person in the white house. he went to harvard, his father worked with the bush administration, worked on the hill for multiple senators. he s someone who in this white house was viewed extremely highly as someone who kept the trains on the tracks, and so it is you know, for a lot of folks in the white house, it s unsettling to find this, but it s important to know, you know, abusers do not always look like what you think abusers look like, and that s why it s important to not allow that to be the rationale for just dismissing allegations out of turn. i think a lot of people at the white house were surprised, but they clearly acknowledged they did not act up when the evidence was clearly in front of them. the reason why someone like rob porter would be subjected to a background check is, a, whether, you know, the possibility that maybe he would exhibit violent behavior in some sort of work setting and no evidence of that at all, but, b,
attacked the media for reporting these accusations, and seemed to attack the ex-wives. it is incredibly discouraging to see a vile tike a decent man. shame on any publication that would print this and shame on the morally bankrupt character assassin that s would attempt to sully a man s good nail. he has amended. he wrote, i am heart broken by today s allegations. this is today. i do not know the details of rob s personal life and any form of domestic violence is abhorrent. i am perplexed by the first statement. why issue that first statement? i am very glad he amended his statement. in the case of the first statement, you re seeing someone who doesn t know the details of someone s private life. who has only interacted with them that a work setting and feels need to defend someone they know and love. but i think susan in right, in
that complicated back then. i think we should have known. and there was a certain you know, in your work setting, but certainly in work settings a newspaper i worked at before the post and early days at the post, there were men who would say things that we would now consider wildly inappropriate. but in today s context okay, we would say that was not good, but we would put it in the prior context. and there are some things we just the context hasn t changed, right? so i think we can make those distinctions. we just have to get the stories out and we have to talk about it, and it s a difficult conversation for some people. there are people we really love and respect who will be in that
even as a guest. i know they brought him back last month and they regret doing that. he s not going to be back on that network. that s only now. he was on last month and all these allegations there hadn t been a $32 million payout. it was, what, more than i guess $10 million they renewed his contract knowing he struck this deal. that s right. did they know the amount he paid? the 32 million? they say they didn t know the amount but i don t know if they didn t want to know. look the other way and not find out what was in the closet. i had this debate with people this weekend. do you think this is a sea change in the culture in terms of how men interact with women in a work setting? i would hope so, because like you mentioned, it seems like there s a play book that these powerful men have been able to use every time. i think women should be able to see through it by now. first step, smear the victim, hide behind legal action and last step is present yourself as the vict
didn t want to know. i had this debate with people this weekend. do you think this is a sea change in the culture in terms of how men interact with women in a work setting? i would hope so because it seems like there s a play book that these powerful men have been able to use every time. first sterngs smear the victim, hide behind legal action and last step is present yourself as the victim to the media. look all i ve been tlucht that happens every single time. the thing that boggles my mind is how could fox as a business decision decided to keep renewing this guy s contract knowing so many millions of dollars have been paid out. it s not the first or sec time. it keeps happening again and again. hopefully companies can be ebb lightened enough to say the