Raunchy Republicans, Front and Center?
[guest post by Dana]
Maybe. . .
The Party of ‘family values’ at work:
Mike Johnson’s office urged Republicans against subpoenaing a key Jan. 6 Committee witness so “sexually explicit” texts GOP lawmakers sent her would remain under wraps, a report alleged Thursday.
…The witness in question is Cassidy Hutchinson, a 28-year-old former White House aide from Donald Trump’s first term who gave explosive testimony to the committee about his actions leading up to Jan. 6, 2021.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican from Georgia, floated the idea of issuing a subpoena to Hutchinson seeking digital communications that might implicate Trump rivals like former Rep. Liz Cheney of wrongdoing.
Loudermilk was dissuaded from doing this after he was told such a subpoena would reveal “sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in sexual favors” with Hutchinson and other “embarrassing information,” The Washington Post reported.
Firstly, Loudermilk is still pursuing the subpoena. Good for him. Let’s see all the text messages. Let’s make the names public. Voters deserve to know. Also, if the report is true, this is a stain on the Republican Party just more of the Republican’s view that sexual harassment is the woman’s fault, and men are simply (sleazy) victims of short skirts. But seriously, one only has to look at the history of President Trump’s sexual harassment allegations and court findings (per Judge Kaplan: the jury had actually found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word) to understand that many, not all, but far too many a) men in powerful political positions will always deny their guilt; b) men in powerful political positions will pay off accusers in a ‘do whatever it takes to make it go away’ move; c) men in powerful political positions believe that they actually have a right to sexually harass subordinates, because, what harm does it really do??
And even today, we see that the Senate advanced Pete Hegseth’s nomination, despite it being made public that in 2017, he paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault:
Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, paid $50,000 to the woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2017, according to answers he provided to a senator during his confirmation process that The Associated Press has obtained.
The answers were provided to Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren in response to additional questions she had for Hegseth as part of the vetting process.
…
[T]he $50,000 payment was made years after the woman told police that Hegseth sexually assaulted her in a California hotel room in 2017 after he took her phone, blocked the door and refused to let her leave, according to an investigative report released in November.
Hegseth told police at the time that the encounter had been consensual and denied any wrongdoing.
The report does not say that police found the allegations were false. Police recommended the case report be forwarded to the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office for review.
Monterey County District Attorney Jeannine M. Pacioni said her office declined to file charges in January 2018 because it didn’t have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I’m just saying that decent, hardworking men who have integrity and are focused on their families do not typically find themselves in jams like these. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of men are not lowlife sleazes who behave this way. But the intoxication of power and money does something awful to a man’s sense of self (or just illuminates what’s already there, waiting for the opportunity and position to present itself…) and it becomes overblown and entirely self-focused, and couched in a belief that they are above the law and punishment.
If these allegations about dirty Congressmen tweeting sexual stuff to a mid-20’s employee who’s just trying to do her job are found to be true, then the Republican Party will have firmly set itself as the Republican Party of Raunch. Enough is enough.
P.S. It’s funny, these are the same people who howled at Bill Clinton for his sexual improprieties. Now, we’re seeing the same kind of men being elected for POTUS, and possibly the Secretary of Defense. This, despite knowing what they’re made of and what they’ve done.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (2745eb) — 1/23/2025 @ 6:32 pmI expect that it would be the usual crop of incels involved.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/23/2025 @ 6:57 pmI’m just saying that decent, hardworking men who have integrity and are focused on their families do not typically find themselves in jams like these
Usually don’t find themselves in Congress, either.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/23/2025 @ 6:58 pmLike some posters here, Republican Senators just don’t care.
Rip Murdock (c222c5) — 1/23/2025 @ 7:31 pmThese unsourced stories have an odd tendency to shrivel up and scurry away once the facts come to light, like the armed militias that were terrorizing FEMA.
So far, no one in the story is in need of a pardon except Liz.
lloyd (621625) — 1/23/2025 @ 7:35 pmUnsourced, except for direct testimony. Hegseth straight admitted this stuff.
The Bund is just full of morons, Nazis, and just plain liars.
Colonel Klink (ret) (37ab5d) — 1/23/2025 @ 7:47 pmWasn’t referring to Hegseth, dipshlt.
lloyd (621625) — 1/23/2025 @ 7:56 pm6. Yes, yes, let’s find one of the millions of bland, unremarkable, career bureaucrats who never ran their boat into a dock and never womanized (JFK), never got drunk (Grant), never alienated anyone with an offensive personality (Patton, Rickover), never got court martialed (Billy Mitchell), and appoint this secular saint in place of Hegseth.
Then we can have the same uninspired, drone-like person that has given us the current state of affairs: no hypersonic missiles, a cancelled F-22; enlistment targets not met; enough 155 mm shells to last all of maybe 3 months or so; littoral combat ships that are so useless they are going to be shelved after 3 years (at more than a billion per ship); a shipyard capacity so slow and hidebound that it took us 8 years to refit 2 cruisers, while China built 8 new ones.
Maybe we can those in command of Pearl Harbor on December 7. The procurement officers for the Littoral ships. Maybe a Boeing board member, the people that picked all the recent CEO’s is available.
But at least the delicate sensibilities of those offended by Horrible Hegseth will be appeased.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (c0c5dd) — 1/23/2025 @ 7:59 pmI don’t give a crap about this.
Frankly, they should make all of this public, but I doubt it would make any difference politically.
Washington DC is like Star War’s Mos Eisley, or the Hunger Game’s Panem.
Everyone is boinking everyone, literally and figuratively.
But if you want consistency on my part… I’d say make it all public, party affiliation be damned.
Make that congressional slush fund that paid off sexual complaints public too. If the powers that be wants to obfuscate this… then, any claims of hypocrisy or concerns without evidence that more than ‘hearsay’ or ‘sources said’ is going to fall on deaf ears.
whembly (5b24be) — 1/23/2025 @ 8:12 pmBlasey Ford is just another sleazy Democrat tactic, so of course Nevertrump will adopt it.
lloyd (621625) — 1/23/2025 @ 8:13 pm@8@HFM Please go look up why the F22 was cancelled. This is the 2nd time you’ve used that as an example without understanding the reason it was cancelled. And I imagine it’s hard to make enlistment targets when the President says that anyone joining the military is a fool.
I am puzzled by your idea that Hegseth is the only person who could competently hold that job. I’m pretty sure I know people personally who could do a better job.
Nic (120c94) — 1/23/2025 @ 8:26 pmMs. Hutchinson is out of their league. She can do a lot better.
Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/23/2025 @ 9:25 pmSince you were using his words…
But, why worry, you lie, then you lie, then you lie, then you seig heil, then you lie.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 1/23/2025 @ 9:56 pmI have no problem with raunchy texts … sent between people who have consented or who might reasonably be presumed to have consented.
That isn’t this; this is sexual harassment. It’s bad behavior, and it creates terrible working environments.
aphrael (dbf41f) — 1/23/2025 @ 10:04 pmTenn. rethug congresscriter plans to introduce amendment to give der furhur as many terms as president as he wants. (DU)
asset (5f9aed) — 1/23/2025 @ 10:25 pmHarcourt Fenton Mudd (c0c5dd) — 1/23/2025 @ 7:59 pm
I think that is an elaborate, but in the end false, dichotomy. To think that we can’t get a competent person with better character than Hegseth is risible.
Womanizing (JFK) is not the same as sexual assault (Hegseth).
In fact, I don’t see any of those examples being as serious as sexual assault. And, besides the aforementioned JFK, none of these men held a position as high as Secretary of Defense.
norcal (a72384) — 1/24/2025 @ 12:00 amThe prosecutor’s decision to NOT prosecute shows that he considered the allegations at best unconvincing if not false. IMO a fair reading of the police report also shows that the charges are unconvincing or worse.
David in Cal (9ca5e6) — 1/24/2025 @ 12:06 amThere’s a story about George W. Bush I’ve always liked. While he was working for his father in the White House, a young, attractive woman started coming on to him. He told her to stop, which hurt her feelings. When she complained, through an acquaintance, he didn’t apologize, but said she should not come on to a married man.
Jim Miller (ae0819) — 1/24/2025 @ 4:29 amGeorge Will makes an obvious point: Even if you set aside Hegseth’s personal behavior — I don’t — Hegseth is unqualified.
For example:
(Links omitted.)
Hegseth has never run a large organization, which requires entirely different skills and experience than commanding a small group of men in combat.
Jim Miller (ae0819) — 1/24/2025 @ 6:43 am@16
The only difference between Hegseth and JFK was that the women regretted the action and tried to hide her infidelity from her husband by claiming assault. And then used the opportunity to extract monetary settlement from Hegseth (a rising Fox star) which his lawyers secured an NDA. (a classic nuisance allegation)
She claimed she was fed a date rape drug, which no contemporary evidence substantiate (not on video, nor witnesses including her husband could point to). She went to the ER, which I didn’t see if they did a rape kit, but if she told them she was roofied, they would’ve tested that immediately (and perform rape kit) as it’s SOP. There’s nothing that indicated that she was raped.
The police initially investigated and found that the woman’s claims were untenable.
So what we have here is another attempt to ‘Kavanaugh’ a GOP pick based on hearsay and frankly, I’m at the point to immediately discount any moral allegations from this point forward.
whembly (a18973) — 1/24/2025 @ 7:18 am11, nic: so out of the entire indictment of today’s brass, you focus on this one item? Not hypersonics? A lot like the admiral at Pearl Harbor, being told in alarm, that “sir, there are 1,000 Japanese planes in the air,” and he looks out and says “Son, my gemoetric analysis shows only 850 planes,” and then he ignores the planes, and thinks he has dealt with the issue.
You must have some specialized knowledge, but what I recall was: because the brass then thought they (we) didn’t need such an advanced fighter, since they were fighting “insurgencies” and the like. Too much plane for fighting the men in the brush.
And we had a CEO who said the “80’s were calling” and we didn’t need to act like Russia was a threat anymore. Etc. Brookings said the cost of the F22 was reasonable for its advanced capabilities, but it was also cut to save $–have to buy all those ribbons for Miley somehow. But they didn’t use the $ for hypersonics did they? They wasted it on other stuff. Like those littoral combat ships that are worthless.
Cancelling the F22 was an error: a blunder: the F35 while capable, is not the F22, and we have always had more than one front line fighter. (and the episodes of a few pilots fainting while doing high velocity moves was not a reason).
So do tell, since you have not yet, why eliminating the F22, then the world’s most advanced fighter, should inspire confidence in the bras (and respond on the hypersonics!)
And seriously, how can we avoid admitting that the record is a stunning indictment of the brass: and a reason to pick someone as SOD from outside that complacent mass of people?
cordially
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (481f34) — 1/24/2025 @ 8:11 am16, Norcal:
There will always be a reason to reject a nominee that threatens to up end the complacency at the pentagon. What about a man who ran a large corporation, and had not one whiff of scandal? That was Robert MacNamara, and if you know him, you know what a total disaster he has.
Or a docile, inoffensive professor who never had an affair, never got frunk and never entered a strip bar. Right.
I have not seen anyone proposed by the Hegseth detractors, who seem to want yet another bland, inoffensive, unaccomplished nobody to fill that spot. I’m saying that we need a soldier’s view there, not the complacent view of another bureaucrat.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (481f34) — 1/24/2025 @ 8:17 am18 Very nice story. But we elect people to handle things, not be saints, right?
While GWB was being a saint, we borrowed trillions for a forever war, he ignored the loan scandals till they almost brought down the economy, and presided over a disastrous mid-term loss in congress.
We don’t want Hegseth dating our daughters: we want him leading the Pentagon.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (481f34) — 1/24/2025 @ 8:28 amWho cares about Hegseth’s rapey-ness and alchoholism. He’s completely unqualified on any level for senior leadership in the military.
This is like letting the fry cook run McDonalds as CEO. Making fries is not the point.
Hegseth et all are just disgraceful choices.
But what do you expect, to stupid Hitler, the rapey-ness and lack of basic skills are the point.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 1/24/2025 @ 8:32 am@HFM@21 No specialized knowledge needed. I looked it up because they don’t usually cancel weapons systems without a reason. The airplane was not very reliable and too expensive for it’s capabilities. They were also looking for something more versatile that had better air to ground capabilities as well as air to air capabilities.
We have hypersonic missiles.
Nic (120c94) — 1/24/2025 @ 5:09 pmHow do we know that the officials that made those decisions weren’t drunk themselves?
Rip Murdock (c222c5) — 1/24/2025 @ 5:16 pmThe Senate has confirmed Pete Hegseth as SECDEF 51-50.
Rip Murdock (c222c5) — 1/24/2025 @ 6:56 pm25, no nic, we are struggling to manufacture and deploy hypersonics that the Chinese have already deployed. we were caught flat footed by their development and deployment in Russia and China and its a fact that our prototypes are NOT deployed. Your summary statement that we “have” hypersonics is misleading and deceptive e.g., https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/01/19/the-us-is-failing-to-quickly-field-hypersonic-missile-defense/
The liberal Brooking Institution, no friend of armament programs, found the cost of the F22 was reasonable given its enormous capabilities.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (78ba62) — 1/25/2025 @ 8:55 amHFC, I think you’ve missed the point of that article. It’s not that we need hypersonic offensive capabilities, it’s that we need to upgrade our missle defense capabilities.
Time123 (61c8c5) — 1/25/2025 @ 9:29 amDana, it’s been clear for a while that the median GOP voter doesn’t actually care about Christian values.
Time123 (61c8c5) — 1/25/2025 @ 9:30 am@20, whembly, you’re mistaken. The police recommended prosecution to the DA. The DA didn’t think they could prove the case beyond a resonable doubt and chose not to prosecute. I don’t expect you to care. But at least get the facts straight.
Time123 (61c8c5) — 1/25/2025 @ 9:38 am29. Time. Both. It emphasized the defense end which is simply another indictment of the military brass. It noted that we are finally prototyping our own hypersonics which is again an indictment of the tardy brass.
Harcourt Fenton mudd (0368d7) — 1/25/2025 @ 9:55 am@HFMZ@28 You found that one article from a year ago but somehow missed the literally 21 other articles from the last year on that exact same website regarding our hypersonics program progess (including anti-missile defense)? Your information is out of date.
The Bookings article is from 26 YEARS AGO. which was at the beginning of the program and before the long term cost and reliability issues were discovered. There has also been a significant change in available capabilities in the last 26 years.
Nic (120c94) — 1/25/2025 @ 10:11 am33, Nic: No Nic, me deciding not to cite a bibliography does not alter the bottom line:
(1), we do not have deployed hypersonics, and its not clear when we will. But the Russians and the Chinese DO have them and all the “rah-rah” slant from you about “progress” only confirms that we are behind. We were caught by surprise, and are playing a frantic game of catch up to two problem states. You might want to read those articles again, and note that none refer to deployed missiles, only to ill-defined “progress’ in trying to catch up with two states as to which we should never fall behind.
(2), this fencing over the F22 is tiresome: it was the best fighter in the skies; the cost was reasonable at the time of launch and later since it was–let me says again THE BEST fighter in the sky.
The B-29 and B-52 were expensive; all had problems; all cutting-edge technology is more prone to quirks than an old DC-3. But the F-22 was and is still outstanding and thought was given to restarting the line, esp because parts aren’t made anymore: that again is the brass’ fault since they shut down the line and Lockeed Martin stopped making parts.
Anyway, if you really think it was cancelled because of reliability, why do you suppose we still deploy them as first line fighters? It was cancelled because Obama wanted cuts, and the Brass thought they would be fighting in jungles from then on. Shortsightedness all around.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (78ba62) — 1/25/2025 @ 2:20 pm@HFM@34 I mean, the multiple multiple rah rah articles are more current on the website you used to site a single boo article. You’ve shown you know how to site much earlier articles, so you can probably find the articles on the same website from earlier detailing the earlier research.
I’d really go with the B-52 as my comparison of an old-reliable. And all technology was cutting edge at one point. For some of it the kinks get worked out and the cost/benefit works in a more positive direction and it continues. For others, it doesn’t. Often the military continues to use already owned technology until it breaks in unreparable ways. IIRC, I think the estimate on that is 2030ish on the F-22.
(I’m pretty sure that people weren’t really thinking about only fighting in jungles in 2011. We were mostly in the desert and arid mountains/highlands at the time.)
Nic (120c94) — 1/25/2025 @ 10:35 pm