When Pete Hegseth was removed a few days before a vote on his nomination as Minister of Defense, a typically with little distribution that we expected in top -class Republican nominations occurred. From nowhere, a non-participant appeared in any case with a defamation letter Before Hegseth is accused of “domestic abuse” see current: Pete Hegseth accuse Pete Hegseth of Domestic Abuse, but his ex-wife nuzzled she-Redstate.
On Tuesday, the senators received an affidavit from the former sister -in -law of Defense Minister Pete Hegseth, in which she said that his behavior caused his second wife to fear her security. The affidavit is preserved after the employees of the Committee of the Senate Armed Forces had been 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 letter from Senator Jack Reed, Dr.i. crucial position. ”
Ultimately, the letter was not classified by anyone as credible, which was not determined to defeat Hegseth’s nomination. The former sister-in-law was not only present at some of the events she claimed, but Hegseth’s ex-wife was circular that the events took place.
After the vote of 51-50, Danielle Hegseth made one more Strange statement; See wife, who accused Pete Hegseth of domestic abuse, makes the eyebrow procurement that she was “promised” something.
In an explanation after the vote, Danielle Hegseth said that a week ago it was promised that her statement in the recording would confirm the other accusations and would cause a difference in the most important votes. “But not in the end,” she said. “What happened today will make women who have experienced abuse and abuse even less to do because the men who are involved in the decisions that lead to Hegseth’s confirmation that mechanisms, including GAG commands and fear of retaliation, have actively maintained, the women silence. “
Apart from the bizarre claim that they tell untrue stories about things that never happened to her, women who had misused against the almonds would be condemned that it was “promised” that their statement caused a difference in the most crucial voices would.
Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal unveiled Who made the promise.
In a statement, Tillis did not deny Wall Street Journal’s reporting on the call. He said Danielle Hegseth’s statement “worried, so I told my concerns to the White House and spent days to do my Due Diligence and see if there were any confirming reports on the curved explanation.” He continued that he could not speak to someone who was first confirmed. “
Tillis said that he had carried out extensive investigations, including long discussions with Hegseth and his voice, “make it clear where the facts were finally led”, and he is looking forward to working with the new Minister of Defense.
I am not a Tillis fan, but I do not speak to conclusions, as some have that Tillis was Hegseth’s sandbags. If the case were the case, he would have had power in his hands because he was the 50th coordination for Hegseth.
It was known that Tillis was a question mark for Hegseth nomination (is Tillis Waffeling? NC Senator sends mixed signals for Hegseth -Redstate). If someone turned to him with blockbuster -new evidence, it only makes sense that he see it and the person wants to assure the person that the evidence of what was offered could gain evidence for fluctuating senators … How himself. In the end, the allegations of such an indecent nature were that, even if Tillis believed that he needed a reason for the coordination against Hegseth, this was not the case.
I am much more inclined to go with Margot Cleveland’s story.
2/2 that she is now making this public is only intended to violate Tillis. Don’t let this strategy work.
– Margot Cleveland (@ProfmjCleveland) January 28, 2025
I don’t see where the letter has damage; In fact, his ridiculousness may have helped. Under no circumstances do I see how the event chain leads to the conclusion that Tillis acted dishonestly.
Note from the publisher: This article has been updated for clarity after the publication.
