An attorney for Pete Hegseth attorney said his client could sue the woman who accused Hegseth of sexual assault if he is not confirmed as Donald Trump’s secretary of defense.
Hegseth, who spent all day Wednesday trying to put out fires on Capitol Hill, has come under intense scrutiny over an alleged 2017 sexual assault and recent reports about him being drunk at work events—among other claims of misconduct that have left his slated new job hanging in the balance. Hegseth denies all wrongdoing.
Hegseth’s lawyer Timothy Parlatore spoke with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Thursday night about a confidentiality agreement that Hegseth had with his accuser. Parlatore previously told The Washington Post that Hegseth sought the agreement because he feared the woman’s claims would cost him his job at Fox News.
Parlatore, who spent over a year working for Donald Trump on a number of legal challenges, said Thursday that the woman had already breached a confidentiality agreement.
“Quite frankly, with the violation of the of the agreement, you know, if he is not confirmed as the secretary of defense, we may still bring a civil extortion claim against her,” Parlatore said.
Collins followed up by clarifying: “So if he is not ultimately confirmed because of these allegations, you may take legal action against the person at the center of that agreement?”
The lawyer responded unequivocally: “Absolutely.”
“If the false claims of somebody that was part of an extortion that was then put out in violation of a settlement agreement ultimately causes him to lose his future employment opportunities, then yes, that is something that is worth bringing a lawsuit against her and her friend and potentially even the attorney for her,” Parlatore continued.
Collins also asked Parlatore if he and Hegseth would consider releasing the woman from her nondisclosure agreement.
Parlatore answered that the agreement between Hegseth and his accuser stipulated “confidentiality on both sides,” adding that “that agreement has since been breached by her” and he’d notified the woman’s attorney that the agreement consequently is no longer in effect.
“So there is no NDA to release her from. And if she wants to go and talk about it, she can do it,” Parlatore said. “I mean, certainly, she would do it at her own peril of a further defamation lawsuit.”
He later clarified that while the woman is “of course” free to speak: “If she doesn’t tell the truth, if she repeats these false statements, then she will be subject to a defamation lawsuit ... and she’s well aware of that.”
