Mediaite Obtains Police Report on Pete Hegseth Sexual Assault Allegation

army judge

Super Moderator
Ego can lead an individual to persist in pursuits of folly!!!!!

If you've committed criminal misdeeds, you might best serve yourself by maintaining a very low profile.

One of AJ's many rules to live by states: Don't violate ANY of THEIR laws, and seek to govern THEM!!!!





AP24318523258800-scaled-e1732162571197.jpg


Then-President Donald Trump speaks with Fox & Friends co-host Pete Hegseth. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik.

A police report on the allegation of sexual assault against Pete Hegseth, the Fox News star nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as secretary of defense, was obtained by Mediaite on Wednesday and contains graphic details of the 2017 encounter.

The report, provided by the City of Monterey, California, was previously released to Hegseth in March 2021, per his request. It runs 22 pages and details the allegation leveled by a woman who claimed in 2017 that she was sexually assaulted by the cable news star at a Republican women's conference.

Tim Parlatore, Hegseth's attorney, vehemently denied the assault when it was first reported last week that a detailed memo of the claim had been sent to the Trump team. Parlatore said the sex was consensual, and that Hegseth later paid his accuser as part of a nondisclosure agreement in order to protect his reputation. Hegseth was never charged with a crime.

In a new statement to Mediaite in light of the full police report, Parlatore said: "This police report confirms what I have said all along that the incident was fully investigated and police found the allegations to be false, which is why no charges were filed."
The report includes accounts from several police officers who spoke with Hegseth, his accuser (who remains anonymous and was identified throughout the report as Jane Doe), and others present at the conference, which took place in October 2017.

According to the report, the police were first made aware of the alleged assault when Doe, who was 30 at the time, submitted for a rape-kit exam at a local hospital. A nurse from the hospital called an officer at the Monterey Police Department and reported the assault claim. Days later, police spoke with Doe as part of their investigation.

Doe said she spoke with Hegseth on the final night of the conference, during which attendees were drinking in a suite and at a bar in the hotel. Doe told police that Hegseth was flirting with women and putting his hand on their legs at the conference, and this prompted her to tell Hegseth she did not appreciate how he treated women.

Two different women who attended the conference and spoke with police said that Hegseth put his hand on their legs and asked them to come back to his room on separate occasions. One of the women, who worked at the conference, told police that she told Hegseth the physical contact was not acceptable. She said she then called over Doe to act as a buffer so he would not continue to pursue her.

At some point after midnight, Hegseth and Doe had an argument outside the hotel by the pool, according to the report. Doe said it was over his treatment of women; Hegseth, in an interview with police, said he did not recall the argument.
Police spoke with a staffer at the front desk of the hotel who said that around 1:30 a.m. that night he received multiple complaints about a couple causing a disturbance by the pool. There, he found Doe and Hegseth, who "began to curse" when he tried to speak with them, according to the police report.

Hegseth told the hotel worker he had "freedom of speech" while Jane Doe told the worker they were Republicans and apologized for Hegseth, the worker said.

The hotel worker said Jane Doe then led Hegseth away. He said Hegseth appeared very drunk, while Jane Doe was standing on her own and seemed coherent.

Surveillance video reviewed by police from around 1:15 a.m. showed Doe and Hegseth walking towards the pool, their arms locked, and Doe "appeared to be smiling," per the report.

Doe told police she had been drinking that night, and told the nurse that she believed someone had slipped something in her drink.
She told police that her recollection became fuzzy after the pool exchange, and that the next memory she had was in an unknown room. She said Hegseth took her phone and blocked the door with his body when she tried to leave. She told police she said "no" repeatedly. She said she was next on a bed or a couch and Hegseth was on top of her, with his dog tags hovering over her face. Hegseth, she said, ejaculated on her stomach. She said he then threw her a towel and asked if she was okay. She said she did not remember how she got back to her room that night.
Four days later, she went to the hospital.

A few weeks after the alleged assault, police spoke with Hegseth as part of their investigation. In a phone call with a Monterey detective, Hegseth insisted the sex was consensual.

He said he was "buzzed" but not drunk and that Doe led him out of the bar before going back to his hotel room. He said Doe would not leave his hotel room, and that the two proceeded to have consensual sex.

He said Doe asked him if he had a condom, and that he did not and asked her if that was okay. He said he told her they could stop if that was a problem. Hegseth also said he ejaculated on Doe's body. After sex, Hegseth said Doe showed early signs of regret, and said she would tell her husband she fell asleep on a couch in someone else's room.

In a second call with police after her initial interview, Doe provided more recollections about the alleged encounter. She said she was suffering from nightmares and memory loss since. Another person who spoke with police said Doe would "cry secretly" and "out of the blue" since that night.

Read the full report here.


 
In this era where your misdeeds may well land splashed all over the internet for this kind of behavior these men need to act like there is a camera on them all the time and not do anything they'd not want the public to know about. The days of being able to sexually abuse someone and guarantee no one will ever discover it are starting to come to a close. If you want to be famous and well loved you'd be best served by having as few skeletons in your closet as possible because you can no longer be completely that the lock on that closet will keep those skeletons hidden. Not creating the skeleton in the first place is the best way to do it.
 
In this era where your misdeeds may well land splashed all over the internet for this kind of behavior these men need to act like there is a camera on them all the time and not do anything they'd not want the public to know about. The days of being able to sexually abuse someone and guarantee no one will ever discover it are starting to come to a close. If you want to be famous and well loved you'd be best served by having as few skeletons in your closet as possible because you can no longer be completely that the lock on that closet will keep those skeletons hidden. Not creating the skeleton in the first place is the best way to do it.
You should remember that our culture and society norms were very different 10-20 years ago. A male co-worker slapping a female co-worker on the but while passing in the hall was not ever considered sexual harassment. It may have been considered a compliment.

I would be willing to bet that if you go back to your college days and forward, that you too have skeletons in your closet that (by today's standards) you would not be proud of.
 
You should remember that our culture and society norms were very different 10-20 years ago. A male co-worker slapping a female co-worker on the but while passing in the hall was not ever considered sexual harassment. It may have been considered a compliment.
Cultural norms have changed over time. Men may nothave gotten as much grief for a slapping a woman he didn't know on the butt 20 years ago but for most women that still would have unwelcome and unwanted. The difference today is that women are now more willing to call out that kind of offensive contact.

Our culture does not do a good job of putting actions into context with the time they occurred. That's the reason why people get harangued today for acts they did 20 years ago but have just come out into public view now. The difference now than in the past is that those acts are much more likely to end up splashed into public view because of the internet. In the early days of the internet a lot of people didn't understand that what ended up on the internet would stay there for years to come. I knew that because I knew quite a bit about computers and knew that there were organizations archiving as much of the internet as they could because of the old saying "information is power". There is a lot of money to be made by having a huge respository of data, with Google as the prime example.


I would be willing to bet that if you go back to your college days and forward, that you too have skeletons in your closet that (by today's standards) you would not be proud of.
You'd lose on that bet. I was raised to treat everyone I meet with great respect, at least until they do something that shows them unworthy of that respect. I saw a number of guys in my college years who acted like complete jerks towards others, and women in particular, and never felt that was ok. I didn't join in those antics. A lot of the students at my university also took illegal drugs and would binge drink too, all with the feeling that doing that stuff was ok as part of the experimentation they belived college was for. I always declined the offer to share in the drugs and never drank much, in part because I didn't want to make a fool out of myself as some of my friends did while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. I've never regretted not taking part in those activities and fortunately I had friends who didn't insist that I had to do those things to be cool. I put most of my time and effort into studying to get the best grades possible. I was paying my own way through college (with the help of some merit scholarships) and I wasn't about to risk that investment by doing something stupid. Two friends of mine got kicked out of the university because of their antics while drunk or high. That was enough to reinforce my decision not follow their example.

I was considered a geek in college but I didn't see that as a bad thing. It paid off after I graduated.

Similarly I saw the reaction of women when they were treated like sex objects by guys so I didn't copy that behavior. It wasn't hard to see most didn't particularly enjoy it, even though few complained of it. Most of the guys were totally oblivious to the reaction of the women they encountered which explained why they complained they didn't understand women. They didn't understand them in large part because they never bothered to care enough to notice how the women reacted or ask how they felt about anything.
 
Similarly I saw the reaction of women when they were treated like sex objects by guys so I didn't copy that behavior. It wasn't hard to see most didn't particularly enjoy it, even though few complained of it. Most of the guys were totally oblivious to the reaction of the women they encountered which explained why they complained they didn't understand women. They didn't understand them in large part because they never bothered to care enough to notice how the women reacted or ask how they felt about anything.
Ok, you were a saint. :) Very commendable. But since I don't know how old you are, I can't place you at a time in our country's history to know what the cultural norms were when you were in college. Being a geek in say the late 1960's to 1970's must have been difficult. That was the Age of Aquarius, the hippie movement.

I guess you didn't attend Woodstock in 1969. I was there, and I was stranded on train from Grand Central Station to Bridgeport, CT in a snowstorm for 8 hours with Blood, Sweet, and Tears. I used to hang out with the band David Peel and The Lower East Side Band in lower Manhattan. Yes, I was a hippie, but I never lost my moral compos or did anything I would be ashamed of. Back then, it was drugs, sex, and rock and roll.

My point is that something someone did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago has nothing to do with who they are now.
 
I guess you didn't attend Woodstock in 1969.

Nope, didn't attend that event. And from what I learned of it afterwards it definitely would not have my kind of event.

Yes, I was a hippie, but I never lost my moral compos or did anything I would be ashamed of.

Then you were a saint too. I think most kids grow up having done nothing about which they'd be deeply ashamed of today. That kind of upbringing doesn't make the news precisely because it's not all that remarkable. I think society overestimates how much of the more deviant stuff goes on because of just how much media attention those situations attract.

My point is that something someone did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago has nothing to do with who they are now.

Well said, but you wouldn't know it from the public reaction every time some long ago act of any celebrity or politician makes the current news. Which is why in my earlier post I said this:

Our culture does not do a good job of putting actions into context with the time they occurred. That's the reason why people get harangued today for acts they did 20 years ago but have just come out into public view now.

I'll add one more thing since the thread started about the troubled Hegseth nomination. I've read reports today that Trump is outraged — and rightfully so — that Hegseth never said a peep about that police report even though he was asked to disclose that sort of thing. Did he really think that the report would remain buried? Guilty or not, the Trump team needed to know about it so that (1) Trump could make a decision based on accurate information and (2) if he decided to nominate him anyway the team could have planned to manage the fall out to avoid it being the spectacle it's become.

Curiously it appears that the Trump team did not have Trump's nominee candidates sign releases allowing the DOJ and other federal agencies to disclose the information they had on the nominees. That's pretty standard practice for any incoming administration. I can't see any downside for Trump in asking his nominees to do that. But the Hegseth nomination shows exactly why incoming presidents ask for the consent to see what information the government had. If they had done that they might have been forewarned of the kind of firestorm would result from nominating him.
 
I can't edit my post so I'd like to point that I didn't put anything in bold as I wrote it and I have no idea why that one paragraph ended up bold after hitting the send button. That's not the way it looked on my end.
 
Back
Top