Megyn Kelly EXPOSES The Pete Hegseth “Sexual Assault” Claims

It’s so good to see the old Megyn Kelly back….

The firebrand lawyer taking on the lies from the Left, from RINOs and from the Deep State and completely exposing them as only she can do!

Surgically cutting them apart and dissecting the case with scalpel-like precision.

The case is a little confusing, so I want to start with Jim Hoft over at The Gateway Pundit who does a great job setting the stage and explaining what exactly is going on with this story:

The fake news has been all over Pete Hegseth this week regarding a sexual assault allegation from 2017 that was previously investigated and dropped by the Monterey Police Department.

There was a reason charges were never filed. And the legacy media knows this. They are pushing this slanderous attack against Pete Hegseth anyway because they really, really care about powerful men abusing innocent women and children… except, of course, if those powerful men include serial abusers like Bill Clinton or gropers like Joe Biden.

The media rushed to humiliate and slander President Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, this week with leaks about a years-old sexual assault allegation that was already investigated by police.

In 2017, Monterey, California, police investigated an allegation made by a married woman [Jane Doe] who claimed Pete Hegseth sexually assaulted her at a political event, but they found no evidence to support her claims. Hegseth claimed the encounter was consensual.

Video footage appears to show a consensual encounter.

Video footage also appears to show that it was Hegseth and not the accuser who was slightly intoxicated while the accuser did not appear impaired at all from video footage.

The accuser’s story also fell apart when she refused to answer her husband’s phone calls that night and then discussed an alabi with Hegseth before she went back to the hotel room where her husband was waiting for her. The woman told her husband the same story that she discussed with Hegseth before she left him.

Pete Hegseth’s attorney Timothy Parlatore told Vanity Fair last week: “This allegation was already investigated by the Monterey police department and they found no evidence for it.”

Megyn Kelly: This is the husband. Jane Doe had business at the hotel on October 7. Jane was busy at the conference, and he was in the hotel room. He stated Jane Doe had gone to their hotel room at approximately 5:00 PM while on a break. He stated Jane Doe did not seem intoxicated. Jane left the room and went back to work. He stated Jane was in communication with him via text messages. He said he fell asleep and woke up on October 8 at approximately midnight. They texted some more, and Jane told him she was at the bar and out with a woman from the conference.

At approximately 12:30 AM, Jane stopped texting. The husband got worried about Jane. He was reading the news, and it made him even more worried about her safety. At approximately 2:00 AM, he said he left the room and went to look for her at Knuckles Bar. When he arrived, there was no one there. He went back to his room.

“You with me?” he texts her. “You’ve never been out close to 2 before. What’s going on? Where are you?” And now here’s the husband telling the cops that at 2:00 AM, he left the room and went to look for her. Okay, he went down to Knuckles. No one was there.

At approximately 4:00 AM, Jane Doe arrived back at their hotel room. This is per the husband—we assume this is what he told the cops. She accessed the room on her own, using the key card to get in. Jane told him she must have “fallen asleep.” She was apologetic. He noticed that she didn’t have a hard time walking and wasn’t slurring her words.

That’s it right there, folks. That’s why they did not bring charges. The husband was texting her at 2:00 AM, saying, “You’ve never been out this late. Where are you? Are you okay?” No response. And she was seen going to Pete Heth’s room at 1:30. So by 2:00 AM, she’s there. Communication with her husband ends while she’s in Pete’s room. She doesn’t respond to any of his texts. He gets up and looks for her. And within two hours, she’s home.

At 1:30, on the tape, she doesn’t look intoxicated in the bar. She doesn’t look intoxicated. And here we are at 4:00 AM, with the husband saying she does not look intoxicated. She did not have a hard time walking, she was not slurring her words. She apologized. And what was the story she told? That she must have fallen asleep.

The very same story that Pete Heth says she told him she would tell the husband. Pete Heth and the husband are not talking—they are not coordinating stories. The cops spoke to Pete independently, and Pete said it was consensual. He said Jane was panicked because she had cheated on her husband and was going to tell him this lie.

At the same time, the cops are talking to the husband, who says, “She came in, she didn’t look drunk.” That’s my interpretation of him saying, “Didn’t have a hard time walking, wasn’t slurring,” and then tells him she must have fallen asleep. The very same lie she told Pete she would tell.

That’s it. I’m sorry—this woman was not raped. This is an accusation.

On Wednesday, October 11, Jane Doe told her husband that she was sexually assaulted. Jane didn’t tell him many details. So now we’re coming back. Sunday morning, everything’s fine. She goes to the conference. The husband—I don’t know what he knew at that point. Sunday or Monday morning, they’re back home. They have sex, and she asks him to use a condom. We don’t know why. By Wednesday or Thursday, at least, she’s got some sort of issue going on that later gets diagnosed as BV—which, by the way, you can get when you have sex with a new partner. That’s what the nurse said.

And on Wednesday, before she goes to the doctor, it comes back to her. Remember, she had sex with her husband, and it all comes back to her what happened. But it wasn’t until Wednesday that she tells him—who we think is the husband—that she was sexually assaulted. She doesn’t tell him many details.

On October 18, that’s Thursday, I spoke with Jane Doe via telephone. She told me that she had additional information. She stated she remembered asking Pete Heth if he had a condom when the incident occurred. She said she’s been suffering from nightmares and memory loss since the incident.

Memory loss? I mean, when you tell a story this big of a whopper, if it’s not true, you can’t be pinned down on the details. You’re going to get caught. What choice do you have other than to feign that you’ve been drugged and everything’s hazy? And I bet she did have some nightmares—this is a nightmare scenario. This is the worst-case scenario. The poor husband.

On October 18, I spoke to the husband again. He wanted me to know that Jane would cry secretly, had very little energy, and out of the blue, she would cry. Jane had also bought new clothes because she wanted to make sure her body was completely covered.

On October 20, this is after she went to the hospital and the cops got involved, I contacted Jane Doe via telephone. I asked her if she was willing to participate in a pretext phone call involving Pete Heth. Jane stated she did not want to participate. She said it would be too hard for her to talk to him. Jane began to cry while on the phone.

Okay, they’re asking her if she’ll call him up and say, “Pete, what happened between us? I’m having bad memories. You raped me. I said no. You blocked the door when I tried to leave. You bruised my thigh.” By the way, I haven’t seen anything about that in this police report.

That’s what they’re asking her to do—get it on tape. There are inconsistencies in her story, and Pete’s story lines up with that of the husband. Could you call him and we’ll tape it? That would be great evidence. But she says no. Now, it’s possible that a sexual assault victim wouldn’t want to call this Fox News star who allegedly raped her. It’s also very possible that she was not raped, and she knew exactly what she’d get if she tried to pull that with him on the phone—that he would respond with a battery of facts about what actually happened. A cop listening to both sides of that conversation would know. They have enough training in deception detection to know. She refused to participate in the pretext call.

The cops then contacted the Hyatt to review business camera footage. Surveillance showed Jane, Pete, and an unknown female walking into the hotel lobby at 11:58 PM. They walked straight and on their own.

At approximately 1:30 AM, two hotel guests complained about a loud couple near the pool. A worker found Jane and Pete there. The worker described Pete as very intoxicated but said Jane was coherent, standing on her own.

The surveillance tape further showed Jane and Pete leaving Knuckles Bar, arms locked, walking toward the pool at 1:15 AM. Jane was smiling and appeared coherent.

Megyn Kelly (continued): Let me tell you something, folks. If the shoe were on the other foot—if she was the one who was very intoxicated and he was reported as sober—then he would be charged. A man having sex with a woman who is described as “very intoxicated” could be charged with rape because she cannot consent in that condition. But no one is looking at her that way. In fact, everyone says she was coherent, fine, and able to stand and walk on her own.

Now, the police continued reviewing footage. They found Jane and Pete at the pool, still appearing fine and coherent. A hotel worker intervened because of complaints. The worker described Jane as apologizing for Pete’s behavior, even placing a hand on his back and guiding him toward their hotel. This is a woman who is coherent enough to de-escalate a situation and assist a very intoxicated man.

When they left the bar earlier, at 1:15 AM, they were chummy—arms locked, smiling. Surveillance and witnesses consistently reported that she did not appear intoxicated or drugged.

Then we have another witness who was at the bar with Jane and Pete. This witness saw Jane having champagne and vodka earlier in the evening but noted that Jane only seemed to have a buzz—not full intoxication. Jane and Pete were observed flirting, with some physical touching—like arms or the body.

Yet another witness, a different woman, shared that Pete made advances toward her, even placing a hand on her knee. She didn’t feel uncomfortable but declined his invitation to his room. This woman then turned to Jane for help in distracting Pete. Jane stepped in and played the “crotch blocker,” staying close to Pete. It’s important to note this dynamic—the woman was aware of Jane’s ability to intervene and assist.

Finally, the worker’s account of the pool scene at 1:30 AM paints a picture of Pete being very drunk, while Jane remained composed. She helped calm the situation and led Pete away.

The pattern here is clear. Surveillance shows a smiling, coherent Jane. Witnesses report her as capable and un-intoxicated. Pete’s behavior was erratic and very drunk, but Jane consistently appeared fine. If this were flipped, and she was the one drunk out of her mind, we’d have a completely different discussion.

And that’s why, ultimately, no charges were brought. The evidence doesn’t align with her allegations. Her actions and the accounts of others do not support her claims. This case does not look like what she described—it just doesn’t hold up.