Mediaite Obtains Full Police Report on Pete Hegseth Sexual Assault Allegation

yes, in the court of public scrutiny, there is no requirement to hold someone to the standard as would be applied in a court of law.

Why? Because in a court of law, one's liberty is at stake.

Here, what is at stake?

National security.

In a court of law, what is affected is what affects HIM.

As Secy Of Defense, what is at stake affects ALL OF US, as a nation.

Capiche?

And. . the sex thing isn't the salient reason to not confirm him, his book is. I don't have problem with guys like that at the platoon level, but commanding the pentagon? It's utterly above his leadership capability. He was a Major, which is middle management level in the service. If he were a one star, I'd let it slide. Appointing Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense would be akin to handing the controls of a jumbo jet to someone who’s only ever flown a crop duster. The exponential leap in responsibility between Hegseth’s previous roles and the post of Secretary of Defense is staggering -- orders of magnitude greater than the jump from Major to Brigadier General. The Secretary of Defense isn’t just overseeing troops; they’re managing a $800 billion budget, coordinating with global allies, and making decisions that impact the lives of millions and the security of the world. Hegseth’s background is rooted in commentary and selective advocacy, not in the operational complexity or strategic oversight demanded of this position.

The exponential growth in responsibility -- from tactical execution to global strategy -- is not just a steep curve; it’s a transformation in scale and scope that requires experience, discipline, and proven leadership at the highest levels. Hegseth lacks the experience to handle this kind of operational complexity. Decisions at this level aren’t about making noise on cable TV or stoking partisan flames; they’re about calculated, globally consequential actions that require steady, informed leadership.

To trust Hegseth with the immense and delicate balance of power that comes with being Secretary of Defense is to gamble with national security and global stability. It’s a risk we simply cannot afford.

Moreover, that he would be nominated for the position is evidence of Trump's utter incompetence. The only reason we are here is due to Republicans' lack of a spine to have convicted him during the impeachments, and they had two bites at that apple and failed both times. They were so afraid of his mean tweets, shaming from his base, etc., to put country above self and their party. It's so shameful, the more I think about it.

 

It isn't required to show you have had a case dismissed at any job interview... Prove me wrong... Show us Matt Gaetz had a criminal record to be asked about..

You want to tell us what you don't know about the "extort his family for money" which involved a former DOJ official... in exchange for a presidential pardon for sex trafficking allegations..
Case 3:21-cr-00052-MCR

Let Matt speak for himself...

 

@Patricio Da Silva

"in the court of public scrutiny"
How cute.... you want to change the term like is common practice with liberals.... the "court of public opinion" is the term

We don't convict in the "court of public opinion"
only smear some ones name without proof or convictions or opposing representation and cross examination of those witnesses that have failed the "credibility test" by the DOJ in a their case...

Do you know what happened to the FBI and DOJ audio recordings that will prove his innocence.?

 

@Patricio Da Silva

"Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" That is the question asked in most job interviews... Please show us Matt Gaetz has been convicted of a crime in this job interview.

 

One question among many. If that were the only question, you'd have a point.

Rebutted, in toto, here:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/hegseth-etc-and-why-we-are-here.623451/

 

It's a simple fact, that, in the court of public scrutiny, there is no requirement to hold someone to the standard as would be applied in a court of law.

Why? Because in a court of law, one's liberty is at stake.

Here, what is at stake?

National security.

In a court of law, what is affected is what affects HIM.

As Secy Of Defense, what is at stake affects ALL OF US, as a nation.

Follow?

And. . the sex thing isn't the salient reason to not confirm him, his book is. I don't have problem with guys like that at the platoon level, but commanding the pentagon? It's utterly above his leadership capability. He was a Major, which is middle management level in the service. If he were a one star, I'd let it slide.

Now, there are examples of such leadership leaps, but Hegseth is no Jack Kennedy. Appointing Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense would be akin to handing the controls of a jumbo jet to someone who’s only ever flown a crop duster, but the salient reason is, 'the mentality of a crop duster'. Hegseth is a LIGHTWIGHT. He is no Jack Kenney. Compare Kennedy's 'Profiles on Courage", to Hegseth's 'War on Warriors' which isn't much more than a misogynistic diatribe, steeped in baseless accusations and thinly veiled contempt for women who serve in the military. The author's arguments lack factual grounding and instead rely on tired, outdated stereotypes that have no place in modern discourse.

The exponential leap in responsibility between Hegseth’s previous roles and the post of Secretary of Defense is staggering -- orders of magnitude greater than the jump from Major to Brigadier General. The Secretary of Defense isn’t just overseeing troops; they’re managing a $800 billion budget, coordinating with global allies, and making decisions that impact the lives of millions and the security of the world. Hegseth’s background is rooted in commentary and selective advocacy, not in the operational complexity or strategic oversight demanded of this position.

The exponential growth in responsibility -- from tactical execution to global strategy -- is not just a steep curve; it’s a transformation in scale and scope that requires experience, discipline, and proven leadership at the highest levels. Hegseth lacks the experience to handle this kind of operational complexity. Decisions at this level aren’t about making noise on cable TV or stoking partisan flames; they’re about calculated, globally consequential actions that require steady, informed leadership.

To trust Hegseth with the immense and delicate balance of power that comes with being Secretary of Defense is to gamble with national security and global stability. It’s a risk we simply cannot afford.

Moreover, that he would be nominated for the position is evidence of Trump's utter incompetence. The only reason we are here is due to Republicans' lack of a spine to have convicted him during the impeachments, and they had two bites at that apple and failed both times. They were so afraid of his mean tweets, shaming from his base, etc., to put country above self and their party. It's so shameful, the more I think about it.

 

I wouldn't trust Matt Gaetz for even a New York minute.

 

Who cares?

 

@Patricio Da Silva

Please show us Matt Gaetz has been charged , indicted, convicted of a crime...

Welcome to America... presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers... please show us the jury verdict form Gaetz was ever found guilty..

 

clever - how ever Mediate is well not as a extreme LW source - probably on a par with Infowars.

Not even close, those you list at least some times report accurately - or at least close to balanced.

Based on what?

Sorry, when you present a meaningful argument, I respond appropriately. Problem you rarely do. You cite far left doctrine as if it were the golden rule and then post something like this post - bluff and bluster, at best.

and there you go with personal insults.

In other words when questioned or challenged you spew nonsense like this post.

See, your problem seem to be IF you find something that matches your ideology - no matter from where - you automatically assume it's solid gold, unimpeachable, and definitive proof. I don't often cite quotes from news sources as PROOF because unlike you I know journalists and talking heads get paid to say what their employer wants.

Think about the concept that you're assert that mediate is reporting the full content of that report and not cherry picking or emphasize those that make him look most guilty.

 

This is a stretch.

The witnesses were:
1. Her friend she was with, who saw what she consumed.
2. Hotel employees.
3. Police investigators reviewing surveillance video.

In fact, they reported she was sober, and he was drunk when she took him by the arm and went back to his room to have sex. Hegseth initially wanted to have sex with her friend. Her friend wasn't interested and asked her friend to come between them to stop his sexual advances. Instead, she observed her friend flirting with Hegseth, touching him all over his body, and then locked arms with him on their way to his room.

On top of that, her story has some inconsistencies. She refused to work with the police to overcome them when they asked her for her help doing so. Plus, her husband and her "rapist" have the same story, despite never meeting. There's a reason he was never charged.

 

presumed innocent until proven guilty @Patricio Da Silva... Hegseth has no criminal history... and you can't create one...Welcome to America... You got nothing... your thread has run it's course...

 

Why do you say he's ****ed? Its a police report from 2017 that was forwarded to the DA and then no charges were filed by the DA.

FFS

 

Technically if the evidence as presented in the report is to be believed, she raped him.

He was intoxicated, essentially black out drunk, and she was sober. She led him back to his room, and rode his dick without a condom.

 

@Patricio Da Silva

""Next, the claim that witnesses “saw her and said she wasn’t drunk.” Convenient, isn’t it? A little cherry-picked hearsay about her sobriety, offered as though it’s a scientific certainty. Did these witnesses breathalyze her? Administer a blood test? Or are we just supposed to take their observational skills as gospel truth? Because, newsflash: people don’t always outwardly appear drunk, especially to casual onlookers.""


Strange how you take the testimony of one person as gospel... but others are not credible

Witnesses AND her own husband...

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/n...tails-pete-hegseth-sexual-assault-allegation/

 

I've read posts here on PF from a couple of guys that have tentatively convinced me that "Big Brass" is all but a complete s-show in our military.

I'm an engineer, who adamantly believes that the only feasible explanation of WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapses were controlled demolitions.

And I also suspect that the US may be reaping deserved karma by having elected Trump, sadly.

Pete Hegseth will not very likely be confirmed imo presently.

Given what the Rs accomplished under Bush-Cheney though, I do not harbor any illusions that the overthrow of the US by its military is anywhere close to being unimaginable.

 

Apparently you do -- you're the one who asked me to listen to him

 

Did they only have a sip of alcohol?

I am not assuming anything. If anyone is assuming it is you. It is a clear case of he says she says after a night drinking with no other evidence one way or the other.

 

So do you yourself know and have real "Christian standards"? We aren't putting Preachers or Pastors or Elders on staff hear. We are acquiring leaders. Do you understand all of humanity is flawed you yourself included? How is your record? Yeah, I bet it is spotless! Ha!

 

Cheeto couldn’t get a security clearance either. But the voters elected him. Senators have to make an independent decision on whether to confirm Hegseth to a position of trust and responsibility.

Leaders? LMAOROG

 

It is no surprise that Trump's piks are of such low quality and so ill prepared to work in gov't .Mind you , the less they know......creates an illusion of him being knowledgeable ) Vetting?? Trump is doing his own vetting......as he knows what he is looking for. LOYALTY (and personal WEALTH") to HIM.(above everything else.).........real qualifications don't matter. So far he has a collection of very wealthy people. (no experience in politics , or governing)........and one has to wonder just how long they will remain loyal to this unethical buffoon., with legal issues........and the ability to avoid legal consequences for his behaviors.(an expert at being a shyster)

 

He sounds just purrfect for the Trump team....er......."administration" But if he can't be loyal in marriage....there are no guarantees he can or will remain loyal to Trump.

 

Tell us about the audio of the FBI extorting money from Matt's father... Do you have a copy or link to that audio please..

 

Prove her wrong...
Interesting video by a premier investigative journalists Candice Owens who did something fake CNN and fake WaPo will never do.... a deep dive into the extortion of the Gaetz family..... and how the leads back other people other than Matt Gaetz for this phony sex charge...

The Matt Gaetz Story Is WAY Darker Than We Thought.
https://www.youtube.com/live/O_ynn8EAxOU

 

I realize it is going to be real hard for you to see all the bureaucrats go. It's what happens when you drain the swamp.