Politics
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
view the rest of the comments
"The general feeling is Pete hasn’t been honest," ....what? His behavior fits in line with many people in the future administration, including aligning with Trump's actions and rhetoric. Are they gaslighting themselves?
We were under the impression that he had commanded a national military before, as we had seen him in the TV.
Unless I am reading it wrong, the article mainly focuses on the fact he is denying the sexual assault allegation. From what I have seen, it was clear he had no management or command experience in the military. Was he on TV saying otherwise?
I think it's because he didn't disclose that he paid hush money.
His own lawyer confirmed to NPR a couple days ago, that he and his accuser 'reached a settlement' in which Hegseth offered money in exchange for accuser to sign an NDA, which is basically saying 'hush money' but with a lot more words.
Trump wants to lead people to believe that the DOJ was 'weaponized', and the best way to do that is to get a cabinet that won't be mired in stuff like this after they allege that they have 'fixed the DOJ'. If nobody is being prosecuted or sued it'd be offered up as conclusive evidence that the DOJ was, in fact, weaponized, and the less-informed would eat that right up.
Logical fallacy I may add, but the bar is set pretty low for his backers. If they just stay out of trouble after the inauguration they don't need to fix the DOJ, and instead use that as 'proof' that the DOJ was unfairly targetting Trump and Co.
But, if the DOJ is still prosecuting and they're still facing civil suits that kinda shoots that whole narrative to shit