The New York Times published a report regarding President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, focusing on his security guard, John Jacob Hasenbein. The report discusses a past Army training incident where Hasenbein was accused of assaulting a role player during a simulation of a hostage rescue. The Times claims that Hasenbein "beat" the role player, leading to charges of aggravated assault. However, this account is criticized as one-sided, lacking important context.
According to Hasenbein’s lawyer, Tim Parlatore, the media is trying hard to damage Hegseth's reputation. The training incident took place in March 2019, where Hasenbein’s unit conducted a simulation with a private contractor using a civilian portraying an ISIS fighter. Witnesses later alleged that Hasenbein's team did not allow the role player to respond when asked about the hostage and instead began to hurt him.
The Army charged Hasenbein based on these claims, and a military jury found him guilty of assault. However, a judge declared a mistrial after discovering that a juror had been in contact with a person involved in the case. Notably, the Times' report omitted testimony from other soldiers who claimed no wrongdoing occurred during the training exercise, and that they felt pressured to change their statements by a commander.
In a court ruling, the judge recognized that the actions of commanding officers influenced the testimonies of key witnesses, leading to a perception of an unfair trial. The judge also barred the government from further questioning these witnesses about their credibility.
The report fails to mention the context surrounding the mistrial, including a juror's improper communications regarding the case. After these events, Hasenbein filed a defamation lawsuit against the contractor involved in the training incident, claiming he was effectively forced out of the military due to false statements. He eventually settled the case and retired honorably from military service.
Parlatore criticized the ongoing media attacks not only against Hasenbein but also against Hegseth as attempts to undermine Hegseth’s nomination. The media’s treatment of Hegseth, including a previous report focusing on private family communications regarding his past relationships, suggests a pattern of targeting his character. Parlatore asserted that the media shows a strong bias against individuals like Hegseth, engaging in what he terms “mudslinging. ”
Overall, the Times' narrative surrounding Hasenbein and Hegseth is presented as lacking critical evidence, failing to portray the full picture of the incidents, and depicting an unjustified smear campaign against both individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment