Abuse and Security Issues Raised as Aide Resigns

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/opinion/rob-porter-white-house.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “White House Expresses Regrets Over Aide, but Questions Persist” (front page, Feb. 8):

I am a former deputy general counsel/legal counsel at the Defense Department. One of my responsibilities was overseeing the security clearance process for civilians employed by the department. I was shocked when I read that President Trump’s staff secretary, Rob Porter, had never been granted a permanent security clearance. Under all previous presidents, the government took seriously the need to vet thoroughly anyone who needed a high-level security clearance.

When I appeared before Congress to discuss clearance issues, I was constantly reminded that we should not grant such clearances if there was any reason to believe that the person might be subject to pressures that would make him or her untrustworthy. Blackmail by a foreign government was one such reason, and the allegations of abuse leveled against Mr. Porter by his ex-wives certainly qualify as a basis for blackmail.

It is unfathomable how Mr. Trump, who railed against Hillary Clinton for potentially exposing government secrets through her private email account, could allow Mr. Porter to hold his sensitive position. If there were ever a time for congressional oversight about the security of government secrets, this is it.

HAROLD KWALWASSERFORESTVILLE, CALIF.

To the Editor:

It is beyond my imagination how this administration could hire an alleged wife abuser for one of the most sensitive positions in the White House despite the fact that he was denied security clearance by the F.B.I.

President Trump, Mike Pence, John F. Kelly, the chief of staff, and Donald F. McGahn, the White House counsel, had to have known that Rob Porter, the White House staff secretary, was refused security clearance. If they did not know, they are guilty of extreme negligence.

Congressional leaders have a duty to investigate this incredible breakdown. One has to wonder if sensitive information was passed on during the year that Mr. Porter was in this position.

JACK FLEISHMANBROOKLINE, MASS.

To the Editor:

In “Unwelcome Attention for Man Who Came In to Calm Things Down” (news article, Feb. 9), about John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, you say, “Friends and associates noted that with Mr. Kelly’s lack of experience in Washington politics, he may not have been attuned at first to how the domestic abuse allegations against Mr. Porter would be perceived.”

You don’t have to be “attuned” to know that punching one’s wife in the face is wrong.

CHUCK CHOI, ARLINGTON, MASS.