White House chief of staff John Kelly is telling his side of the Rob Porter story, but he’ll still have some explaining left to do.
Kelly took heat last month for defending Porter’s character in a statement after allegations of domestic abuse surfaced. Now, he’s clarifying the timeline.
“At that point in time, I thought that statement was accurate,” Kelly said on Friday, insisting he showed Porter the door after hearing the abuse allegations involved physical violence.
Referring to the allegations as “a shock to us all,” Kelly admitted the White House erred when it came to Porter. “We didn’t cover ourselves in glory in how we handled that,” he conceded.
At the time, reports indicated Kelly felt betrayed by Porter, whom he believed downplayed the accusations from his two ex-wives. Kelly’s remarks on Friday indicate he’s sticking to that account.
But questions remain.
If a top aide is having problems getting his security clearance because, by his own admission, two of his ex-wives raised abuse allegations — even if the alleged abuse was not physical — why wouldn’t you investigate further before firing off a laudatory statement? No matter how respectable Porter seemed, the fact that his clearance was being held up over the allegations should have been enough of a red flag for officials to consult the FBI’s reports on his background.
And why did it take media reports for the White House to do something about Porter anyway? Based on what we know from the FBI, officials almost certainly had access to the domestic abuse allegations before they spilled into the press. Were they ignored?
Kelly’s admission of error is refreshing, and it amounts to a good start. But without explaining why Porter was given the benefit of the doubt, his story is still inadequate.
