The White House's argument that it did not completely mishandle the situation of Rob Porter, a senior aide who was accused by both his ex-wives of assault, hinged on a very specific timeline. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders presented the argument that the FBI investigation into Porter for his security clearance was still "ongoing" when the allegations against him went public. She added that the investigation was "handled by our law enforcement and intelligence community," outside the White House. Therefore, the White House was just letting the investigation run its course when it allowed Porter to stay on—and strongly considered the accused domestic abuser for a promotion—even after senior officials learned of the allegations.

Except, as The Washington Post tells us Wednesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray has directly contradicted that version of events.

FBI Director Christopher A. Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the bureau had completed a background report on then-staff secretary Rob Porter last July and closed out the case entirely last month. Wray’s account is at odds with White House claims that the investigation required for Porter’s security clearance was “ongoing” until he left his job last week, after his two ex-wives publicly alleged physical and emotional abuse.

So the investigation was done in July, but the White House asked for a follow-up, which was completed in November. (In the initial investigation, the FBI spoke to Porter's ex-wives, both of whom accused him of physical and emotional abuse. Soon after, according to the Post, "the FBI received a request for a follow-up" in which they'd also speak to Porter. That resembles the White House response when the story broke, when Sanders organized an off-record press gaggle for Porter to explain himself to reporters. That apparently mirrors the situation internally at the time, as Porter was tasked with pitching his story to other staffers.) That's around the time that White House Counsel Don McGahn suggested to Porter that he should resign, according to The New York Times:

In late November last year, a distraught girlfriend of Mr. Porter’s contacted Mr. McGahn and told him Mr. Porter had been unfaithful to her by dating Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, and had anger problems, according to several people familiar with the discussion. Mr. McGahn, who knew Mr. Porter’s girlfriend, at that point suggested to Mr. Porter he should consider leaving the White House, the people said. But Mr. McGahn did not follow up on the matter.

Previous reporting indicates McGahn knew Porter had more than just "anger problems." In September, he learned "Porter's security clearance had been delayed due to accusations of domestic violence." But Porter persisted in the job for months. Chief of Staff John Kelly learned some details of the allegations last fall, but other staffers are beginning to suggest he has since misrepresented what he learned and when.



Getty Images

Speaking of, Sanders held a press conference Tuesday in which she completely changed the White House line on all of this. In the process, according to Politico, she at least partly contradicted her earlier story:

“The White House personnel security office, staffed by career officials, received information last year in what they considered to be the final background investigation report in November,” Sanders said. “But they had not made a final recommendation for adjudication to the White House because the process was still ongoing when Rob Porter resigned.”

That explanation differed dramatically from the one Sanders offered at Monday’s briefing, when she told reporters that the process of issuing a security clearance “doesn't operate within the White House. It's handled by our law enforcement and intelligence community.”

So, caught in the false claim that they were waiting on the FBI investigation, the White House line is now that they were waiting on their own investigation. And by the way, none of this deals with the fact Kelly released a statement fawning over Porter after the allegations broke publicly—as did Sanders, though she likely had less detailed knowledge of the accusations. None of this broaches the subject of the knee-jerk White House response to allegations from women against allied men in power, which is to dismiss them as liars.

Getty Images

What it does speak to is the continuing mendacity of this White House, which traditional journalistic methods seem ill-equipped to deal with. Take this passage from that first Washington Post story, for example:

The latest bout of turbulence is exacerbated by the administration’s reputation, earned over 13 chaotic months, for flouting institutional norms and misrepresenting facts to the public — a culture set by the president himself.

By this, the Post means that you can't believe a word that comes out of this White House, from the president or anyone else. That was driven home by a White House source farther down:

When asked if Kelly could have been more transparent or truthful, that official wrote: “In this White House, it’s simply not in our DNA. Truthful and transparent is great, but we don’t even have a coherent strategy to obfuscate.”

But the reluctance to immediately call bullshit will likely allow Sanders to get away with the new line—that the White House was waiting on an internal investigation of Porter, even though it used to be an external FBI investigation of Porter. It's part of what allows someone like Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's longtime dunce of a lawyer, to feel he can say this to The New York Times and get away with it:

Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, said on Tuesday that he had paid $130,000 out of his own pocket to a pornographic-film actress who had once claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump...

“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

Right. Because lawyers regularly make payments out of their own pockets on their clients' behalf without their knowledge. To the Times' credit, they hint later on that Cohen has given away the game:

Mr. Cohen has previously said that Mr. Trump has denied an affair with Ms. Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels. She has said the affair took place soon after Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to the couple’s son, Barron.

They clearly lied about the affair, and now they're offering a totally implausible explanation about the payoff. The admission that there was a payoff is essentially an admission there was an affair. Is there a pattern here? Meanwhile, as senior intelligence community officials testify before Congress that Russia is gearing up for another assault on our democracy in the 2018 elections, we have further reports that the President of the United States still does not believe Russia interfered in 2016. Everything is fine.

Jack Holmes Politics Editor Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io