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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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".
-
-
Is it possible that there's something in the NDA that she wants kept private?
@Tom-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
But over all I'd consider him kind of a shitty guy. I'd rather it wasn't so. I'm sure he's going to be a great SoD, so no issues there, it just looks bad and makes him kind of creepy.
Yes, and @jolly's concern about his penchant for womanizing is of concern - especially when it comes to such a high position.
If I were President-Elect Trump, I'd jettison him. Too much of a potential liability with no real plus side. I'm sure there are many other more qualified people.
I hear Kamala Harris might be looking for work.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Pretty clear case of non consensual sex. She was sober, he was intoxicated.
LOL.
Yeah...what sober woman takes a drunk guy to his hotel room at 2 AM and is "surprised" at what happens?
But, as I alluded above, thought this incident, by itself, is not disqualifying, the pattern of behavior, including the fact that he admitted to this probably is.
Not legally (I believe he did not rape her), but practically.
He is a liability, and that's the last thing President-Elect Trump needs.
-
