Congresswoman Katie Hill naked

The Daily Mail covered this in some depth

  • From the original set, an uncensored version of the rear nude has emerged.

She has now resigned. Here is “A Guide to the Incredibly Complicated Katie Hill Scandal.” OK, I confess. I didn’t read it. I looked down the page, and nobody was naked.


17 thoughts on “Congresswoman Katie Hill naked

  1. OK, let me check. Yep, it’s 2019. Why am I supposed to care about this? Is she a family-values, no-abortion, no-gay marriage Republican, so that it might be evidence of hypocrisy, sort of?

    1. I never looked her up. I have no idea what her politics are. When it comes to naked chicks, I’m impartial.

  2. The publishers of these pictures likely published revenge porn which is illegal in California. I hope Katie Hill sues and bankrupts RedState and the Daily Mail if California laws apply to civil actions there (I know The U.K also has very weak free speech laws) just as Peter Thiel sued Gawker into Bankruptcy.

    1. There are two issues here: (1) publishing the revenge porn and (2) the conduct which came out after the publication. While Hill is a victim of the first, she is also the guilty party in the second. The origin of the facts doesn’t invalidate the facts themselves. She didn’t resign because everyone has seen her naked body, her bong, or her controversial tattoos. I reckon she resigned because of exploitative and corrupt behavior.

      Her “defense” of her actions actually followed the Fox News playbook, namely (1) ignoring her improper conduct and attacking the source of the info, (2) going into “what about” mode.

      Both of those defenses consist of accurate statements. The publication of the pics can be considered illegal revenge porn, and Duncan Hunter has not resigned for the same (alleged) offenses. The problem is this: Although the statements are true, they are not really defenses. They don’t change the basic fact that she seems to have committed a serious ethics violation, or the fact that she made the decision to resign rather than to fight it out ala Hunter.

      Or, to word it another way: If you really did kill your wife, and the evidence proves it, it doesn’t really matter that the source of the police tip was Vladimir Putin.

  3. Nah. I’m a “let a 1000 flowers bloom” guy (even if they’re stinkweeds). Not that Mao actually believed in that stuff. Btw, thanks for vouching for my non-Trumpist credentials a while back.

  4. 1.She still denies the allegations and they aren’t proven.

    2.The revenge porn issue is very serious. Just as the revenge porn doesn’t make up for her ‘alleged’ behavior, her alleged behavior also doesn’t excuse the publishers of revenge porn. They were not engaging in any whistleblowing by publishing the pictures. What RedState and the Daily Mail did is a crime in California and the publishers should, at a minimum, be sued out of existence.

    1. 1) She has now admitted to fucking the help, although she claims it happened before she was sworn in. Even if that is true it’s still a major “#MeToo.”

      She is still denying a relationship with a second staffer, a male this time.

      Assuming she did nothing with either person after taking office, she had no reason to resign, because the relationship before her election would not be an ethics violation, and her resignation letter specifically says she is a “fighter.” So why isn’t she “fighting” to clear her name of the only (supposedly false) charge against her, and why isn’t that male staffer coming forward to say, “I ain’t fuckin’ her.” I think the answer is obvious. Of course, I may be wrong, but the chances of that seem slim.

      2) I agree with point two, although I doubt that California can claim any jurisdiction over a British tabloid, and I doubt that a civil finding in a single U.S. state would be enforced and collected in the U.K. anyway. It is possible that Red State and Hill’s ex may face some consequences.

      1. In her resigning, you are assuming that she was thinking rationally. I’m not so sure such an assumption is warranted.

        On another matter, it’s not just Duncan Hunter who is refusing to resign in light of allegations of abuse of power, at the very minimum there is also Dave Schweikert.

        It’s unfortunate because Schweikert seems to be one of the most rational Republicans when it comes to policy, but he seems to be clearly corrupt as well.

    1. Not necessarily, but it is a fact that the allegations against her aren’t proven. If you’re regarding to the revenge porn, yes, I absolutely believe her.

  5. Could be, but this just has the feel of a nasty divorce case getting nastier by the second. Nobody coming across real admirably here.

  6. My favorite author is/was Robert Heinlein, who amongst other things is sort of the patron saint of polyamory. Many of his books featured unconventional marriage arrangements usually involving more than 2 participants. I don’t think there is anything inherently immoral in such arrangements between consenting adults, but in Heinlein’s books the participants were all highly enlightened people unburdened with the base emotion of jealousy. In other words they were all people unlikely to exist in the real world. I feel sorry for the congresswoman, because no one should be the victim of revenge porn. But I feel much sorrier for the staffer that joined the “thrupple.” This situation is somewhat remarkable because of the polyamorous angle and the fact that the congresswoman is a woman. Sex sells and a female “sexual predator” (i.e. what a man who had engaged in the same conduct would be labeled as) is a classic man bites dog kind of story. But I definitely think the true villain of this story is the husband. He decided to use the fact that his wife convinced an attractive younger woman to share their bed against her in the divorce. That seems extremely ungrateful, though I don’t know the details of their relationship. But revenge porn is NEVER ok. As for the congresswoman, the staffer at issue was young, but she was 22. It may just be that all relationships between people with unbalanced power dynamics are per se out of bounds these days.

Comments are closed.