The Hegseth hearing

When I played my recording of Pete Hegseth’s hearing today, I followed my normal practice of watching all questioning by members of the Party dead set against confirmation (in this case the Democrats). That’s where the action is.

By contrast, I watched the questioning of only two Republicans, Tom Cotton and Joni Ernst. Cotton because he’s Cotton and Ernst because I think her vote will be the most important one, in the end.

Ernst’s questioning very strongly suggests that she’s a “yes.” Her questions focused on three areas — DoD audits, the role of women in the military, including combat; and combating sexual harassment in the military.

Hegseth satisfied her on all three matters. He promised to ensure that the Pentagon can pass an audit. He promised that women can hold any position in the military for which they meet the applicable standards (and said he would review standards to make sure they are stringent and enforced). He promised to appoint a high level official to monitor compliance with rules prohibiting sexual harassment.

Hegseth’s position on woman in combat is inconsistent with statements he made in the past, including the recent past. Elizabeth Warren was right to call his current stance a “confirmation conversion,” though her claim that this sort of thing is unheard of doesn’t pass the straight-face test.

The key point, though, is that Ernst seemed satisfied with Hegseth’s answers, including the ones about women in combat. That might well be game, set, and match.

Hegseth seemed to think so and that belief probably helped him endure the shrill attacks against him lodged by some Democrats, especially Tammy Duckworth.

Duckworth and other Democrats pointed out that Hegseth lacks the credentials traditionally associated with Secretaries of Defense, Hegseth admitted as much, but noted that our recent Defense Secretaries have not been particularly good at the job.

Some have, some haven’t. In any case, it doesn’t follow from Hegseth’s premise that the qualifications he lacks aren’t necessary to handle the job — only that they are not sufficient.

My view is that Hegseth’s lack of normal credentials, though troubling, is offset by what I consider his correct line on what he should do in office. His focus on eliminating the DEI obsession in the military is spot-on.

The same is true of his focus on enforcing high standards throughout the military, especially when it comes to combat roles. And his related emphasis on making our military more lethal and less legalistic is a much need antidote to some of what’s been happening in recent years.

Hegseth agreed that the U.S. is bound by certain international laws. But he doesn’t want our troops constrained by dubious interpretations of these laws by JAGs.

Taking all of this into consideration, I believe Hegseth should be confirmed unless other important factors call his fitness into serious question. Two such factors were raised today.

First, he’s accused of mismanaging two small veterans-oriented organizations he led. Second, he’s accused of sexual assault and, indeed, rape.

If valid, either of these allegations should be disqualifying, in my opinion. After all, there are other potential Defense Secretaries with good qualifications for the position who hold the same views as Hegseth on issues like DEI, standards, and lethality — and hold them just as firmly.

But is either of the two allegations against Hegseth valid? Democratic members tried mightily to show that the first — mismanagement — is. But they were handicapped by the limitations placed on their questioning.

Senators were given only seven minutes apiece, with no second round. Moreover, Hegseth refused to meet with any Democrat other than the Ranking Member to answer questions in private. And, as usual, some Democrats undermined themselves by their inability to ask sharp focused questions, as opposed to pontificating. They were also thwarted to some degree by Hegseth’s “filibustering” — a tactic used by nominees of both parties.

From what I heard, the allegations of financial mismanagement don’t seem substantial. Spending a bit more than an organization takes in, especially during a recession, doesn’t seem like a disqualifier to me.

Furthermore, a number of people who worked with Hegseth at his two organizations submitted letters to the Committee commending him for his work. Apparently, there are some with whom he worked who disagree with that assessment. Ideally, members of both sets of former associates would testify before the Committee so the issue can thoroughly be hashed out.

As the record stands now, though, contested allegations of financial mismanagement do not justify a “no” vote, in my view.

The allegation of rape was made to the police by a woman Hegseth met and had sex with at an event in Monterrey California. The police investigated and did not prosecute.

Hegseth later paid the woman not to pursue the matter in a civil case and received a non-disclosure agreement from her. I don’t see that as damning. Meritless claims are settled this way all the time, especially by high profile men like Hegseth who don’t want bad publicity.

The decision not to prosecute makes the presumption of innocence, which already existed, even stronger. However, I don’t see that presumption as non-rebuttable. Remember, the standard for successful prosecution — guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — is more stringent than what the standard should be for confirmation as Secretary of Defense.

If the alleged victim wants to testify, she should be allowed to do so — either publicly or, if she prefers, in closed sessions. If the non-disclosure agreement stands in the way of her testifying, Hegseth should waive it, assuming he hasn’t done so already.

Absent compelling testimony by the alleged victim, the strong presumption of innocence should stand, and the rape/sexual assault allegation should not be the basis for a “no” vote.

As I said, it looks like Hegseth will be confirmed. Nothing that happened today tells me he shouldn’t be.