The Dictatorship

What I learned after helping vet Pete Hegseth for the RNC in 2016

Published

2 years ago

November 17, 2024

What I learned after helping vet Pete Hegseth for the RNC in 2016

Some important things to know about Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense: He claims he hasn’t washed his hands in a decadehe vowed to “send back” his Harvard master’s degree, and he has a gig as weekend on-air talent on Fox News.

Conservatives vying to win favor with MAGA world have already begun spinning this Trump Cabinet selection as a home-run pick. Trump’s communications director recently defended Hegseth after reports surfaced of a 2017 sexual assault allegation, insisting he is “extremely qualified” for the role. (Authorities cited a police report for “an alleged sexual assault;” Hegseth did not face charges, and his attorney denied the allegations, according to NBC News). But much like Hegseth’s handwashing claims, they are almost certainly lying to themselves and their audience about his qualification for a role in the administration, presumably to win favor with Trump and his cadre of sycophants.

Eight additional years spent at Fox News has not made him any more qualified to run the Department of Defense.

Upon a close review of Hegseth’s qualifications, I think he was likely chosen because he seems willing to say and do anything Trump wants, has expressed favorable views on war crimesand because Trump thinks he looks and sounds good on TV. Unfortunately, these Trump-friendly qualities also position him as perhaps one of the least qualified picks for secretary of defense we’ve seen.

I should know because in 2016, I vetted Hegseth while working at the Republican National Committee (RNC), when Trump’s team was considering him for under secretary roles at the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.

According to my professional assessment at the time, Hegseth was unqualified for the more junior positions he was being considered for in 2016, and eight additional years spent at Fox News has not made him any more qualified to run the Department of Defense, an organization with 2 million employees, and one that regularly interacts with foreign military leaders and is critical to our national security and global standing.

My job at the RNC was that of a national senior opposition researcher. I created opposition research and vetting “books,” along with media plans and narratives on my issues — health care, foreign affairs, national security, and veterans affairs — for the day, week, and month ahead, and then implemented these plans and narratives through direct outreach to journalists or by providing the talking points to TV hosts or surrogates.

We worked seven days a week, regularly topping 100 hours, with our weekdays starting off on calls coordinating the RNC’s work with the Trump campaign’s daily agenda. The calls were interesting to say the least as they were led by Sean Spicer on the RNC side, and had a rotating cast of Trump campaign officials on the other end — ranging from the likes of Paul Manafort, who was convicted on five felony counts of tax fraud, and additional counts of failure to file a report of foreign bank and financial accounts and bank fraud, to Corey Lewandowski, accused in the past, among other things, of misdemeanor battery (Lewandoski denied the claim and authorities dropped the charges citing inadequate evidence) and sexual harassment (Lewandowski’s lawyer denied the claim and charges were dropped), and who always sounded like he had far too many red bulls (to put it kindly) in his system for an early morning call.

After the 2016 election, our work turned from manipulating the media into vetting Trump administration hopefuls.

Many people probably think that vetting a candidate for an administration entails private investigators and all types of “off the books” work. That is not the case. Instead, it requires scouring the public domain for available information, and then using it to craft a powerful story. If the researcher thinks someone is unqualified, they create a book as damaging as possiblelike this one I created on Rudy Giuliani when he was being considered for secretary of state. Politically speaking, Giuliani’s past work with a group formerly designated by the State Department as terrorists was bad, but he also worked with Purdue Pharma, who many blame for creating the opioid crisis, and helped secure a deal that helped avoid legal and regulatory scrutiny during the height of said crisis.

So, what did we find on Hegseth? Let’s start with the good. He has impressive academic credentials, a Princeton bachelor’s degree and a Harvard master’s degree, and is a decorated military veteran, having served as an officer and earned two Bronze Stars, among other commendations.

The other experience Hegseth does have … is not great, from the public office perspective especially. His foray into finance didn’t yield much of promise; he was an equity markets analyst for Bear Stearns from 2004-2006 preceding the firm’s infamous collapse as part of the 2008 Great Recession. Okay, I thought. Maybe money just isn’t his thing.

How about foreign policy?

Not Pete’s thing either — unless we count stints at two comically partisan think tanks focused on conservative social values and monetary policy (cutting taxes for billionaires) — Chris Rufo’s Manhattan Institute or the even more obscure Center of the American Experiment.

Surely Hegseth at least has experience running a massive organization, like that of which Rex Tillerson brought to the State Department? Nope — he was CEO of a small non-profit that has between 11-50 employees.

The potential new secretary of defense has no experience running a large organization, lacks foreign policy experience, and has never worked in a meaningful way with Congress to pass billions in military budgets.

To summarize, the potential new secretary of defense has no experience running a large organization, lacks foreign policy experience, and has never worked in a meaningful way with Congress to pass billions in military budgets.

But what Hegseth lacks in experience he makes up in dangerous partisan rhetoric, having worked at such venerated journalistic institutions as Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze,” and more recently, Fox News.

And that, I believe, is why Trump picked Hegseth. Because he represents an empty vessel that sounds and acts tough on TV. It’s not hard to imagine that he would do and say whatever Trump wants. And considering that known interventionist Marco Rubio will likely be the next secretary of state, and China hawk and former defense contractor Mike Waltz has been picked for national security advisor, it’s time to put to bed the notion that Trump is anti-interventionist, and prepare ourselves for the very real possibility of a new American conflict started by team Trump. Again, it’s somewhat easy to see why Trump may have picked Hegseth for the role; but none of it bodes well for the next four years.

Justin M. Higgins

Justin M. Higgins is a communications professional in Washington, D.C. He was previously a policy advisor to former House Freedom Caucus Member of Congress Rep. Tim Huelskamp, and a senior opposition researcher for the Republican National Convention during the 2016 presidential campaign. More recently Higgins has become a Democrat and politically appointed official for the governor of Puerto Rico. He cohosts the “Politics + Media 101″podcast and is a regular contributor to DW News.

The Dictatorship

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

Published

13 hours ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

For months, Donald Trump made clear that he expected the Supreme Court to rule against him on birthright citizenship, and his expectations were correct: Last week, a narrow majority of the high court ruled that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment means what it says.

Hours after the decision came down, the president downplayed the importance of his defeat, saying that he would pursue a legislative solution through Congress, but eight days later, the Republican published a very different kind of message to his social media platform that approached the issue in a more hysterical way. The missive read, in its entirety:

Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with “Deliveries starting at $4000.” Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable.

NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Even by Trump standards, this one’s a doozy.

The New York Times reported“The president appeared to be referring to a Fox News report that identified a hospital in Texas that had advertised paying for ‘Birth Packages in South Texas’ on billboards in Mexico. The outlet reported that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had ordered an investigation into the hospital, which told Fox News that “marketing materials regarding maternity services are no longer in use due to any unintended misunderstanding.”

Trump apparently took this report and ran with it, inventing various other details, including the amusing idea that cross-border birth tourism will somehow become “the number one way of becoming a citizen” (“by far,” the president added), as opposed to simply being born on U.S. soil to American parents.

But even if such an advertising campaign existed, it wouldn’t generate a rehearing from the Supreme Court. There is no scenario in which justices would say, “Sure, we ruled last week that the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment means what it says, but if there are billboards going up, that changes everything.”

For good measure, let’s not forget that, according to Trump, his administration has effectively ended illegal border crossings, so as a practical matter, he really shouldn’t be that concerned.

The president’s online rant said he intends to ask for an immediate rehearing. If he orders administration lawyers to go through with such a pointless exercise and they bother to do the paperwork, they should keep their collective expectations low.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Published

13 hours ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Christmas. 9, 2026, 9:46 AM EDT

Maine Democrats are scrambling to replace Graham Platner a day after their nominee for U.S. Senate ended his bid following an allegation of sexual assault.

There’s a July 27 deadline set by state law for the party faithful to pick a new standard bearer in a race that is expected to be instrumental when it comes to whether Republicans can keep control of the Senate in this fall’s midterms.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins may be vulnerable, but she has won five straight races for the seat dating back to 1996, and trying to defeat her was likely to carry challenges for Democrats even in the best case scenario.

Their new candidate will have to essentially start from nothing in the race, mend the divisions sown by Platner, introduce (or reintroduce) themselves to the broader electorate and corral support from the ex-candidate’s outsider-minded current and former followers, all in less than four months.

That amounts to a daunting task with massive implications not only for Maine Democrats, but potentially for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Democrats need to flip at least four GOP-held Senate seats, and maintain all their current ones from several competitive states, to vault themselves into the majority in the midterms. A loss in Maine would be a significant setback.

Maine Democratic Party leaders announced plans “to hold a nominating convention to choose a new nominee,” while stating that “transparency is of the utmost importance.”

Already, several major voices are in the race, including unsuccessful candidate for governor and past Platner supporter Troy Jackson. The former state senate president made his bid clear less than an hour after Platner left the race. One major Bernie Sanders-aligned group, Our Revolution, has quickly rallied around Jackson.

Dan Kleban, co-founder of Maine Beer Company,”https://x.com/mainebeerbrewer/status/2075028234962677872?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet”>is also in the fray, along with former governor candidate Nirav Shah, who worked as Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows who also ran for governor this summer is among other potential contenders.

Platner’s exit also brings difficulty for Collins and Republicans as well, however. Instead of facing a Democratic rival with a string of alarming controversies even before the sexual assault allegationan accustation Platner has denied, Collins instead will have to try to keep her seat in a blue state against someone far less defined, and potentially with far fewer vulnerabilities, in November.

Across the country this year, Democrats have navigated a political environment rife with divisions over how to sway voters in these strange times, with tension between more entrenched party leaders and an energetic and angered left wing often spilling out into the open.

What happens in Maine over the coming weeks may prove to be no different.

Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.

The Dictatorship

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

Published

13 hours ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

It’s been almost three years since Kevin McCarthy became the first sitting House speaker to be ousted in the middle of a congressional sessionbut the California Republican has nevertheless tried to maintain a public profile and has routinely appeared on conservative media to push partisan talking points.

So it wasn’t too surprising to see McCarthy on Fox News on Monday night, responding to the latest sexual assault allegations against Graham Platner, still a candidate for Senate at the time.

As part of an apparent effort to contextualize the scandals surrounding the Maine Democrat, the former GOP leader said, “One thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn’t vote for that person. We walked away.”

Moments later, McCarthy added, “When Matt Gaetz came forward, we got rid of him.”

As is too often the case, the failed former House speaker not only had it backward, but his mistake also offered a timely reminder of details that made him and his party look worse, not better.

Indeed, Gaetz offers a rather extraordinary example. The Justice Department investigated the Florida Republican over allegations of alleged sex trafficking, and while Gaetz repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and the prosecutors’ probe ended without charges, his House GOP colleagues made no effort to “get rid of him” as the scandal intensified.

What’s more, the House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that Gaetz “regularly” paid women for sex, had sex with a 17-year-old during his tenure on Capitol Hill and possessed illegal drugs. Nevertheless, as that evidence came together, he remained a GOP member in good standing; he won re-election in 2024 with the Republican Party’s backing; and President Donald Trump thought it would be a good idea to nominate Gaetz to serve as the U.S. attorney general — a nomination endorsed by Republican senators such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Alabama’s Tommy Tubervilleeven after they had seen the House Ethics Committee’s findings.

This is what McCarthy cited as an example of the GOP maintaining the highest standards and throwing “very bad candidates” to the curb. That’s ridiculous.

But there’s no reason to stop with Gaetz. Indeed, the list of scandal-plagued Republicans who continued to enjoy the party’s backing long after ugly allegations had reached the public is not short. Trump is obviously the most glaring example, but the list includes other contemporary figures, including Rep. Cory Mills of Florida and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

There’s no reason to limit the list to electoral candidates, either: Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth faced an avalanche of scandals during his confirmation fight early last year, but Senate Republicans decided to ignore the allegations and make him defense secretary anyway.

As the Hegseth fight unfolded, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein published a smart piece that remains relevant: “I do not believe that Republicans or conservatives are any more prone to [scandals] than Democrats. What has changed, however, is the incentive structure. Once upon a time both parties were equally likely to rid themselves of bad actors; now Republicans are far more likely to tolerate, and in some cases even celebrate, behavior they once would have shunned.”

When Democrats learned of serious allegations against then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the party abandoned him. When then-New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez faced serious criminal charges for which he was later convicted, the party abandoned him, too.

In Maine, the Platner example followed the same path, as evidenced by his decision to withdraw from the Maine race after Democratic officials left him with no other choice.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MS NOW legal analyst, explained this week“The contrast here is hard to ignore. Democrats have shown that when credible allegations of sexual misconduct emerge against one of their own, the conversation turns quickly to accountability. Republicans have made a different choice. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s a difference in how the two parties have approached questions of character and fitness for office over the last 10 years.”

That’s true, whether McCarthy wants to acknowledge it or not.