Katie Hill nude photos prompt Democrat's lawyers to send 'cease and desist' letter to DailyMail
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
We may have been better off
Attachments
black dog
Free America
Its pretty ****ing funny....
To be fair, she's not just another consenting adult - she's a United States Congresswoman and we expect them to be more circumspect. Her posting naked stoner pics on some wife swapping site while sucking on a bong will rightfully raise eyebrows. This isn't Miley Cyrus we're talking about.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I thought we should have politicians more like the rest of us? Hence Trump being elected and the screed in a different thread about how we hold folks in Washington to too high of a standard.
Who gives a **** if she smokes and bangs some other broad and her husband? (Assuming it hasn't affected her ability to execute her duties as a Congresswoman)
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Agreed. But that’s not what I was referencing. I was referring to all the homosexuality and bisexuality and monogamy talk. I 100% agree that we should expect our congresswomen (and congressmen) to be “more circumspect.” The conversation immediately strayed away from that and towards an obsession with what consenting adults do on their free time, and that’s why I commented what I did.
Next time, I expect you to be a better mind reader when I’m not clear on what I’m posting.
This_person
Well-Known Member
There's the problem of the girlfriend being a staffer. If it was some chick who just happened to live with the hubby and wife, that would be one thing. This is a staffer.
That makes it our business.
But, in answer to who cares if she uses illegal drugs, I would say we all should. We don't allow a lot of people to use illegal drugs, even when the states bypass federal law and turn a blind eye to their illegality. There are many positions which have mandatory random drug testing. While elected officials are not in that group, it's very reasonable to say that citizens should know if the people making decisions on laws are high while they're doing that or not.
How many times do you have to be told?
Laws are only for the little people, not Democrats!
:kicksrocks:
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Isn't she free to choose her own staff? If she opens the door to that mess, that's sort of on her, no?
I never said it wasn't our business. Citizens who dislike her, her choices, or her policies are free to vote in someone else. But, she represents a southern CA district, so I doubt they care she smokes weed. Just like half the country.
If you think you aren't surrounded, daily, by people who are high either on legal narcotics/pills or illegal ones, you're crazy. If you think Congress people aren't out getting hammered on alcohol and making backdoor deals, you're crazy. I 100% know that happens. So, it's nice to say we "should know", but we don't. Do you have evidence that she was high while working? Do you have evidence that this relationship and her personal life choices otherwise affected her ability to be a Congresswoman?
I just think it's hypocritical to defend all Trump's transgressions as "he's a man of the people" and "we don't need anymore stiffs in suits" yet demand that Katie Hill is held to a higher standard than the President. But she's a Democrat.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Nothing you said touches on my reasons provided. Of course she can choose her own staff, but if she's fukking a staff member, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. We don't allow management and staff to do those kinds of things. If any Congressperson is fukking their staff, that's sexual harassment by definition (unless, of course, they were married prior to the management/worker relationship).
Of course there are people who use illegal drugs. That's not the question. The reason they do drug testing is that even those folks who are mandated, by law, to not do so (which of course is every single person in the country) they still do. I did not say that people should follow common sense and vote out known drug abusers, I said it is reasonable that we know who is toking up in the cloak room and in hotels, naked with staff members. That's a level of transparency I would be fine knowing from Trump or Mike Lee or Nancy Pelosi or Chuckles Schumer. It holds no ideological or party lines.
Serious, what's the point of being the boss?
Nancy Pelosi banging anyone is not something I want to think about.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I fully admit that it is a piss poor decision, but she openly admitted to the relationship with her campaign staffer. This is important because Desjardins is not on her congressional staff, thus not running afoul of House ethics rules. She has also been accused of having a relationship with a member of her congressional staff (Graham Kelly), which would run afoul of those rules, but she denies that. There's no alleged abuse, harassment, or anything like that. Just her relationship.
https://ethics.house.gov/publication/code-official-conduct
I'll have to take your word that two consenting adults constitutes sexual harassment by definition. I disagree.
And I'm saying that unless it affected her ability to legislate, something I have yet to see proof of, who cares? Half the country smokes weed and I'm sure plenty are in these types of weird relationships. My point is the hypocrisy of the idea that Trump, a billionaire businessman, was elected because he's a man of the people and that we need more of that in Congress, but Hill will get dragged through the mud and disavowed because she got caught doing something many, many people do in this country.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Gotcha, so it's just FEC laws, not House ethics laws, she's violated.
I may have to stand corrected. By your posting, 18.(a) would be what was violated, thus a violation of House ethics rules. It could EASILY be turned into sexual harassment claims that would be impossible to defend between management and staff, but it is not "by definition" as I stated.
"Half the country"? I presume you're taking poetic license, not stating something you have some kind of evidence is fact.
Of course it impacts her ability to legislate. There's no way to assume anything different and be honest. It is known to impact judgement. I'm not sure how they prove that since there's no good judgement shown by taking it the first time when you're sober, so one is obviously a person of bad judgement to begin taking illegal drugs in the first place, but any social scientist will tell you it's known to cause bad judgement. Either way, it's only common sense to vote out someone who illegally uses drugs naked with their mistress - but there's no requirement to vote with common sense. A lot of people voted for Hillary, for example, and that wasn't illegal no matter how much it should have been.
The idea behind Trump's description of being more normal is that he doesn't pull punches (seemingly), he doesn't take continued shitt from people, he speaks in a raw and unrefined way that the average joe speaks. He is not even close to diplomatic. He doesn't come off as a guy who spent three hours with a focus group to decide how scuffed his shoes need to be. He's on his third wife - unapologetically - and brags about how great America and Americans are. After 8 years of apologies for being better, after decades of kowtowing to political correctness and Europeans in general and acting like we owe others something for having an exceptionally high standard of living (even the poorest of us), it's nice to have someone who doesn't do those things.
If you recall, when the "grab 'em by the pussy, and they let you" tape came out, Pence and everyone said, "whoa, dude, that's a bridge too far" and were exceptionally critical of him. No one supported that. The whole "locker room talk" defense was no defense at all from the people making it, they were simply acknowledging the existence of *******s who talk like that. What we, as Americans, said that November was "we don't care if he's an ******* if he does his job."
Find me evidence of Trump toking it up naked with a staffer of the same or opposite sex, and you'll see Trump fired in a short period of time. There's no hypocrisy, there's a recognition of differences.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Hypocrisy can certainly exist across two different scenarios. You either want someone who is just like the rest of us, flaws and all, or you want another suit. From what I've read, people don't want anymore suits.
This_person
Well-Known Member
A complaint has been filed suggesting she did:
From the complaint:
“The media reports, confirmed by Rep. Hill, of an improper relationship with a member of her campaign staff indicate that this campaign staff member did not engage in sufficient, bona-fide campaign-related activities, but rather was paid to be available for personal and private purposes unrelated to the Representative’s congressional campaign. As such, as a candidate in the 2017-2018 election cycle, Rep. Katie Hill misused campaign funds for her personal use.
LEGAL ANALYSIS The Act prohibits a candidate or any other person from converting “(a) contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office,” for “personal use.”7 Personal use means any use of funds in a campaign account “to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.”8 Commission regulations include a list of expenses which are considered to be per se personal use. For expenses other than those defined as per se personal use, the Commission evaluates on a case-by-case basis whether the expense would have existed irrespective of the candidate’s campaign.”
It should also be noted that the female staffer has continued on the 2019-20 campaign cycle per campaign reports. The question to be answered is what did she do for the campaign to earn the money vs. what she did for the candidate to give her the money?
In an era when people have little trust or respect for elected officials, this abuse of power by a legislator in the #MeToo era is disgusting. Congresswoman Katie Hill disrespected a young girl, a male staffer, her donors and the taxpayers of the United States. Frank went on to say, “I am looking forward to a complete investigation of this matter. She has hired the same legal firm used by Hillary Clinton, Perkins and Coie and another attorney, Mark Elias, the facts speak for them themselves.. The people of the 25th District deserve better than an immature member of congress using her hormones instead of her common sense of right and wrong.”
Hypocrisy can certainly exist across two different scenarios. You either want someone who is just like the rest of us, flaws and all, or you want another suit. From what I've read, people don't want anymore suits.
“The media reports, confirmed by Rep. Hill, of an improper relationship with a member of her campaign staff indicate that this campaign staff member did not engage in sufficient, bona-fide campaign-related activities, but rather was paid to be available for personal and private purposes unrelated to the Representative’s congressional campaign. As such, as a candidate in the 2017-2018 election cycle, Rep. Katie Hill misused campaign funds for her personal use.
LEGAL ANALYSIS The Act prohibits a candidate or any other person from converting “(a) contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office,” for “personal use.”7 Personal use means any use of funds in a campaign account “to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.”8 Commission regulations include a list of expenses which are considered to be per se personal use. For expenses other than those defined as per se personal use, the Commission evaluates on a case-by-case basis whether the expense would have existed irrespective of the candidate’s campaign.”
It should also be noted that the female staffer has continued on the 2019-20 campaign cycle per campaign reports. The question to be answered is what did she do for the campaign to earn the money vs. what she did for the candidate to give her the money?
In an era when people have little trust or respect for elected officials, this abuse of power by a legislator in the #MeToo era is disgusting. Congresswoman Katie Hill disrespected a young girl, a male staffer, her donors and the taxpayers of the United States. Frank went on to say, “I am looking forward to a complete investigation of this matter. She has hired the same legal firm used by Hillary Clinton, Perkins and Coie and another attorney, Mark Elias, the facts speak for them themselves.. The people of the 25th District deserve better than an immature member of congress using her hormones instead of her common sense of right and wrong.”
Hypocrisy can certainly exist across two different scenarios. You either want someone who is just like the rest of us, flaws and all, or you want another suit. From what I've read, people don't want anymore suits.
There are reasonable accusations that she did, and that said complaint about violating House ethics rules is why she resigned vice fighting.
The House Ethics Committee said Wednesday it is investigating Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) amid allegations that she had an intimate relationship with a congressional staffer in her office.
“The committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of” House rules, the panel said in a statement. “The committee … has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.”
Now that doesn't mean that she did, but it also doesn't mean that we can say she didn't. She denies it. She's entitled to be not guilty until proven guilty - but, since she resigned she will never have the investigation clearing her be completed. Make of that as you will.“The committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of” House rules, the panel said in a statement. “The committee … has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.”
That seems far more reasonable, as does the <10% who have used within the last month, showing roughly 90% of people are smart enough not to make it a habit.
.You're asking me if the person who resigned in disgrace over photos of her with a bong has evidence of it impacting her work? I'd say that's fairly self-explanatory.
I've never personally met Obama or Clinton or Bush or.... either, but I have heard them speak. I'd rather not have them any more, or their ilk. I seem to be in the plurality.
I think there's a difference between "different scenarios" and "disparate scenarios". In my view, this falls into the latter.
I also think there's a difference between "flaws and all" and "drug addled whore". No one is expecting Steven Crea to be elected, "flaws and all"; we are just ok with someone who is not filled with diplomatic double-speak and rather speaks with flaws and maybe had 3 wives so far.
Look at the popularity of Ross Perot, for goodness sake. He started this whole thing, and if he'd picked a better running mate and been just a tad more stable he would have been the first Trump in the modern era.