When Pete Hegseth was a couple of days away from a vote on his nomination as Secretary of Defense, a typically low-rent act we’ve learned to expect during high-profile Republican nomination is being considered occurred. From out of nowhere, a non-participant in any event appeared with a slanderous letter accusing Hegseth of “domestic abuse” see NEW: Press Outlets Accuse Pete Hegseth of Domestic Abuse, but His Ex-Wife Nukes Them – RedState.
Advertisement
Senators received an affidavit Tuesday from the former sister-in-law of defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth in which she says his behavior caused his second wife to fear for her safety. The receipt of the affidavit comes after Senate Armed Services Committee staffers were in contact with Hegseth’s former sister-in-law for several days.
The former sister-in-law, Danielle Hegseth, submitted the affidavit in response to a Jan. 18 letter from Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., seeking “a statement attesting to your personal knowledge about Mr. Hegseth’s fitness to occupy this important position.”
Ultimately, the letter was deemed not credible by anyone who was not determined to defeat Hegseth’s nomination. Not only was the former sister-in-law not present at some of the events she claimed happened, but Hegseth’s ex-wife flatly denied that the events happened.
After the 51-50 vote, Danielle Hegseth made a rather strange statement; see Woman Who Accused Pete Hegseth of Domestic Abuse Makes Eyebrow-Raising Claim She Was ‘Promised’ Something – RedState.
In a statement after the vote, Danielle Hegseth said that she was promised a week ago that her statement, on the record, would corroborate the other accusations and make a difference in key votes. “But in the end, it did not,” she said. “What happened today will make women who have experienced abuse and mistreatment even less forthcoming because the men involved in the decisions leading to Hegseth’s confirmation have actively perpetuated the mechanisms, including gag orders and fear of retaliation, that keep women silent.”
Advertisement
Leaving aside the bizarre claim that her telling untrue stories about stuff that never happened to her would deter women who had been abused from coming forward, she says she was “promised” that her statement would make a difference in key votes.
Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal revealed who made the promise.
In a statement, Tillis didn’t dispute The Wall Street Journal’s reporting about the call. He said Danielle Hegseth’s statement “did carry weight, which is why I communicated my concerns to the White House and spent days doing my due diligence and seeing if there were any firsthand corroborating accounts of the sworn statement.” He continued that he was “not able to speak with anyone who provided firsthand corroboration.”
Tillis said that he did extensive research including long conversations with Hegseth and his vote “makes it clear where the facts ultimately led,” and that he looks forward to working with the new defense secretary.
I’m not a Tillis fan, but I’m not leaping to conclusions, as some have, that Tillis was out to sandbag Hegseth. Were that the case, he would have had the power in his hands as he was the 50th vote for Hegseth.
It was well known that Tillis was a question mark on the Hegseth nomination (Is Tillis Waffling? NC Senator Sends Mixed Signals on Hegseth Vote – RedState). If someone approached him with blockbuster new evidence, it only makes sense that he’d want to see it and assure the person that, depending upon what was proffered, the evidence could win over wavering senators…such as himself. In the end, the allegations were of such a disreputable nature that even if Tillis felt he needed a reason for voting against Hegseth, this was not it.
Advertisement
I’m much more inclined to go with Margot Cleveland’s narrative.
2/2 That she is making this public now is designed solely to hurt Tillis. DO NOT let that strategy work.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 28, 2025
I don’t see where the letter did Hegseth any harm; in fact, its ridiculousness may have helped. I certainly don’t see how the chain of events leads to the conclusion that Tillis acted dishonestly.
Editor’s Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.
