The Hegseth "incident."

[George K]

I couldn't sleep last night so I listened to Megyn Kelly's podcast on this.

First of all, she acknowledges that Hegseth is a horn dog. He has cheated on all three of his wives and the incident that is described is when he cheated on his third wife.

Here is the timeline:

In October 2017, He was at a conference in California and after the conference, he was chatting up some ladies near the pool. One of them was not interested in his advances, and told Jane Doe, the alleged victim, that she should be a “crotch blocker “. In other words, this other woman wanted Jane Doe, to stop Hegseth’s advances on her. From several observers, it was noted that Hegseth was intoxicated. However, Jane Doe, according to the observers, was not. According to the bartender, she had one glass of champagne, and perhaps one drink with vodka.

Jane Doe started to flirt with Hegseth, touching his back, and rubbing his arm. By midnight, they were obviously pretty friendly. At 1:30 in the morning, hotel visitors notified the desk that there was a couple that was being very loud and fighting poolside. Hotel security came to investigate, and found Jane Doe and Hegseth in an argument. Security noted that Hegseth appeared intoxicated, and Jane doe did not. At 1:45 in the morning security footage of the hotel showed Hegseth and Jane Doe, walking down the hall of the hotel, arm and arm, and Jane doe is smiling.

They entered Hegseth’s room at 2 AM.

This is all verifiable information obtained from witnesses and security cameras.

According to Hegseth, they had consensual sex. Jane received a couple of text messages from her husband. He was staying at the hotel as well with their children. her husband was concerned that she had not returned to the room by 2 AM. He texted her several times, wondering where she was. Finally at 3:45 in the morning, he said he was going to go down to the bar to look for her. According to Hegseth, she said “what am I going to tell my husband? “

She told him that she will tell her husband that she fell asleep on the couch in somebody else’s room.

She returned to the room where her husband and children were staying, and her husband testified that she did not appear to be intoxicated and did not have slurred speech. She told her husband that she had fallen asleep on the couch in somebody else’s room. All of these events occurred the night of a Saturday evening and Sunday morning.

Jane Doe and her husband returned home either Sunday evening or Monday morning. That night they had sex, and he wore a condom (?).

On Wednesday, she told her husband that she had been raped. She said that somebody slipped something into her drink and she had no memory of what it happened other than she recalls Hegseth being on top of her and blocking her exit from the room.

On Thursday, she went to the hospital to get a rape kit done. A police report was taken and independent interviews of Jane Doe and Hegseth were done. Of note, the police asked her to do a provocative interview with Hegseth on the phone. They wanted this to be done to get evidence about their encounter. Hopefully they could record Hegseth saying something incriminating.

She refused.

His attorneys contacted her in 2021 and a nondisclosure agreement was enacted.

Those are the facts that are verifiable in the case.

Here are the questions:

How is it that independently, Hegseth related the story about how she was going to lie about falling asleep on somebody’s couch to the police, and she told the same story to her husband?

Apparently, in the police report that she gave she says that their sex included several positions, one of them being with her on top. That does not sound very ‘rapey.’

Why did she wait four days before going to the emergency room to get checked?

Why did she refuse to do a provocative phone interview?

Why did she appear completely sober walking down the hall of the hotel and during the intervention poolside at 1:45 in the morning, and according to her husband, was totally sober at four in the morning.? No date rape drug works like that.

Why did the police decline to pursue the case?

Reports are that the Trump people are unhappy with the fact that Hegseth did not disclose any of this information during the vetting process. I can’t say that I blame them.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in [The Hegset

Lots of ‘whys’ there.

Shouldn’t there be another in front of this?

His attorneys contacted her in 2021 and a nondisclosure agreement was enacted.

[jon-nyc]

If he had a reputation to protect or a marriage to protect I would understand. But wife 2 had already filed for divorce having found out that to-be wife three had already birthed his baby. And anyone who glanced at his past would see much worse than simply having sex with a married woman consensually.

[George K]

You would think that a woman who was raped would jump a the chance to contact her violator via phone, and record him.

"Hey about that night, can we talk?"

"Yeah, let's just forget about it. I'm sorry."

"I know but I just wanted to hear you say that (for the police)."

"I didn't mean to hurt you."

[jon-nyc]

Yeah if he hadn’t tried to hide everything I would definitely be more skeptical of the woman’s story.

[jon-nyc]

I wonder how much he paid for the NDA? It ultimately didn’t stop the story from coming out, and now puts him in the awkward position of having as his official position ‘nothing happened but it’s a secret’.

[Jolly]

In one sense, it's a nothingburger. It's pretty obvious it was consensual. The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

The same people who weren't concerned about Biden molesting his daughter in the shower, now have their panties in a wad over this.

The only thing that concerns me, is the horndog aspect. As Stuart said, a soldier who won't fuck won't fight, but his actions worry me a bit about foreign powers, honeypots and entrapment.

[jon-nyc]

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

You are stuck in this line of thought and can’t seem to get out. But the NDA is a reasonable thing to purchase to shut someone up, even if their accusations are fabrications. This is not complicated. You claim to be trolling but you’re honestly making this argument that the NDA is indicative of guilt. It’s not. It could exist regardless of guilt.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

But a rape accusation, even a false one, does.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

But a rape accusation, even a false one, does.

Now that it’s out anyway, the NDA is purely a liability. Unless he really has something to hide.

[Mik]

Nothingburger. He's a dawg. Not unusual.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

But a rape accusation, even a false one, does.

Now that it’s out anyway, the NDA is purely a liability. Unless he really has something to hide.

That’s a non sequitur. There is value in shutting someone up if they are making unprovable and reputationally damaging accusations against you. That holds whether both parties sincerely believe their version of events, one party is lying, or both parties are lying.

[Horace]

@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":

Jane Doe and her husband returned home either Sunday evening or Monday morning. That night they had sex, and he wore a condom (?).

Obviously she told him about that encounter, thus the protection till she could get checked out. Then, after some conversation, maybe a little retconning of memory, it became rape. Or maybe he really raped her. Would be an interesting set of verifiable facts if so, but believe all women amirite.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

But a rape accusation, even a false one, does.

Now that it’s out anyway, the NDA is purely a liability. Unless he really has something to hide.

That’s a non sequitur. There is value in shutting someone up if they are making unprovable and reputationally damaging accusations against you. That holds whether both parties sincerely believe their version of events, one party is lying, or both parties are lying.

See bolded part above.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The NDA was to squash anything pertaining to the incident, in lieu of future career opportunities.

This doesn’t make sense. If it were Mike Pence, sure. But having sex with a married woman doesn’t show up in his top ten list of reputational hits.

But a rape accusation, even a false one, does.

Now that it’s out anyway, the NDA is purely a liability. Unless he really has something to hide.

That’s a non sequitur. There is value in shutting someone up if they are making unprovable and reputationally damaging accusations against you. That holds whether both parties sincerely believe their version of events, one party is lying, or both parties are lying.

See bolded part above.

You keep reiterating that point, which I've attempted to engage in the other thread. You avoided that engagement, as you've avoided responding to any point I've made here. For the record, you have not provided a scenario in which an innocent Hegseth would be well advised to lift the NDA. The NDA is a good idea regardless of whether either party sincerely believes they are telling the truth. In order to engage with that point, you would have to provide a scenario in which an innocent Hegseth gains some advantage by lifting the NDA.

[jon-nyc]

The point is obvious and I have made it. Since the story is out, and the police report is out, the NDA no longer serves the purpose of keeping the rape allegations under wrap. Continuing to hold her to the NDA just makes it look like there’s something he’s still hiding.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":

The point is obvious and I have made it. Since the story is out, and the police report is out, the NDA no longer serves the purpose of keeping the rape allegations under wrap. Continuing to hold her to the NDA just makes it look like there’s something he’s still hiding.

It's an obviously weak point, and I have responded to it. Run the tape forward after the NDA is lifted. Now this accuser is out there going on all the talk shows, making money for accusing you of rape, with a financial motivation to make it as juicy as possible. None of it will be provable or disprovable. That's your "good idea".

[jon-nyc]

Fair point.