circumstantial. The allegations are heresay. Do you want to be in a society where you Mr. Lot accused you and you were convicted on heresay, subjective circumstantial evidence. I don't think you would want to live in such a society. People are quick to judgement, but when the shoe is on the other foot..hmmnn..it's a different story. Men have it rough in this regard...it doesn't take much. I clicked on the link by Dafuq and the details in the "order" were not convincing. Means nothing. Can't establish guilt on these things - at least not in American society. Thank GOD.

Ex-wife 1 claims Rob agreed to take the pictures of her abuse.

Oh is that what Exwife #1 claims...well sure he must be guilty if she said that. Please.

"Holderness (ex-wife 1) shared photos Porter took of her with CNN. Porter said in a statement that he had taken the photographs."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/rob-porter-ex-wives-white-house/index.html

He doesn't admit guilt in his reply, in fact, he denies it. Ex wife's #1 brother and wife both state that he confided in them about the abuse. These are biased witnesses.

AnonExMo,

Tangible evidence is by definition not "hearsay." Nor is the evidence I listed "circumstantial." Both of those are legal terms with specific meanings, and the evidence I adduced fits neither category.

You are making a different argument--well, two arguments. The first is whether the evidence is persuasive to you. It may not be. But that does not mean the evidence is illegitimate, nor that your judgment on this matter is more accurate than others'.
In this case the inability of Mr. Porter to obtain a security clearance means that the secret service found the evidence serious. Assuming that you have not spent months of time and tens of thousands of dollars, it is reasonable of us to conculde that there is "probable cause" to believe Porter is an abuser.

Second, you are implicitly asserting that the standard to apply to the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That doesn't even apply to civil law cases, let alone the judgment of outside observers. We in fact live in a country where we can reach our own conclusions on the basis of our own analysis. We do not have to wait for a conviction in a criminal court.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AnonExMo,
>
> Tangible evidence is by definition not "hearsay."
> Nor is the evidence I listed "circumstantial."
> Both of those are legal terms with specific
> meanings, and the evidence I adduced fits neither
> category.
>
> You are making a different argument--well, two
> arguments. The first is whether the evidence is
> persuasive to you. It may not be. But that does
> not mean the evidence is illegitimate, nor that
> your judgment on this matter is more accurate than
> others'.
> In this case the inability of Mr. Porter to obtain
> a security clearance means that the secret service
> found the evidence serious. Assuming that you
> have not spent months of time and tens of
> thousands of dollars, it is reasonable of us to
> conculde that there is "probable cause" to believe
> Porter is an abuser.
>
> Second, you are implicitly asserting that the
> standard to apply to the evidence is "beyond a
> reasonable doubt." That doesn't even apply to
> civil law cases, let alone the judgment of outside
> observers. We in fact live in a country where we
> can reach our own conclusions on the basis of our
> own analysis. We do not have to wait for a
> conviction in a criminal court.


My wife (attorney) says this answer is perfect.

Tell your wife that I say "thanks!"

My point is that people make assumptions based on hearsay, circumstances, subjectivity, speculation, and conjecture. My point is also that the evidence you have cited can easily be dismissed in civil court and criminal court. Prisons contain good people who have been wrongfully convicted. Some of the evidence that you have cited is not tangible YET. For instance, you are assuming that the reasons for Mr. Porters lack of security has to do w/ spousal abuse, which in fact, you have no idea. It could be a myriad of other things. You are regarding the testimonies of the two women as factual, with no knowledge of whether they have been vetted or deposed (i.e. maybe they colluded and are ganging up on him?). His attorney would have to deposition the two to find out if they contacted each other before issuing their statements. Are you regarding a tabloid as “an arguably decent paper”? His resignation is circumstantial. Here are some examples of tangible evidence: eyewitnesses, DNA, video/audio recordings. Circumstantial evidence can be persuasive in both courts.

I was not arguing that that the evidence is persuasive to me, nor was I arguing that “beyond a reasonable doubt” should be the only standard used. I was arguing that the evidence you cited does not meet the criterion for “perponderance of evidence.” It is easy to paint assumption based arguments w/ the broad brush of speculation and conjecture – IF you’ve ever been on the receiving end maybe you would feel differently. Perponderance is not the amount of evidence that you think you have. Albeit it is a lower standard, but this standard neverthess requires factual information. It is true, the testimony of the two spouse can be regarded as “tangible”, but you don’t know if they are tangible yet, you make that assumption here, but in civil or criminal court – testimony is often often made unreliable by a defense attorney. A newspaper article is not tangible evidence. A resignation is not tangible evidence. A security clearance (or lack thereof) is not tangible evidence, without knowing the facts (and in this case – we’ll never know). Some of this is circumstantial…maybe some weight can be given, but it’s not sinficantly persuasive.
The court of public opinion is an entirely different standard. Sure you can reach your own conclusions based on conjecture, speculation, and assumptions. Many people do. When you are on the receiving end – you may very well feel differently. Whatever allows you to sleep at night.

It sounds like your personal experiences, valid as they may be, are clouding your judgment in this case. That is evident in both your definition of valuable evidence and in your apparent inability to see the evidence that is already available.

You say that real evidence is "eyewitnesses, DNA, audio/video recordings" and that everything else is "circumstantial." It's important to note that circumstantial evidence is entirely valid in court and forms the basis of many convictions. But even if we accept your truncated list of acceptable evidence, there are ample facts on display. The two wives were of course "eyewitnesses"--ironically in the case of the woman whose eye was blackened--as was the abused girlfriend. As for video evidence, that is precisely what the photos are; and Porter acknowledged their provenance. DNA evidence would be inconclusive due to the marital relationship, but otherwise we have what you demand in abundance.

As for our inability to conclude anything about the lack of a security clearance, that would be true if it were not for 1) the FBI stating that it was due to the domestic violence allegations, 2) John Kelly being warned that that was the reason, and 3) the White House's acknowledgment of that connection. The same is true of the resignation. It wold be ambiguous if it were not acknowledged by the White House. Even Kellyanne Conway has said that the charges are persuasive and required Porter's resignation.

Regarding your statement that "the evidence [I] cited does not meet the criterion for “preponderance of evidence" standard, there are a few important points to note. First, "preponderance" means "more likely than not," which means 51%. You may assert that "preponderance is not the amount of evidence you think you have" but it actually is. Moreover, the police found that standard met and so did the FBI--and that was before a lot of recent evidence came forth. So we are way past "preponderance of the evidence" and closer to, perhaps past, "beyond a reasonable doubt" given the testimony and collaborating testimony that is now available. Men (and women) are rightfully convicted on much less than is now in the public domain.

Are mistakes made in court? All the time. Are innocent people falsely convicted of domestic violence and child abuse? Yes, frequently. If you have had to deal with such things, you are not alone. But that is separate from the Porter matter. Multiple enforcement agencies have already found probable cause that he engaged in the accused behavior. That is more than enough for the public to conclude, along with Kellyanne Conway, that he is not fit for government office.

After the divorce my ex called me about the neighborhood she had
moved into. She told me how it was full of divorced women and
they all had horror stories about their exes. She seemed to be
the only one who didn't have horror stories about her ex (me).

Fast-forward a couple of years. I've remarried (very happily) and
all of a sudden I'm finding out that she is telling horror
stories about me. I'd think she's just dishonest, but she told
them TO me once when I was there to pick up the kids for
visitation. I had to point out the actual facts to her. She
reluctantly agreed that I was correct.

So my limited experience supports your concerns.

Anyone can make up stories about his/her spouse both during and after a marriage. I'm pretty confident that law enforcement, and the people who do security clearances, are aware of that and do not automatically accept such stories as true.

But the situation here is different. Porter has two ex-wives and an ex-girlfriend who all tell of similar experiences and whose accounts are bolstered by contemporaneous communications with their families and friends. In addition, there are at least one police report--in which the police found the wife's story credible--and a series of photos. These various piece of evidence were persuasive enough that FBI investigators recommended that Porter not receive a clearance. Now we also have at least one interview on a major newspaper's website in which the public can see and evaluate an ex-wife's claims.

There is accordingly a stark difference between your situation (and those of many other innocent people) on the one hand, and the Porter case on the other. This isn't just one angry ex.

AnonEXMO w/ a TBM Exwife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I mean...do ex-wives ever say anything good about
> there former spouses? I don't think they do.

I absolutely will. My ex-husband is a wonderful human being, and we have become friends again. I have remarried, and he is nothing but respectful. He converted to Mormonism after the end of the marriage, but has since left. We divorced for a number of reasons. But he was never once abusive toward me. We married young and were both very immature. Ending the marriage before we did things like buy large property together or have children was the best decision we ever made. But he was nothing but kind and respectful. We should have stayed friends and never tried dating! I wish him nothing but every happiness in the world.

Well of course there are exceptions to every rule. As a disclaimer in my post above I said, "I have no empirical evidence" to conclude that ex's often bad mouth their ex's. I will respond to you w/ a similar conclusion, with absolutely no empirical evidence (only my experiences over 1/2 century), when I say that you my dear are a rarity. I speculate that a very small minority of ex-wives have anything good to say. I applaud you - your ex was a lucky man to have been married to you.

Mormons in the news again.

Read the emergency protective order against Rob Porter:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/read-the-emergency-protective-order-against-rob-porter/2751/

The Mormon church is a high pressure church that leads to high pressure in marriage (and personal performance.) Add high expectations of partners; it is a terrible mix.

Orrin Hatch defended him initially in the press. Then reserved judgment because of the abuse allegations. Reminiscent of how the church itself brushes domestic abuse under the carpet, turns a blind eye. It protects abusers rather than the abused too often.

One thing for sure about Porter is *if* his affair was ongoing while active LDS he will be subject to church court, possible disfellowship or excommunication.

He's soured on marriage. Hope Hicks is a young, fresh alternative to his Mormon lifestyle.

Choice for him now is does the relationship continue? Did it already end? Will he terminate his church membership before they call him into a church court?

Because he's on Trump's team, I really doubt his credibility. It's all "fake news" when you're on Trump's team for anything that puts someone in a negative light, even when it's factual. Because he's a Trumpist, he's most likely as corrupt as the rest of them and a professional liar to boot.

I dated a guy who was proud his ex wife could never prove his abuse. I laughed it off because he was handsome and a great dad to their son. He did eventually bruise my arm, and slap me in the face. He once told me, "I will punch you in the face." His ex wife accused him of grabbing her by the arm. It was online in their court complaint.

I believe the two ex wives about Rob Porter. There is probably more to it. He probably started abusing Hope Hicks.

Hope Hicks went to great lengths to defend him by writing the memo to clear him, from the White House. One more conflict of interest that reporters are saying she should have recused herself from, given the nature of their relationship.

One of the wives talked about going to the clergy of their LDS church. And the LDS church told her "Think about what this will do to his profession," by her going public with it. (Typical Mormon coverup!)

(MSNBC)

White house sources are claim to have said that he had been living with " a willowly blonde" but that relationship broke up in November.

Also reported that General Kelly has been looking for a way to sack him due to several issues they don't want to get out.

Church websites and lds living tout Porter as LDS and as shining example of Church Members in government.

Can't get an FBI clearance, accused of beating two wives, living with a third woman and bonking the president's girlfriend.

As long as you are Republican you can do no wrong in Church members eyes.

I fear you are right. Normally, I'd have to call cynicism. But the anecdotal evidence repeats itself time and again.

When MORmONS sing the praisrs of an abuser, why is it ever a surprise MORmONs beat their wives and have dirty, nasty, filthy affairs with underage girls behind their wifes backs? Wives are nothing more than brrrd stock to MORmON penis holderz and MORmON women are like brainwashed Stepford Wives, who buy into the Patriarchal caste system more than the men.

The Intercept talks to the ex-wives:

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/07/rob-porter-wives-abuse-trump-aide/

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Intercept talks to the ex-wives:
>
> https://theintercept.com/2018/02/07/rob-porter-wiv
> es-abuse-trump-aide/

Snippet:

“In her blog post, Willoughby wrote, “When I tried to get help, I was counseled to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career.” She told The Intercept that she had described Porter’s anger issues to a lay official in the Mormon church. She said the official had told her to think carefully about what she said publicly about Porter’s behavior. “Keep in mind, Rob has career ambitions,” she recalled the official saying. (The press office at the Mormon church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, declined to comment for this story.)”

My Mormon father was perfect. A perfect liar and a perfect abuser. He seemed to believe that sainthood was the sum of righteous habits.

IF he isn't a total dirt bag he will land on his feet in D.C. with a new gig.

If he is an abuser, Hope Hicks will eventually find out and be shocked.

Porter dating non mormons probably helps out too. Who knows where he is in his beliefs. I'm sure they are rattled.

Could he be a bishop's son? Sometimes kids from those families tend to get away with things growing up and they think the same behaviors work in adult life.

A family friend knew Porter's family when he was a George Bush advisor and was in the same ward. Porter's family is extremely well connected at Harvard and with traditonal Republican power structure.

Anybody serve a mission in England with this guy?

Is this the Michael Porter family? The business school professor?

Wow.

He is the son of the famous Mormon business scholar at Harvard. That family is very tightly integrated into the LDS community and the father is viewed as a standard bearer for the church in academia. He would be close to Mitt Romney and probably has close relationships with a bunch of GAs.

Used to be Chief of Staff for Orrin Hatch. Helped write the "Violence Against Women Act." (As reported on MSNBC tonight.)

One of his ex-wives stated she believes it can make it possible for him to be blackmailed by a love interest (think Hope Hicks?!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 08:05PM by Amyjo.

Question is, did he strike these women? Choke his wives?

Or just all BS.

I suppose we may never know the facts.

Are you kidding?

I dont know the truth/facts.

Do you?

Can you believe anything in the media?

Even police reports are suspect.

There are so many converging sources of information on this front, including statements from the White House and even Porter and Kelly themselves, that there isn't much question about the basic facts.

Where exactly is the deficiency?