Yesterday’s New York Times offers a story: Pete Hegseth’s Mother Accused Her Son of Mistreating Women for Years. The sub-headline reads: “Penelope Hegseth made the accusation in an email to her son in 2018, amid his contentious divorce.
Hugo, as I’ve said repeatedly in various places, your willingness to state and defend unpopular opinions which at first blush seem contra your interests is courageous. I’ve watched you from afar for years now because so many of your pains and struggles mirror my own. Your lesson to me always is how clear thinking and honest self-awareness can be an antidote to our foibles and blunders. Thank you for ever inspiring me.
I can't agree on this one. It seems more likely than not that he raped the woman to whom he paid a generous settlement. Even if he didn't or we can never know just what happened (or can never establish what happened up to the standard of a criminal conviction, which is rightly a high bar), it is clear that he's lying about it. He settled a rape case and got the woman to sign an NDA and now goes around saying he's been cleared but paid the money because of the censorious MeToo atmosphere of the time.
Evidence about his personal life is very relevant to what we make of his character. Perhaps the person who had access to the e-mail shouldn't have shared it, but once the Times got it they were right to publish it. *Adultery* remains a crime under the UCMJ, and he'll nominally be in charge there while his subordinates have their careers destroyed and their lives raked over the coals for it in military court.
Hugo, as I’ve said repeatedly in various places, your willingness to state and defend unpopular opinions which at first blush seem contra your interests is courageous. I’ve watched you from afar for years now because so many of your pains and struggles mirror my own. Your lesson to me always is how clear thinking and honest self-awareness can be an antidote to our foibles and blunders. Thank you for ever inspiring me.
I can't agree on this one. It seems more likely than not that he raped the woman to whom he paid a generous settlement. Even if he didn't or we can never know just what happened (or can never establish what happened up to the standard of a criminal conviction, which is rightly a high bar), it is clear that he's lying about it. He settled a rape case and got the woman to sign an NDA and now goes around saying he's been cleared but paid the money because of the censorious MeToo atmosphere of the time.
Evidence about his personal life is very relevant to what we make of his character. Perhaps the person who had access to the e-mail shouldn't have shared it, but once the Times got it they were right to publish it. *Adultery* remains a crime under the UCMJ, and he'll nominally be in charge there while his subordinates have their careers destroyed and their lives raked over the coals for it in military court.
Well said.