The latest “bombshell incident” involving Pete Hegseth, the nomination for president-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary, was released by The New York Times, and it’s about as pointless and toothless as one might expect.
” They’re frantically searching for anything to malicious Pete”, Hegseth’s lawyer Tim Parlatore told The Federalist.
Published on Monday by Times lackies Dave Philipps and Sharon LaFraniere, the strike piece takes aim at Hegseth’s safety guard John Jacob Hasenbein, a former Army Special Forces master commander. In particular, the left-wing propagandists described a previous Hasenbein training event that they ominously described as” a dark event in his past.”
Before Hasenbein’s system was scheduled to deploy elsewhere, the issue was brought up during a March 2019 education simulation the Army conducted with a private company. According to the Times, the king commander and his team were tasked with carrying out” a prisoner recovery from a criminal cell,” and the company also hired a civil part player to play” an ISIS warrior with information about a prisoner whom Mr. Hasenbein’s team was supposed to free.”
Philipps and LaFraniere cited claims from witnesses that Hasenbein “beat” the role player — including the role player himself, who told the Times the soldiers “were supposed to ask]him ] where the hostage is at … But they didn’t give]him ] a chance. They just started hurting ]him ] bad”.
The writers made note of how Hasenbein was later accused of aggravated assault and foolish destruction by the Army. According to the report,” A military jury found him guilty of the assault charge in a court martial in 2020,” but the judge oversaw the situation declared a mistrial after discovering that a friend of Mr. Hasenbein had been conversing with a jury throughout the test.
Court information and records obtained by The Federalist reveal that the situation has much more to it than the Times allows, despite the claim that the situation is an open and shut situation.
Immoral Command Impact
One of the most striking details in Philipps and LaFraniere’s hit piece is the testimony of two witnesses who testified in favor of Hasenbein’s claim that a commander had pressured [these two soldiers to alter their statements that nothing bad happened during the episode, as the authors have put it in perspective.
Captain Thomas Krakowiak, who was” as appointed as an Investigating Officer ( IO )… was appointed as an… determining the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged injury,” was contacted by the court over the case in April 2019. Krakowiak recorded the occurrence on “night vision technology” and showed both army a three-minute video of the incident.
Ewald testified” that the video did not influence his recollection of the events, and that at the time he witnessed the incident, he believed he did nothing wrong, and no one else ( including] Hasenbein] ) did anything wrong”. In another example, Bacon stated that he “believed no one did anything wrong during the exercise ( to include] Hasenbein] )” and that “he specifically recalled that the only people who were asked to pause the exercise to address potential safety concerns were Americans who were asking the role player if he wanted to say the safe word”.
In September 2019, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority ( GCMCA )— who referred Hasenbein’s case to trial — issued General Officer Memoranda of Record ( GOMOR ) to Ewald and Bacon. According to the Army, these memos are letters of rebuke “written by a public official concerning a Man under his or her control” and come in two classifications: regional and lasting.
A directly filed GOMOR” can be seen by the Soldier’s chain of command, but not by a campaign committee, and it will be removed after a shift of work place or after 3 years, whichever is sooner”. A completely filed GOMOR can be viewed by advertising boards and will continue to appear on a soldier’s report “until it is appealed for treatment or transferred to the limited part of the]Army Military Human Resource Record].”
In its GOMOR, the Convening Authority accused Ewald and Bacon of “fail]ing ] to intervene when a fellow team member assaulted a civilian role-player who was not wearing any protective gear”, “misrepresent]ing ]]their ] actions and the role-player’s use of the safe-word and plea for help”, and” stat]ing ] the role-player never used the safe word, even though you knew that to be false, and fail]ing ] to state the role-player expressed distress during the assault”.
Ewald and Bacon rebuttal statements the next quarter that claimed they had failed to stop the training session. Both did this in part to prevent possible continuous memoranda filings that could have harmed their respective careers, according to the court.
In a Feb. 27, 2020, ruling, Judge Jacqueline Tubbs found that Ewald’s rebuttal “was shaped by the GCMCA’s reprimand”, and that” ]h ] e believed the GCMCA expected him to take responsibility for the conduct in the GOMOR”. She also made note of the fact that” Bacon ] accepted responsibility out of fear of receiving a permanent filing if he did not do so.”
In the end, Tubbs determined that Hasenbein “felt attracted attention to the unlawful command control ] UCI occurred” and that the Convening Authority’s” action of introducing GOMORs to two key eyewitnesses… created the appearance of unlawful control effect” that poses a risk to the justice of the trial.
The GCMCA’s actions “were shown to have not adversely affected the proceedings or put an intolerable strain on the military justice system by casting a significant doubt about the fairness of the proceedings,” Tubbs wrote. His actions will have an “inexplicable” impact on the testimony and the trial, and they will result in actual and apparent unlawful command influence.
Tubbs prohibited the government from further cross-examining Ewald and Bacon and” calling any witness to attack]their ] credibility”. She also forbade the government from “injecting any evidence” regarding the memorandas the two soldiers received, “information contained in either soldier’s rebuttal matters, or evidence that either witness “accepted responsibility” for their behavior or inaction in the incident.
While Tubbs denied Hasenbein’s request to dismiss the allegations based on the UCI, she ordered that he be given “latitude in any witnesses that are called” and forbade the Convening Authority from” taking post-trial action in this case.”
Mistrial and Aftermath
Those weren’t the only facts Philipps and LaFraniere left out of their hit piece, however. Additionally, the authors omitted any pertinent details from the mistrial that led to the dismissal of Hasenbein’s aggravated assault charge.
In her April 9, 2020, decision, Tubbs revealed how one of the jurors, Command Sergeant Major Toby Kammer, violated court rules by” communicating with” a fellow military official about the case.
The court determined that, given the fact that Whitmore knew Hasenbein, Kammer called Master Sergeant Clyde Whitmore, a friend of Hasenbein and Kammer, “at least twice” before deliberations on findings, and once more after the sentence was announced and the case adjourned. Kammer asked Whitmore” for his opinion on evidence that was presented” at trial and informed him” about the panel’s impressions of the Defense’s expert witness”, who argued that Hasenbein’s “use of knee strikes” during the training exercise “was reasonable”.
” ]I ] t sounds like it’s pretty normal to get real aggressive for you guys and train like you fight”, Kammer told Whitmore.
Whitmore added that” they]the Accused and members of his team ] were told to be more aggressive” prior to the training session and that he’s “been doing that same kind of training where we were told to be more aggressive and]he took it very personal,” and that” that’s what you strive for… being the most violent dude in the room” was what you strive for.
Tubbs noted how,” ]e ] ven though there is no evidence that CSM Kammer brought up the discussions he was having, or the extraneous information he was receiving, with the other ]jurors], that extraneous information clearly impacted his deliberations” on the matter. She wrote that” the actions of CSM Kammer significantly questioned the fairness of the proceedings and put an unmentionable strain on the entire military justice system.”
In their article, Philipps and LaFraniere incorrectly stated that Whitmore was the subject of Kammer’s “pretty normal” comment and did not quote Tubbs ‘ account of how Kammer’s conduct had harmed the integrity of the trial.
Hasenbein claimed in a defamation lawsuit against the military contractor who conducted the training simulation in December 2020 that “he was effectively forced out of the military because of false and misleading statements made by the independent contractor’s employees who conducted the exercise,” as the Times put it. After the parties reached a settlement in September 2021, Hasenbein decided to drop the case.
According to his DD214 and other documents obtained by The Federalist, the master sergeant retired from active duty and received an honorably discharge in October 2021.
” You spend your entire adult life devoted to this way of life and]the military], and to have it not only turn its back on you, but]to] actively try to destroy you, it’s disheartening”, Parlatore said of Hasenbein’s decision to retire.
Hegseth’s lawyer further noted how “even if you’re exonerated” like Hasenbein was,” the ability to get promoted is a little bit more difficult”.
Media Smear Campaign
Parlatore claimed that Hasenbein’s most recent hatchet attack against the Times, which is a clear example of how the media’s attempts to derail the latter’s nomination for defense secretary failed.
LaFraniere and Julie Tate wrote a popular article for The Times last month that included a private email sent to Hegseth’s son in 2018 about his previous extramarital affairs. Penelope told the outlet she sent a follow-up email apologizing for the initial communication that she wrote “in anger]and ] with emotion” despite being critical of Hegseth in the reported email.
In response to the media’s smear campaign, Penelope more recently appeared on Fox News to defend her son and his character.
The media have a “bizarre desire to try to find anything that can, in any way, be painted as negative about somebody]like Pete]. It’s just straight up mudslinging”, Parlatore said.
Among those participating in the Times ‘ anti-Hegseth crusade are colleagues-fox-news-sources-tell-nbc-ne-rcna181471″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>NBC News and The New Yorker. Earlier this month, both left-wing outlets published anonymous allegations of wrongdoing by Hegseth during his time working at Fox News and spearheading veteran-related nonprofit organizations, respectively. Numerous , former , colleagues , and , associates , have come out strongly , disputing , the accusations.
Shawn Fleetwood is a University of Mary Washington graduate and a staff writer for The Federalist. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClear Health, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
