This thing with Porter is just the latest of ridiculous charges, true or not, that has gotten out of hand.

First, let's assume Porter did "abuse" his ex-wives. So? When did that happen, years ago? That's a personal issue between Porter and his ex-wives. The ONLY question should be how Porter (or anyone) behaves on the job. If someone is abusive at work, then YES the employer needs to dismiss that employee. By all accounts Porter behaved as one would be expected to, treating co-workers with respect, and he did his job well too.

The EEOC has laws that prevent an employer from asking too many questions about an employee's, or potential employee"s (during the hiring process), personal life. Things like:

1) do you have children?
2) what religion are you?
3) do you have a car?

What's next?

4) do you beat your wife?

Go ahead, ask that question, and see how fast you get sued by the interviewee and by the EEOC.

No, this is just another weapon being used by the losers to TRY to change the results of an election. Yeah, I know, Al Franken resigned after similar allegations, so some will say this is not particular to one party. Except I think Franken was caught, on tape, abusing women while he was a sitting Senator, right? Wasn't he? If so, that IS workplace related. But this Porter fellow is accused of things BEFORE he was hired on this job. If true....well, why did these ex-wives wait so long to come forward? It took that long for George Soros' operatives to discover them and offer them big buck$ to come forward.

Before one of you mental-midgets tries to make the argument, what D80, are you defending wife-beaters? Yeah....that's it. Try, if possible, to see the point. Using this Porter case as an example, here's what should happen: if the wives press charges then he needs to face the charges, hire an attorney, and deal with it on his own time. As long as he can do his job, he should remain. Obviously, if those personal issues impede his ability to do his job....well....even there an employer has to be careful. If Porter, in this case, denies the charges, tells his employer "I am not guilty. These are false accusations." Said employer has to stand by that employee, at least to the point when/if it impacts said employee's ability to perform his/her duties. In this country, we are still innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And....let's say the employee does fight it and ends up being convicted. If he/she gets a suspended sentence and pays some fine, then that matter is settled and they should be back on the job. If they go to prison for some months/years well then the employer has the right to terminate them and hire someone who can actually show up for work.