Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[Q]: Images of Colbie Holderness after an alleged incident with her then-husband   Rob Porter   in the early 2000s. (Courtesy of Colbie Holderness)
The picture  if you havenât seen it  shows Colbie Holderness  one of  two ex-wives who have accused senior White House aide Rob Porter of physically abusing them . Porter  in the statement announcing his resignation Wednesday  declared that âthese outrageous allegations are simply false. I took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described.â
Following a tepid response by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly after news broke of a  Rob Porter's  history of domestic abuse  Post opinion writer Christine Emba says it's time to reconsider the general's "adult in the room" status. (The Washington Post)
Explain how White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly  who reportedly knew of the FBI reports  could assert  in a statement circulated before and after the abuse photos emerged  â Rob Porter  is a man of true integrity and honor and I canât say enough good things about  him .  He  is a friend  a confidante and a trusted professional.â
 Rob Porter's ex-wife Jennie Willoughby  told The Post in an interview that the White House aide was abusive during their marriage.  Porter  resigned Wednesday after the allegations became public. (Dalton Bennett/The Washington Post)
Consider Porter  the seeming golden boy. Harvard University. Rhodes scholar. Republican bona fides (his father  Roger Porter  worked for President George H.W. Bush;  Rob Porter  served as chief of staff to Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch) to match what the Deseret News called his âstrong Latter-day Saint pedigree.â A man like that wouldnât abuse his wife  would he?
[A]: Rob Porter


[Q]: Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is âquietlyâ working with Democrats on new legislation to dole out amnesty to nearly 800 000 to 3.5 million illegal aliens  a new report reveals.
According to POLITICO   Flake  has been working with Democrat Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on a âGang of Eightâ-style amnesty deal for illegal aliens who are enrolled and eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
 Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)  quietly began working with Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) several weeks ago in a new âgangâ to craft Dreamer legislation that could pick up 60 votes  according to a  Flake  spokesman. Flake and Bennet worked together nearly five years ago to write the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform measure. Aides declined to name all the senators who are involved  although Democratic officials said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois is also engaged in the talks. âTo have those kids go through another end of the year without knowing what their status is  is not good â  Flake  said Monday evening. âThere are a couple of issues we still need consensus on  but weâre getting close on a number of them.â
 Flakeâs  latest push for amnesty comes after the House and Senate passed tax reform legislation  in which Flake claimed that the Senate Republican leadership promised him a DACA amnesty in exchange for his support for tax reform  as Breitbart News reported.
[A]: Jeff Flake


[Q]: The Justice Department is reviving investigations involving Hillary Clintonâs emails and the degree to which the State Department during Mrs. Clintonâs tenure as secretary was put in the service of the Clinton Foundation. Good. Indeed  it is long overdue. It underscores a point weâve tried to make repeatedly here: You donât need a special counsel for this kind of thing; such investigations are what we have a Justice Department full of career prosecutors for. The perverse institution of the independent prosecutor should be shunned whenever possible â and its jurisdiction tightly confined in the rare necessary case.
Obamaâs first point led to one of the great head-fakes in modern law-enforcement history â one that reverberates to this day. Using his bully pulpit  the president framed the  Clinton  case as one of negligence. The portrayal stuck: Incessantly  the Justice Department  the media  and eventually James Comey  then-director of the FBI  addressed the case in terms of Mrs. Clintonâs purported carelessness â a hardworking public officialâs regrettable but forgivable inattention to detail.
Even now  critics of  Clinton  and the FBI are in a lather over reports that  as Comeyâs team drafted his remarks exonerating  Clinton  (notwithstanding that key witnesses  including  Clinton   herself   had not been interviewed)  agent Peter Strzok changed the term âgrossly negligentâ to âextremely careless.â Substantively  these terms are indistinguishable. The emendation is said to be critical  though  because the statute applicable to  Clinton âs conduct criminalizes âgross negligence.â If Comey had said the words âgrossly negligent â so the story goes  it would be the equivalent of pronouncing  Clinton  guilty.
This was a straightforward case of criminal intent. Negligence was the fallback position â for a prosecutor  an âeven ifâ theory  as in: âEven if youâre not convinced by our overwhelming evidence of  Clinton âs willfully illegal retention and transmission of classified information  you can still comfortably find  her  guilty if you conclude that  she  was grossly negligent â which  as the judge will tell you in his instructions  simply means âextremely careless.ââ
Mrs. Clintonâs criminal intent was so clear that its obfuscation also required Obamaâs second point: Mrs. Clintonâs lack of intent to imperil the United States. Director Comey hammered his bossâs legerdemain again and again. And why not? After all  it was true  â Clinton  unquestionably had no desire to endanger our country. Itâs always good to go with the truth . . . especially if you have the luxury of a Democrat-smitten media that wonât ask whether the truth youâve highlighted is relevant to the matter under investigation.
Second  you may be saying to yourself: âBut âintent to harm the United Statesâ is significant  so it should be part of a classified-information offense.â Thatâs right  and thatâs why it is a part of a classified-information offense â it just happens not to be the offense weâre talking about in Mrs.  Clinton âs case.
If an official illegally transmits classified information âwith an intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States â then that official commits the more serious felony offense prescribed at the top of the Espionage Actâs scale â subsection (a). If someone had suggested charging  Mrs. Clinton  with this treasonous offense  then  she   President Obama  and Director Comey would have been quite right to stress that  she  had no such intent. But no one suggested that. Rather  it was urged that  she  had transmitted classified information on purpose  but not with intent to do the country harm. That is less heinous than the treasonous offense. But it is still egregious. It is a crime that puts the lives of intelligence sources and the effectiveness of life-saving intelligence operations at risk.
That  Clinton  did not intend that any harm come to the United States does not make  her  innocent of willfully transmitting classified information to unauthorized persons or places.
Moreover  it is a black-letter principle that a personâs innocence of Crime A is inadmissible to prove that the person has not committed Crime B. For example  the fact that I have not personally sold drugs has no bearing on whether I laundered drug money. And the fact that  Mrs. Clinton  did not intend that any harm come to the United States does not make  her  innocent of willfully transmitting classified information to unauthorized persons or places  or of retaining it when  she  left the government and when the State Department finally requested that  she  surrender the government records in  her  possession.
Regardless of whether my motive theory is sound  however  the evidence that  Clinton  willfully mishandled classified information is mountainous.
Before she was ever secretary of state   Clinton  lived and worked in a White House where classified-information protocols were observed.  She  had to apply these protocols for years as a senator whose committee assignments were intelligence-intensive. Before becoming secretary of state   she  was indoctrinated in the handling of classified information and signed documentation attesting that  she  had read and understood the relevant executive orders about intelligence classification and handling.
 Clinton  well understood that the position of secretary of state involved immersion in classified information.  She  wrote in  her  memoir about the extraordinary steps  she  was required to take to safeguard classified information. Given the nature of  her  responsibilities for foreign relations and national security   her  decision to conduct all  her  government business on a private server system made it inevitable that classified information would be transmitted in and stored on the private system. There is no possibility that  she  did not know this. The private system  she  set up was in violation of government and State Department regulations.  Her  loyal staff fought efforts to bring  her  into the government email system â even though  she  forced the resignation of an ambassador over  among other things  his conducting of government business over an unauthorized private email system.
When the request was made that  Clinton  surrender  her  emails to the State Department   she  turned them over to  her  own lawyers and subordinates who did not have the security clearances required for access to the information.  She  destroyed tens of thousands of emails  even though they were under subpoena  so that they could not be reviewed by the State Department or the FBI. Of the 30 000  she  deigned to surrender to the State Department  over 2 000 contained classified information  some of it among the nationâs most highly classified national-defense secrets. And  she  serially lied in  her  public statements about  her  emails  in congressional testimony (in which  she  brazenly claimed to have turned over all work-related email to the State Department  and that  her  lawyers had carefully reviewed every email before designating which should be surrendered and which withheld)  and in  her  FBI interview (in which  she  pretended not to know what the ubiquitous â[C]â designation â for confidential â in classified documents meant).
Any prosecutor who understood there was no need to prove intent to harm the United States would be delighted to take that case to the jury â especially once the prosecutor realized heâd get to tell the jury: âEven if you suspend disbelief and buy the defense argument that  she  didnât mean to horde and transmit classified information  you must still find  her  guilty if you conclude  she  was grossly negligent â as in âextremely carelessâ.â
[A]:
Hillary Clinton