Pete Hegseth Assault Allegations: Megyn Kelly Analyzes Police Report

Unpacking the 2017 Allegations Against Pete Hegseth

Megyn Kelly has provided a detailed examination of a 2017 police report concerning sexual assault allegations against Pete Hegseth, who has recently been named as President Donald J. Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense. In her YouTube video on her channel, Kelly dives into the specifics of the report, which stems from an incident following a Republican women’s conference in California. The accuser, a woman whose identity remains undisclosed in public reports, claimed that Hegseth physically blocked her from leaving a hotel room, took her phone, and assaulted her despite her repeated refusals. Kelly approaches the topic with a critical lens, focusing on discrepancies in the accuser’s narrative and the legal outcomes of the case.

The police report, as discussed by Kelly around the 5:30 mark, includes the accuser’s statement that she 'remembered saying "no" a lot.' However, Kelly points out that the accuser’s behavior during the alleged time frame, as described by eyewitnesses, appeared normal. Three witnesses, including the accuser’s husband, reportedly noted that she was not stumbling, slurring, or showing signs of distress, and was even smiling during the period she claimed to have been drugged or incapacitated.

Legal Angles and Lack of Charges

One of the central points Kelly addresses near the 12:15 timestamp is why Hegseth was not charged following the allegations. She explains that the accuser refused to cooperate fully with law enforcement, which significantly impacted the ability to build a case. Additionally, Kelly notes that Hegseth’s account of the events aligned closely with statements from other parties, including the accuser’s husband, casting doubt on the consistency of the accuser’s claims. This alignment, coupled with the lack of physical evidence or further corroboration, led to no charges being filed against Hegseth at the time.

Kelly also touches on Hegseth’s own admissions regarding the incident. While he has consistently denied the assault allegations, as reported in various sources, he has acknowledged certain character-related questions that arose from his personal conduct during that period. Kelly emphasizes that these admissions do not equate to guilt in the legal sense but do raise broader discussions about personal accountability.

Questions Surrounding the Accuser’s Story

Delving deeper at around the 20:40 mark, Kelly scrutinizes the accuser’s story for inconsistencies. She highlights that video evidence from the event shows the accuser appearing coherent and un distressed, contradicting claims of being incapacitated or under duress. Furthermore, Kelly questions the role of the accuser’s husband, whose testimony supported Hegseth’s version of events rather than his wife’s. This discrepancy, Kelly argues, undermines the credibility of the allegations and suggests alternative motivations or misunderstandings surrounding the incident.

Kelly is careful to frame her analysis within the bounds of available evidence, avoiding speculation beyond what is documented in the police report or confirmed by reliable sources. She notes that while the allegations are serious, the lack of cooperation with authorities and conflicting accounts make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about what transpired.

Hegseth’s Defense and Public Response

Toward the latter part of her video, around the 30:10 mark, Kelly discusses Hegseth’s side of the story. Hegseth has publicly denied the assault claims, maintaining that the encounter was consensual if any interaction occurred. His consistent denial, coupled with a reported $50,000 payment to the accuser as part of a confidentiality agreement—disclosed during Senate Armed Services Committee discussions—has kept the issue in the public eye. Kelly points out that such settlements are not uncommon in high-profile cases and do not necessarily imply guilt, but they do fuel ongoing scrutiny.

The discussion also touches on broader implications for Hegseth’s nomination to a key position in the Trump administration. Kelly underscores the importance of evaluating all available facts, especially given the gravity of the role he is set to assume. She advocates for a thorough review of the evidence while cautioning against rushed judgments based on incomplete narratives.

In wrapping up her analysis, Kelly reiterates her commitment to examining the case from a legal and factual standpoint. Her deep dive into the police report aims to provide clarity for viewers seeking to understand the complexities of the allegations against Pete Hegseth, ensuring that the focus remains on verified information rather than unconfirmed rumors or anonymous sources.