Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) recently provided insights into his decision-making process regarding the confirmation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Tillis discussed the last-minute allegations against Hegseth and his efforts to verify their credibility.
Tillis emphasized the importance of thoroughly investigating any sworn testimony, stating, "When an allegation is made under oath, it warrants careful review." He explained that he reached his decision to support Hegseth's nomination only after conducting due diligence.
Hegseth's confirmation was secured by a narrow 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Three Republican senators opposed the nomination. Tillis's vote was crucial, as a fourth Republican defection would have blocked the confirmation.
The senator revealed that he engaged in further questioning with Hegseth after new allegations emerged shortly before the vote. Hegseth's responses, which satisfied Tillis, were publicly shared on X (formerly Twitter) during the vote.
Tillis explained that he had spoken with Danielle, Hegseth's former sister-in-law (the ex-wife of his brother), regarding her allegations of Hegseth making his ex-wife fear for her safety and claims of alcohol abuse. Tillis clarified that the conversation focused on the potential content of a sworn affidavit, stating that he would give weight to the allegations if they could be corroborated.
However, Tillis ultimately found the allegations lacking credibility due to the absence of corroborating evidence. He stressed the need for at least two individuals involved in the alleged events to confirm the claims, which he was unable to secure despite his attempts.
Following the confirmation, reports surfaced suggesting Tillis had assured Danielle that her affidavit would be impactful. Tillis clarified that he had explicitly stated the requirement for corroboration. He reiterated this point, emphasizing the necessity of confirmation from individuals directly involved in the events, not just bystanders.
Tillis declined to disclose specific details of his conversation with Danielle, citing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in private discussions, especially given that details of the conversation had been leaked.
Multiple attempts to reach Danielle's attorney for comment were unsuccessful.
