Patterico's Pontifications

10/25/2019

The Sordid and Gross Story I Was Going to Avoid

Filed under: General — JVW @ 8:26 am



[guest post by JVW]

I emailed this site’s gracious host and the co-blogger who is actually good at her craft yesterday to see if either of them were interested in covering the weird and frankly squalid story about the sex scandal which has enveloped freshman Representative Katie Hill, a Democrat from the 25th Congressional District which includes parts of the San Fernando Valley, Simi Valley, and Ventura County. My interest in this story is largely due to the fact that Ms. Hill beat the incumbent Republican in the last election, ending a quarter-century of GOP control of that seat. This district is exactly the sort of Congressional district that Republicans will need to win back if they hope to regain control of the House of Representatives.

Right now Ms. Hill finds herself in some hot water. Red State broke the story, and National Review has given it coverage. I am uncomfortable enough with the salaciousness of the allegations that I don’t really want to try to craft a detailed narrative, so I am going to just jot down the basic facts in bullet-point format:

* The 32-year-old Ms. Hill, who characterized herself as being bisexual during last year’s campaign, has been married to a man named Kenny Heslep since 2010.

* During last year’s election campaign, Ms. Hill and Mr. Heslep entered into a throuple (i.e., polyamorous) relationship with a 22-year-old woman who had worked on Ms. Hill’s campaign. This arrangement continued after the successful election.

* Sometime this past spring Ms. Hill broke off the relationship with the campaign worker, who did not work for Ms. Hill’s Congressional office.

* Around the same time as Ms. Hill was ending the throuple arrangement, Mr. Heslep says he was told by several people that Ms. Hill was also having a secret affair with her (male) former campaign finance director, who had become the legislative director in her Congressional office.

* The House of Representatives prohibits its members from having romantic or sexual relationships with Congressional staffers. There also might be a rule against being involved with campaign staff as well; it’s somewhat ambiguous.

* After initially denying the arrangement with the female campaign worker, Ms. Hill has now admitted to it and apologized to her constituents. She continues to deny that she has been involved with her legislative director.

* Mr. Heslep has filed for divorce and released text messages implicating his wife in both affairs. Someone (and it’s not hard to guess who) has also leaked pictures of Ms. Hill and the campaign worker to the media, including some which are, to put it delicately, intimate. The photos did, however, force Ms. Hill to acknowledge her involvement with the campaign worker.

* Ms. Hill characterizes her marriage to Mr. Heslep as “abusive” (presumably on his part) and has asked the police to investigate the leak of the intimate photos.

* The House Ethics Committee has launched a formal investigation into Ms. Hill’s involvement with the two employees.

So there you have it. Did Katie Hill run last year on a strong MeToo platform, inveighing against sexual relationships where powerful and connected bosses take advantage of younger, inexperienced employees? You betcha.

My interest in this is entirely political. Does the party leadership determine that Ms. Hill is now too compromised to be an effective candidate for the seat next year (in a year where Democrats performed strongly in California, she won her seat by a little over 21,00 votes, a 54% – 45% margin)? In this red-turned-purple district, are alternative lifestyles so widely accepted these days that polyamory is now given a pass? Is a young white freshman bisexual woman in a swing district an accurate harbinger of California’s future, or is her personal life still a bit too out there for a most voters? Is the person who leaked the intimate pictures a criminal who invaded the personal privacy of two women or a whistleblower who has brought to light potential wrongdoing, at the very least demonstrating the moral ambiguity of sexual relationships in the workplace despite what the MeToo crowd has been preaching?

Exit question: Is Katie Hill a United States Representative come January 2021?

– JVW

83 Responses to “The Sordid and Gross Story I Was Going to Avoid”

  1. We’ve come a long way since the days of Wilbur Mills and Fanne Foxe, baby!

    JVW (54fd0b)

  2. Given that Rep. Hill initially lied about her affair with the campaign worker, I am going to assume that she’s probably also lying when she denies being involved with her legislative director.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  3. It will be a test of Red-Pill effectiveness as 3 of her possible R challengers are non-white. That will be a hard pull for either of the Latino challengers, seeing as Underwood-Jacobs will probably have a “used to live in South Central but had to move to the Antelope Valley” story to sell.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  4. I guess we’ll see how Californians feel about this. I have no idea whether or not this is a bridge too far for them. But, for now, I have a feeling that New York and California show us our future.

    DRJ (15874d)

  5. I was wondering when Pat was going to address this. I should have been thinking in terms of if he would. It may be sordid and gross, but it’s news.

    Gryph (08c844)

  6. I was wondering when Pat was going to address this.

    I don’t blame P or Dana for not wanting to touch this ugly story. I felt like I needed a shower as soon as I was done drafting this post last night.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  7. You can be a lady person, have come out as Bisexual in high school, believe and promote all of the #MeToo LGBTQ… platform, and still be a sex pest, and lose your job.

    Now, Hubby, for sharing these photos (revenge porn), should be prosecuted since it’s against California and Federal law.

    But the new Golden Rule, a)don’t take nekkid photos, period. b)don’t take nekkid photos on a phone. c) don’t let others take nekkid photos with their phone. The assumption should always be, once taken, everyone sees them, your mom too. She’s a millennial, she should get that.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  8. 6. I live in South Dakota — about as far away from California as you can get physically *and* philosophically. I just laughed when it hit. What a moron (Hill, I mean).

    Gryph (08c844)

  9. The proles are permitted this kind of licentiousness. It is not allowed to Party members.

    And now I know the backstory to that rack of videos on the back wall of the video store at Roscoe and Broadway from twenty years ago. (I wonder if it’s still there.)

    Impression: Meh!

    nk (dbc370)

  10. In this red-turned-purple district, are alternative lifestyles so widely accepted these days that polyamory is now given a pass?

    Having visited this CD numerous times as I still have family there… I think so. It is a really red district imo…but, it’s very laid back.

    Is a young white freshman bisexual woman in a swing district an accurate harbinger of California’s future, or is her personal life still a bit too out there for a most voters?

    I honestly don’t think it’ll have much impact. It’ll mainly be the quality of her opponent.

    Is the person who leaked the intimate pictures a criminal who invaded the personal privacy of two women or a whistleblower who has brought to light potential wrongdoing, at the very least demonstrating the moral ambiguity of sexual relationships in the workplace despite what the MeToo crowd has been preaching?

    Its gotta be a criminal act. Release naked pictures like this is literally revenge porn and is absolutely disgusting.

    Exit question: Is Katie Hill a United States Representative come January 2021?

    I don’t know… that totally depends on the quality of her opponents and GOP has a plan to counter the ‘ballot-harvesting’ schemes.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  11. This kind of stuff was what no-fault divorce was was really intended for. To eliminate it. To have people keep their dirty linen to themselves. Legally, it’s irrelevant, both for the divorce and for the division of the marital estate. But people will be vindictive b!tches (and I mean the so-called husband in this instance).

    nk (dbc370)

  12. The opposite of sordid and gross:

    This week is the 75th anniversary of The Battle Of Leyte Gulf.

    Oct 25 1944 was the day that the destroyer U.S.S. Johnston decided to steam full speed directly into the Japanese Center Force Of battleships and cruisers because her assignment was the protection of the escort carriers of Taffy 3.

    “One of the pilots flying patrol after dawn alert that morning reported the approach of Japanese Center Force. Steaming straight for “Taffy 3″ were four battleships (including the Yamato), eight cruisers (two light and six heavy), and eleven destroyers. Lieutenant Robert C. Hagen, Johnston’s gunnery officer, later reported, “We felt like little David without a slingshot.” In less than a minute, Johnston was zigzagging between the six escort carriers and the Japanese fleet and putting out a smoke screen over a 2,500-yard (2,300 m) front to conceal the carriers from the enemy gunners: “Even as we began laying smoke, the Japanese started lobbing shells at us and Johnston had to zigzag between the splashes…. We were the first destroyer to make smoke, the first to start firing, the first to launch a torpedo attack….”[1]

    For the first 20 minutes, Johnston could not return fire as the enemy cruisers and battleships’ heavy guns outranged Johnston’s 5-inch (127 mm) guns. Not waiting for orders, Commander Evans broke formation and went on the offensive by ordering Johnston to speed directly toward the enemy—first a line of seven destroyers, next one light and three heavy cruisers, then the four battleships. To the east appeared three other cruisers and several destroyers.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Johnston_(DD-557)
    _

    harkin (6776a3)

  13. Nowadays in the democrat party this is a resume enhancer.

    mg (8cbc69)

  14. Its gotta be a criminal act. Release naked pictures like this is literally revenge porn and is absolutely disgusting.

    Let me kind of play Devil’s Advocate here: let’s say Ms. Hill strenuously denies having an affair with her legislative director, which would be against House rules, and the only evidence to counter that are salacious pictures that were taken of the two in flagrante delicto. Let’s also say that the owner of the pictures had tried to bring them to the attention of the Ethics Committee, but had been stonewalled in the attempt. So then let’s say that in order to hold the Congresswoman accountable, the owner of the pictures releases them to the media. Is this still a revenge porn offense, or can the owner of the pictures now claim status as a whistleblower who is holding government officials accountable for their actions? How (other than being prurient) would this be any different from leaking classified documents to expose wrongdoing?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  15. 8- Sioux Falls?

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. If I read the story correctly, the worst of the naked photos weren’t released as revenge. They were old posts on Reddit under /r/ratemywife (or wouldyou&$#^mywife or something) that were found by people checking for Helsep’s cute nickname for his wife.

    Xmas (698d28)

  17. Interestingly, another woman who accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her, says of the Hill kerfuffle, eh, no big deal:

    When 15 women come forward to say Congresswoman Katie Hill sexually assaulted them, belittled them, and sneered at their honor, THEN I will pay attention.

    I guess there are qualifiers on #MeToo. Funny that. Of course, EJ Carroll claimed that Trump alone attacked her in the dressing room…

    Dana (05f22b)

  18. If I read the story correctly, the worst of the naked photos weren’t released as revenge. They were old posts on Reddit under /r/ratemywife (or wouldyou&$#^mywife or something) that were found by people checking for Helsep’s cute nickname for his wife.

    I think that’s right, though the very first one of the Congresswoman sitting there naked brushing the hair of the (clothed) campaign worker was leaked, most likely by the husband.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  19. 14

    Its gotta be a criminal act. Release naked pictures like this is literally revenge porn and is absolutely disgusting.

    Let me kind of play Devil’s Advocate here: let’s say Ms. Hill strenuously denies having an affair with her legislative director, which would be against House rules, and the only evidence to counter that are salacious pictures that were taken of the two in flagrante delicto. Let’s also say that the owner of the pictures had tried to bring them to the attention of the Ethics Committee, but had been stonewalled in the attempt. So then let’s say that in order to hold the Congresswoman accountable, the owner of the pictures releases them to the media. Is this still a revenge porn offense, or can the owner of the pictures now claim status as a whistleblower who is holding government officials accountable for their actions?

    Still criminal imo because there’s another private individual involved (the staffer), who may not assent to having this publicaly aired regardless if it’s against Congressional Ethic rules.

    How (other than being prurient) would this be any different from leaking classified documents to expose wrongdoing?

    A “throuple” is still a private act. There’s no expectation of privacy if you criminally leaked classified documents. That’s the difference I see…

    JVW (54fd0b) — 10/25/2019 @ 9:11 am

    whembly (fd57f6)

  20. I flubbed the quotes, but I hope it makes sense.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  21. JVW @ 14. Your hypothetical would be legal under Illinois law:

    (c) The following activities are exempt from the provisions
    of this Section:
    (4) The intentional dissemination of an image of
    another identifiable person who is engaged in a sexual act
    or whose intimate parts are exposed when the dissemination
    serves a lawful public purpose.

    But wait, there’s more. Revenge porn laws, as you may infer, have a lot of First Amendment hurdles to overcome. I’m not sure that even all four exemptions of Section C of the Illinois law would keep the entire statute from being struck down by a First Amendment-friendly court.

    We’re always going off-topic, so I might as well be among the first. There was a brief, feverish moment not too long ago when states were repealing their criminal defamation laws. But the pendulum appears to have swung back with “revenge porn” and “hate speech” and “wolf whistles” and “Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker”, and I don’t know where it will all eventually shake out First Amendment-wise.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. sometimes it seems like nobody cares about anything. the very things they promise are the things they betray.

    It’s not so. In our own lives, families, and communities a lot of people actually give a crap.

    but for some reason, almost everyone in power, everyone we are reading about and talking about, are absolutely morally bankrupt.

    Why are we tolerating this? It’s a choice society has made because of manipulation. Many democrats would vote for this congresswoman again, because if they don’t, Republicans. Same as Trump’s supporters will say they never thought he was a decent man, but so what?

    As soon as we put morality ahead of partisanship, this crap stops. Both political parties would improve immeasurably. Our binary choice is so crappy because we are choosing partisanship first. We have to stop.

    Dustin (5b37d3)

  23. JVW,

    I understand why it is illegal to publish pornographic photos but I am not sure I agree with behind criminalizing revenge.

    For instance, is it illegal to release these photos if the private parts are blurred so they aren’t pornographic, but you can see what/who was involved? I think it might be and I’m not sure I agree. Bad manners, yes, but I don’t view it as something that should be illegal.

    DRJ (15874d)

  24. but for some reason, almost everyone in power, everyone we are reading about and talking about, are absolutely morally bankrupt.

    My simple and cynical reply: Because it is mostly deeply troubled people who seek this sort of power. The relatively normal among us are content to live our lives outside of the limelight. It’s the old joke: I would never vote for anyone who actually wanted to be elected.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  25. I understand why it is illegal to publish pornographic photos but I am not sure I agree with behind criminalizing revenge.

    Yes. I have always assumed that the revenge porn laws will be challenged, and I will be interested in seeing how all of that ends up. If someone is of legal age and they consent to having their photo/video taken, I think it’s difficult to argue that sharing that content isn’t a form of free speech. Perhaps a civil suit for breech of contract if the victim can prove that the owner of the photo had promised not to release it as a condition of filming. But revenge porn laws, as they seem to be currently construed, lead me to wonder why the state can’t take it one step further and make it illegal to disseminate private photos/videos of someone when they are intoxicated, or when they say or do something foolish or stupid. Imagine a frat boy suing someone for releasing a private video where he drunkenly says something racist. How is releasing that not serving the same purpose as releasing an intimate photo or video of an ex?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  26. #12 harkin (6776a3) — 10/25/2019 @ 9:08 am

    Further to your reference:

    “Captain Copeland picked up the intercom mike and addressed the Roberts‘s crew.

    ‘A large Japanese fleet has been contacted. They are fifteen miles away and headed in our direction. They are believed to have four battleships, eight cruisers, and a number of destroyers. This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can.’ ”

    — The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, by James D. Hornfischer, page 150 of the 2005 trade paperback edition.

    Phenomenal courage and dedication. It brings tears to my eyes every time I read that….

    ColoComment (a5d387)

  27. I agree, JVW 26.

    DRJ (15874d)

  28. Why do we protect people who share photos with other people? If you want something to be confidential — whether it is letters, opinions, or photos — don’t share it. If you publish it, even to just one person, you run the risk that it might become public knowledge.

    I am not talking about photos stolen from a home or a phone, but if you share something with another person or persons then you run the risk that they might use it to hurt you. There are remedies for that in civil law, but I don’t understand why it is being criminalized except society is saying we don’t like this. But if that is true, then we should criminalize all steps in the publication, not just one step.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. Some places do prosecute the photo taker, even the subject of the photo, for disseminating porn.

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. Ahhhh, the days of three martini lunches, bellbottoms and the Pet Rock; Wilbur & Fannie made for quite a show; then there was Wayne & “I can’t even type” Elizabeth. But your heart is breaking, JVW: Tulsi isn’t running for another term.

    And Putin cried…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. 30 – links please

    just kidding

    mg (8cbc69)

  32. @14. “House rules”… you made me chuckle out loud. “House Rules” don’t seem to matter much these days. Grab a slice of cold pizza– with 17 pies, there was surely a slice left over.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  33. Putin’s cry turns into a Joker-like laugh – now she can be all in as the spoiler.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  34. It is a difficult question, mg.

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. 29. DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2019 @ 10:38 am

    29.Why do we protect people who share photos with other people? If you want something to be confidential — whether it is letters, opinions, or photos — don’t share it. If you publish it, even to just one person, you run the risk that it might become public knowledge.

    This is all too new for people to truly comprehend that electronic files can easily be copied. I mean they may know it, but they don’t realize it. By the way sending something to one person is not publishing.

    And this replaces the way thinngs were done before. Pictures using silver as a base are much less readily copied and usually involve the work for hire of an unrelated third party doing the printing, which kind of slows people down.

    I am not talking about photos stolen from a home or a phone, but if you share something with another person or persons then you run the risk that they might use it to hurt you. There are remedies for that in civil law, but I don’t understand why it is being criminalized

    Because it is too easy to do. Laws are not needed (or asked for) to prohibit things that are hard to do.

    As it is, the best thing they’ve got protecting them is copyright violations.

    Criminal law comws in the form of harassment and ot is very reasonable to make revenge distribution illegal. New crime, new law. But the law ought to be very clear, as to what is ilegal and what is not..

    What also tends to be illegal is any sexual picture of anyone who was under 18 years old at the time the picture was taken, (considered child pornography even if it would be perfectly legal to see and even have relations with the person in question in person) but this law doesn’t tend to distinguish between a picture voluntarilly given to someone with the consent of the person in the picture, and pictures that were not. Laws need to be passed to make the law conform with reality.

    then we should criminalize all steps in the publication, not just one step.

    It’s the final step that is the main problem, and there’s more proof.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  36. There also might be a rule against being involved with campaign staff as well; it’s somewhat ambiguous.

    I think the rule, both for campaign staff and legislative staff is the same as that for a spouse. (provided it was more than a one-night stand, and actually it might be up to the parties involved to describe what ther situation is)

    Spouses are allowed to be paid for work in a campaign if they really did it, and might even be required to paid in order to avoid it being considered a campaign contribution; while there are Congressional rules in place now against putting close family members on the payroll. They can do unpaid work, though.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  37. By the way sending something to one person is not publishing.

    Actually, Sammy, it is.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. Legally, for defamation and other purposes:

    The defendant published the statement. In other words, that the defendant uttered or distributed it to at least one person other than the plaintiff. You don’t need to be a media mogul to be a publisher. There is no requirement that the statement be distributed broadly, to a large group, or even to the general public. If you publish something on the Internet, you can assume that this requirement has been met.

    DRJ (15874d)

  39. There’s no minimum amount of work anyone has to do to be paid as Congressional staff – it is entirely up to members of Congress what to oay whom. That’s probably why close family members can’t be paid.

    Close family members on a campaign has a differeet history. There, there is at least potetially an outside judgement as to whether or not work worthy of being paid for was done – and it might eveb be required to pay someone.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  40. It can be “published” even if no one sees it or hears it, but one person is definitely enough.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. 38. 39. To publish a picture of yourself, you need to send it to at least two people or at least two different people other than the person in the picture have to see it. Sending a picture of yourself to one person is not publishing. Forwarding someone else’s picture could be.

    Note thw words other than the plaintiff.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  42. It needs to be seen, or be available to, someone other than the oriminal intended recipient

    The original intended recipient is ONE. That’s not publishing. Publishing only applies therefore when TWO OR MORE people can see it.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  43. From the title, I figured this thread would be about Tulsi’s appearance on Hannity

    Dave (1bb933)

  44. > Ms. Hill and Mr. Heslep entered into a throuple (i.e., polyamorous) relationship with a 22-year-old woman who had worked on Ms. Hill’s campaign

    as long as it was voluntary on all counts, who cares? there is a potential abuse of power situation in that it was a staffer, and yet at the same time, sometimes romantic involvements between employer and employee arise naturally.

    i guess what i’m getting at here is: it’s possible this was abusive and coercive. it’s possible that it wasn’t. for one instance i’m willing to err on the side of assuming it wasn’t abusive or coercive, especially if the unicorn isn’t complaining.

    > Mr. Heslep says he was told by several people that Ms. Hill was also having a secret affair with her (male) former campaign finance director

    that, on the other hand, is a betrayal of trust, and speaks poorly of her character.

    > released text messages implicating his wife in both affairs

    if the throuple involved both members of the couple, then it wasn’t an affair.

    > Is this still a revenge porn offense, or can the owner of the pictures now claim status as a whistleblower who is holding government officials accountable for their actions?

    California Penal Code 647j(4)(a) declares this to be included within the definition of misdemeanor disorderly conduct:

    > A person who intentionally distributes the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, or an image of the person depicted engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual penetration, or an image of masturbation by the person depicted or in which the person depicted participates, under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private, the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress.

    so under your scenario i think the answer is probably yes, it’s still illegal conduct.

    > Some places do prosecute the photo taker, even the subject of the photo, for disseminating porn.

    Including teenagers who send pictures of themselves to their dating partners and get arrested for disseminating child porn (and then have to register for life as a sex offender). I think the law could use some revision, in this regard.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  45. She should resign. If she won’t resign they should follow whatever the ethics process calls for and then impeach her.

    Time123 (cd2ff4)

  46. “Did Katie Hill run…” etc.,etc.

    She could be the Speaker of the House some day; lest we forget Newtie’s sordid hypocrisies running on that laughable sucker bait ‘family values’ platform. He got a lot of mileage out of that two-or-three-faced double-talk pitch. Not to mention his defiant debate push back w/CNN’s John King when he ran for CiC.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. Obviously she and her husband decided the “thruppling?” was OK, so private lives and consenting adults and all that, whatever, who cares.

    When did she start seeing her former campaign finance chair, specifically with regard to divorce/separation timeline.

    It’s not like she got busted with hooker’s, Vitter, cheating on his wife, Duncan Hunter (among lots of crimes), Bill Clinton, Newt…all of them kept getting reelected.

    Just because she’s a lady person, I don’t see a difference, she’s up for reelection next year, her constituents will either accept it, or not.

    I’d probably not vote for her, but she’d be a hell of a date if I were 20 years younger, maybe 25, since I was in college when she was born, so maybe her being 20 years older, 25.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  48. I’d probably not vote for her, but she’d be a hell of a date if I were 20 years younger, maybe 25, since I was in college when she was born, so maybe her being 20 years older, 25.

    It would be fun to spend some in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility with her and Senator Sinema.

    (And best of all, at least from her perspective, no cameras allowed!)

    Dave (1bb933)

  49. “young white freshman bisexual woman in a swing district …”

    I would have taken more pains to avoid the word “swing” in the context of multiple adulterous, homosexual, relationships.

    Pouncer (df6448)

  50. Speaking of gross.

    Rudytooty is a complete buffoon. He butt dialed a reporter and left a long voicemail of him saying all the generally swampy smarmy things that of course he’s doing. Good lord, these people don’t even know how to crime like a basic 16 year old.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  51. i guess what i’m getting at here is: it’s possible this was abusive and coercive. it’s possible that it wasn’t. for one instance i’m willing to err on the side of assuming it wasn’t abusive or coercive, especially if the unicorn isn’t complaining.

    I am inclined to agree with you, aphrael, except for the fact that a key interest group in Ms. Hill’s political party has in the past claimed that all sexual relationships in a workplace environment where there is a power imbalance between the two (or, now, I guess three) parties are wrong. Does that have to be amended so that it is only sexual relationships between senior men and junior women that are forbidden? Ms. Hill is taking campaign money from citizens and probably matching funds from the government and using it to pay a worker with whom she is sexually intimate. Are we sure that’s allowable, and if it is, should it be?

    Thanks for your thoughts on the legality of the pictures too. Let me ask you, given that it appears that Mr. Heslep and Ms. Hill might have freely posted nude pictures of Ms. Hill on certain reddit boards, does that make it harder to prosecute whomever distributed the photo of her brushing the campaign aide’s hair?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  52. From the title, I figured this thread would be about Tulsi’s appearance on Hannity…

    As if you would ever catch me watching Hannity. I know too many Irish blowhards as it is, including much of my own family.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  53. 15. Nope. I’m about a two-and-a-half-hour drive north and slightly west of Sioux Falls.

    Gryph (08c844)

  54. The political question is fairly easy: she’d dead politically.

    Not because of the 3some — that’s pretty insignificant in California, particularly with 2 women involved. Most of those that would be offended are going to vote Republican anyway.

    What will kill her is the lying and the “MeToo” hypocrisy, especially since it WAS her too, but the other way around.

    The coup de gras is the tattoo. Whatever possesses a white woman to put an Iron Cross near her genitals? I’m sure there are several innocent explanations but I’m not willing to believe any of them. I would pay good money to hear her explain it to John Lewis or Maxine Waters.

    So, white supremacist, serial harasser, liar liar pants on fire Democrat. That’s got to be a tough sell in a working-class-to-middle-class district where 20% of the Democrat base is African-American.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  55. Gotta say Kevin… the political attack ads would be brutal on Ms. Hill no doubt.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  56. The coup de gras is the tattoo. Whatever possesses a white woman to put an Iron Cross near her genitals?

    I’ve seen that picture and it does look a lot like her and its source makes sense in light of their apparent reddit swinger habits, but with fakes being so sophisticated these days I am willing to hold out the possibility that it is not a legitimate picture of Ms. Hill.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  57. For those that don’t know the area, the 25th CD covers most of north LA County.

    This includes the desert communities of Palmdale and Lancaster (predominantly low-priced housing for LA workers (very tough drive)) — a lot of working-class blacks moved here to get out of the ‘hood. The area is about 15% African-American.

    It also includes the southern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley, a mostly whitebread middle-class planned community, where the largest minority is Hispanic. Less than 1% black. There is a lot of local technical and other light industry and the demand to commute to LA is much less.

    There is also a spur out to Simi Valley, which is a little whiter that Santa Clarita and is known for being Conservative. It was no doubt attached to the current CD in a gerrymander. Currently, the conservative city is represented by Democrats at all levels. Expect to see a strong vote here for any Republican with a chance.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  58. The coup de gras is the tattoo. Whatever possesses a white woman to put an Iron Cross near her genitals?

    Or a Celtic Cross, or a thing that kinda looks like a cross, on a lady that kinda looks like the lady.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  59. I see we have a Democrat apologist in our midst.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  60. Of course there’s the other thing where Redstate’s other nekkid photo’s of her don’t show said tattoo, or bong. And for pure research purposes I looked up the photo’s her husband posted on reddit, and no tattoo, I do this for you Patterico, purely for research purposes.

    I mean who could possibly say they’re photoshopped, because that would take a 6th grader 30 seconds on their phone. The internet never does something like that…TrumpKitties

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  61. I see we have a Democrat apologist in our midst.

    Sure, in that a bit of basic logic is antithetical your view of “Republican” or conservative must mean democrat. Trump’s Taint™ will out, always.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  62. @57. “… brutal on Ms. Hill…”

    OTOH, maybe she likes it ‘rough’– a subject for yet another post.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. Klink,

    I see no such photo of Ms Hill with the same area exposed and no tattoo. Further, when she demaded that the Daily Mail take down the photos, she did NOT deny there was a “cross-like symbol” only that she was defamed by calling it a Nazi symbol.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  64. Of course, in a world where using the word “niggardly” can get you fired, and “picnic” is a problem, I wonder how much explaining that tattoo will accomplish.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  65. This is interesting in light of the stars who had their icloud accounts breached a few years back, and their nude photos hacked. I remember finding it mind-boggling that they screamed that they should be safe in the cloud. Well, reality isn’t what we want it it to be: yes, you should be able to publish your nude photos and have them safely hidden in your icloud account, but that just isn’t reality as history would attest. Similarly, yes, in an ideal world, citizens should be able to walk the streets of South Central LA at 2:00 am without any concern for their safety, but that is far, far from the reality. A lot of people don’t want to deal with reality but rather want to believe in the moral goodness of man and that the world is what they deem it to be. Until their nude pics get hacked…

    Dana (05f22b)

  66. As long as any relationships were consensual (as reported by the non-Hill party)….

    If she was involved with her congressional staffer, she should get whatever slap on the wrist that anyone else would get.

    With the campaign staffer. Eh, whatever.

    I’m not super concerned with consensual relationships as long as all parties involved are aware and have consented or one of the parties is mid-divorce and has not felt in need of informing their ex of their new relationship.

    I do think her ex is very awful and I feel like the whisper network should make sure to inform anyone he dates that he will publish any nudes he has access to if he gets mad at them (also, what is he, 15? This is a nasty habit of teenage boys that I have to deal with far too often and I have to have far far too many conversations with girls about trusting the boy they looooooovvvvvveeeeee with pics of their bathing suit areas.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  67. That Daily Mail tattoo looks more like a field artillery badge than anything else to me. And did you notice that the Daily Mail article is in the same language that British child molesters commonly use to lure children into their cars?

    nk (dbc370)

  68. Women should not be allowed in positions of responsibility. They’re slaves to their passions.

    Can you picture it? We elect Elizabeth Warren President. Next thing we know, she’s in a throuple with Boris Johnson and Brigitte Macron.

    Ok, ok, you might not want to picture it.

    Sigh! Compared to what’s happening right now at the hands of the Turks to the tens of thousands of Kurds the orange poofter betrayed, this is so picayune that God wouldn’t waste a single burning cinder on us for it.

    nk (dbc370)

  69. If that’s all Boris J. can get, he does not deserve to lead a “free” UK

    urbanleftbehind (456c28)

  70. Margaret Thatcher is a big problem for your premise, nk.

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. nk is the resident machista, it is what it is

    urbanleftbehind (456c28)

  72. We don’t really know how much was Margaret and how much her husband ruling from behind the throne, DRJ.

    nk (dbc370)

  73. nk (dbc370) — 10/25/2019 @ 7:34 pm

    Now that is what I call some “next-level commenting.”

    nk has leveled-up.

    felipe (023cc9)

  74. She gave him credit for her success.

    DRJ (15874d)

  75. Married for 52 years until his death at age 88. I’d call that passion.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Gen 2:24

    felipe (023cc9)

  77. CNN just reported Katie Hill has resigned from Congress.

    Another washout.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. Good news for our California friends, both those who care about who represents them in Congress and those (I won’t mention any names) who will have a better chance to meet her now that she’s coming back home.

    nk (dbc370)

  79. As Paul Shaffer and Larry Bud Melman would say, “hey _ _ _ _”!

    urbanleftbehind (76b087)

  80. 46. Time123 (cd2ff4) — 10/25/2019 @ 11:59 am

    If she won’t resign they should follow whatever the ethics process calls for and then impeach her.

    Members of Congress ae not impeached, although I suppose, they could be. In fact, somebody doesn’t even have to be currently holding any “office of honor, profit or trust” under the United States = the federal government – to be impeached (Impeachment also may disqualify a person if that’s what the judgment says, but doesn’t have to.)

    They aren’t impeached because there’s a (usually) much simpler alternative: They can be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the House of Congress to which they belong, and there’s no specific reason for that that needs to be cited.

    https://constitutionus.com (by the way the United States constitution is much easier to read and understand than most legislation, and by a decision made in the First Congress, amendments don’t strike out anything but simply add new language, which might supercede earlier language, so we not only know what the law is, but what it used to be.)

    Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: 2:

    Each House may

    determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. Now they respect the voters, so we don’t have that done for political reasons – they wouldn’t even come close to getting a 2/3 vote if someone tried.

    It once happened to 5 Socialists in the New York State assembly (states usually have similar provisions in their constitutions) but there there was some element of fear that they supported Communism = murderous dictatorship, and complaints about them having opposed the draft in World War I.

    https://thegrandarchive.wordpress.com/five-socialists-expelled-from-ny-assembly

    The Theodore Rossevelt mentioned here is the son of the former president.

    https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/when-the-assembly-expelled-socialists-for-disloyalty

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3390 secs.