On this it is incumbent to be exceedingly careful with language because we’re obligated to hold back assumptions while also ensuring that Peter Hegseth, the nominee for Secretary of Defense, is evaluated in light of a rape allegation – it is hard to get more serious, nor more disqualifying. Just a day after Pres.-elect Donald Trump named Hegseth, news of a possible sexual assault in 2017 surfaced as if this major issue had somehow been unknowable. It has percolated since. Now The Washington Post reports that Hegseth agreed to an undisclosed settlement with the woman, or put more bluntly – paid her off.

The settlement is important because law-enforcement chose not to charge Hegseth – who says that everything was consensual. Obviously, this is where one should be cautious. The decision to not charge the matter may be solely due to the lack of credible evidence or it could be that the woman refused to testify. We cannot know. What is knowable is that this is the last thing the folks at Mar-a-Lago wanted to read this weekend. As reported in the WaPo:

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, paid a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement, though he maintained that their encounter was consensual. Hegseth’s attorney said that Hegseth was “visibly intoxicated” at the time of the incident, and maintained that police who were contacted a few days after the encounter by the woman concluded that “the Complainant had been the aggressor in the encounter.” Police have not confirmed that assertion.

The woman was the aggressor? Now that is very hard to believe. But again, it is wrong to make any conclusions except those in front of us – he paid her to step away. The unanswered questions now haunt the nomination and have pit Trump’s transition team against each other as I wrote on Saturday. Furthermore:

Hegseth agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to the woman because he feared that revelation of the matter “would result in his immediate termination from Fox,with  where he worked as a host, the statement said. The statement came after a detailed memo was sent to the Trump transition team this week by a woman who said she is a friend of the accuser. The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Post, alleged he raped the then-30-year-old conservative group staffer in his room after drinking at a hotel bar.

Now it gets complicated. Very complicated. The fact that a friend of the alleged victim came forward with details that would presumably only be known to the woman in the matter is a major consideration. A big Trump supporter believes that what happened was so serious that she was compelled to contact Mar-a-Lago to provide specifics.

Obviously, if the attack occurred it would be disqualifying. Furthermore, the transition team must also consider how the memo reached the WaPo. It may have leaked from the inside or it may have been given directly to the paper – either way, the memo’s legitimacy was at least confirmed by the transition team, meaning there is a leak somewhere. The problem is big enough and now they have to worry that more details may come in to a leaky ship, ensuring that Hegseth is finished before even getting to the Senate. It sounds like he certainly believed that Fox News would terminate him if she came forward.

No wonder there are reports that the transition team is fighting among themselves over what are apparently unplanned nominations, ones that were never vetted. The Hegseth matter will always come down to who should be believed – and he believed that he needed to pay her. But there are some certainties, the biggest of which from a purely political standpoint is that this is a massive unforced error. Consider the amount of time the transition has already spent battling this back instead of breezily going forward for a triumphant return to the White House.

As if it all needs further complication, Donald Trump is the type who digs in rather than cut losses. There are hundreds of very loyal fellow Republicans ready to run the Pentagon and they’re still out there. Some were actually vetted by the campaign. Why this continues to happen is an utter mystery. Hegseth should at least offer to withdraw from consideration. Loyalty goes one way in this dynamic. Hegseth could make things infinitely easier by at least giving Trump the option of a graceful exit, an easy fix.

As for the transition team and Trump himself – the smart thing to do is to say that upon further investigation they will go another direction and then wait – a while, for things to settle down. But that isn’t the baseline, and that means this will likely get much uglier. Hegseth was going to have enough trouble in the Senate and who knows what else might arise between now and then. There is no rule saying that this must have been an isolated incident. Perhaps other allegations arise. Probably not but if you were charged with getting everyone in place with the least amount of damage would you trust that you know enough?

There is also the fact that Hegseth, who knew of the settlement agreement, should have turned the nomination down immediately in Trump’s best interests. Perhaps the transition team should also consider what it means that he didn’t immediately say “I don’t think you want to do this because… ”

Hegseth was a shocking choice from the gate. We will learn a lot about what to expect from the next Trump term by how they handle this matter. If they dig in on this it’s unlikely that they will care about political considerations or public controversy going forward in any context. This one is easy, just find someone else. Other decisions may be far more difficult – and yet ultimately follow the same pattern. They can dodge problems early or dig in for every inch no matter the issue.

It will be telling with respect to the internal mindset as January approaches. Wow, they could have had it so much easier on themselves…

God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and @JasonMiciak

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!

6 COMMENTS

  1. “…Why this continues to happen is an utter mystery.”

    No, it’s not. It IS because trump keeps doing the same old thing: what HE wants – at any particular point in time – compared to what any group may work up for him.

    Mystery? Have we already forgotten 2016-2020? Sometimes these days, to me, analyzing trump’s actions is like reinventing the wheel.

  2. “Obviously, if the attack occurred it would be disqualifying.”

    WHAT? THE? HOLY? F*CK?

    A bit north of 50% of the electorate of this country had NO problem electing a man who was CONVICTED of a sexual assault and covering up that assault (not to mention paying off another woman to keep a “consensual” sexual encounter quiet before his first stint in the White House and who *bragged* that he was so important that he could grab ANY woman by her genitals without regard to her consent) and you have the ability to write “Obviously, if the attack occurred it would be disqualifying” (presumably with a straight face) and expect your readers to believe it?

    As for your assertion that “we” are “obligated to hold back assumptions,” I just want to ask WHY? WHY are “we” expected to do something that right-wing talking heads and media types routinely ignore in their rush to judge the opposition at ALL levels? I’m tired of this double standard at this point. F*ck “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to right-wingers. They don’t extend that privilege to US so I’m not giving it to them. They’ve been accused, so they MUST be guilty. If Hegseth paid off a woman–especially one he claims was the “aggressor”–then HE did something that he should not have done.

    If Hegseth was “visibly intoxicated,” then he DID do something he shouldn’t have. I mean, isn’t that usually how female sexual assault victims–especially when they’re identified as being “intoxicated” to some degree–are portrayed by the defendant’s counsel? You know–they may just not *remember* that they consented because they were intoxicated. Or maybe there wasn’t really any assault and they’re just out for “revenge” or “money” or some other nefarious purpose. Of course, usually the woman doesn’t pay off her male “victim” because it doesn’t happen that way.

    But, again, as far as I’m concerned, Hegseth is guilty until he manages to prove his innocence. And that’s the way *I* will treat ALL accusations facing conservative figures until THAT side starts being responsible with THEIR reporting of people who dare to accuse right-wingers of bad behavior rather than immediately vilifying them in the court of public opinion. It’s been that way since at least Anita Hill. Remember her? If certain senators had spent a little time interviewing Ms Hill (instead of treating her like a “wronged woman out for revenge”), we wouldn’t have that sleazeball Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court right now. (Also, if a certain Supreme Court nominee’s “party boy” background had been more thoroughly investigated before his hearings rather than quashed by the FBI, we might not have the middle-aged fratboy on the Court right now either.)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here