ADDED: This is my first and perhaps only post about Katie Hill, but I've seen lots of talk about her in comments to my posts, and I responded to one of those comments, so let me front-page myself. I had a post about a WaPo column about Trump's supposedly horrible treatment of women (which began "Ew"). The commenter Leland wrote:
Yeah, I read this just after seeing the Guardian stuff on Katie Hill, talk about "Ew". The difference is there are photos of Katie Hill with her staffer. What woman wants their hair brushed by another with her exposed vagina at the back of your head? If someone has a picture of Trump doing that; then I'll believe the "Ew".I responded:
This kind of aversion to the human body and to sex is unsophisticated and unmodern to me. Would a man enjoy having a naked woman sitting behind him with her legs spread at his head level? If the answer is yes, then your comment seems homophobic. Is that what you mean to say. These are intimate pictures that Hill was unwise to allow to come into existence, but people expressing their sexuality often transgress in the realm of photography and create the opportunity for someone they trusted to hurt them.
There are other things about Hill, I believe, that deserve criticism. I haven't followed the story closely. (Should I?) But the activity you highlight is not disgusting (other than that a boss is getting sexual with an employee).
पोस्ट्स
१३७ टिप्पण्या:
It was Pelosi who asked for her resignation.
She Frankened herself. She Clintoned herself.
You still don’t have issues with a person in power using that power to get sex?
Me Too era. It’s not a good look. Especially TRUMP!
She didn't Franken. She ducked a financial scandal investigation. But I do hope they go after the folks who published those photos.
She shouldn't have resigned.....and she shouldn't blame the right wing, because we really don't care....Look..the Lt Governor of Virginia still has HIS job!!
She and Franken can start their own TV show. Just add Dr. Ruth and invite guests that all play strip Trivia.
"She Frankened herself."
I'm defining "Franken," the verb, to mean something that you do to yourself. That's what Franken did. He didn't have to resign. Hill did the same thing, giving into pressure.
If you want to say that in the Hill case, Pelosi "schumered," that would work in my dictionary.
No, she screwed up big time by having an affair with a Congressional staffer. That was the bridge too far, and that alone was why she had to go.
All the naughty pictures, the affair with at least one campaign staffer, the postings on adult sites -- all that she could have survived, because such infractions are not prohibited by House ethics rules. The affair with a congressional staffer, however, was. Pelosi had no choice but to ask her to resign.
Franken was #MeTooed.
My take on this stuff is generally “Hold them to their own rules, which are impossible to live by.” So too bad Katie that you ended up roadkill in the quest to remove Trump.
She had sex with a staffer. Nancy gave her the boot.
Media narrative: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
What YoungHegelian said. They (Hill, the media) will try to portray this as a result of revenge porn, nudies, etc., but it was fucking the help that got her in trouble.
The MSM ignored the story, until it broke in Britain.
That's our MSM! They not only smear R's whenever and however, they cover for the D's whenever and however.
readering hopes they "go after" the people who found pictures on wife swapping sites and promoted them publicly?
Or she wants Hill prosecuted for being the wife that was swapped and advertised it.
Seems legit.
How quickly the Kavanaugh turns.
There was other stuff: heavy drinking, "missed flights" due to being hung-over, references to being under psychiatric care. That picture of her naked and holding a bong was awful. whatever gravitas she may have had a a Congresswoman evaporated right there.
Hill posted her own picture on wife swapping sites.
readering wants Hill prosecuted for something.
There might be an element of revenge porn to this, but the motives of the person who posted the photo are far less malicious and self indulgent than her actions.....Men take heed. When your wife invites another girl to the marriage bed, she will not invite a better looking woman than herself. If you're going to cheat, do it the old fashioned way....I'd like to think that this story, like that Weiner, is sui generis, but maybe we're evolving to some brave, new world where sex is not the crank shaft of evolution but rather the tail fins and chrome on a hand wagon to hell.
That chick has more gears than a Mack truck. But if Cal wants to re-elect a slutty stoner, that is their business. No, she shouldn't have resigned.
She quit because the investigation is going to determine she slept with her legislative director. If she's already out that report lands in the forest with no one there to hear it.
Didn’t she admit breaking a law she voted for? Admitted, proven. So, not a Frankening. It lacks the key element of Frankening: proof by accusation.
"This kind of aversion to the human body and to sex is unsophisticated and unmodern to me"
Such elitism.
Keep your hopes up Ann on getting a whore to be president.
Feminism dies in darkness
Following AA link, it is obvious that there is a double standard here. A man would not be forced to resign. Democrats hold themselves to a higher standard. Katie Hill is a victim.
It is being reported that Pelosi told her to resign after her staff confirmed the allegations. She was screwing another male staffer.
Nope, nothing like Franken. He behaved boorishly and resigned due to pressure from his party. Hill violated the Congressional Code of Conduct, she'd have been out of office one way or the other. Having her resign was just expediting the matter.
Speaking of the hot/crazy matrix, Katie Hill reminds me of a nutcase I dated when I was 30, though I refused to let her drag me into this lifestyle.
I do hope they go after the folks who published those photos.
readering wants to go after The Daily Mail in UK. Maybe Stefan Halper, man for all seasons, could help.
At the end of the day, fucking your staff is rarely the right answer.
Even if you're a throuple living, LGBwordsalad supporter/ally, #metoo sister-in-arms Democrat congresshuman from Clownifornia.
I wonder who she'll replace on The View?
Cue Max Boot to tell us resigning was the courageous action. Especially if she killed three kids too.
It’s either a violation of House rules to fuck a subordinate, or it’s not. She fucked a subordinate. That is not in question.
Swede 12:20 - LOL. Perfect comment.
Katie didn't resign.
She was fired.
By SanFranNan.
Otherwise she woulda been a more titillating and interesting distraction to impeachment.
Franken said he "crossed a line" because he's a "warm person" and "I hug people". This after being accused of forcibly kissing one woman and grabbing three other womens' behinds. Also we have the photo of him "playfully" pretending to grope the first woman while she slept.
He was right to resign.
It's not about sex. It's not about transphobia, hers. It is about superior exploitation. It is about political congruence. Losing their Pro-Choice quasi-religion.
If she did not resign, she would have lost in 2020. This way the Dems have a semi incumbent without scandal for the next elections. And it reduces the distraction from the main feature, Impeach Trump!
Pelosi decides what rules are followed in the house.
Ken B: "Didn’t she admit breaking a law she voted for?"
In Hill's and readerings defense, the dems/lefties/NeverTrumpers/LLR-lefties assumed the laws they passed did not apply to democrats.
I thought the whole biz was overhyped.
Never agreed with the puritanical prohibitions in the office. Work is the best place to find your sexual partners.
This lady should have ignored the screeching and held on to her job.
According to former Rep Hill and readering, apparently there is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy devoted to shoving Rep's faces into the crotches of staffers and shoving bongs into their mouths.
And, needless to say, there can be no question that this must be what Putin wants.
Ken B: "Cue Max Boot to tell us resigning was the courageous action. Especially if she killed three kids too."
Indeed.
When your sex life collides with your responsibility to exhibit solid judgment, hit the road.
This is not some uptight repression of sexuality, Professor Althouse.
She can do whatever she wants on her own dime and her own time. Just can’t take my money to pretend she’s my better and my ruler anymore.
I am amused (flattered?) by the way some people see my handle and go "attack" without bothering to digest the post.
"I think there's too much willingness to resign and get out of the way."
This is wrong. Willingness had nothing to do with it. Pelosi made her. The rules are clear. And this time, even Dems wanted to apply them.
"Are they asking you to get out or are you letting members of Congress tell you to get out of their way?"
This is wrong. She was not told to "get out of their way"; she was told she had violated a basic rule. She is welcome to run again and make her case. She could argue that threesomes with young women and consensual affairs with Congressional staffers should be fine, and most Dems would probably agree.
"Don't Franken!"
This is wrong. Franken's picture(s) were demeaning to the women victims, Hill's pictures were demeaning to her. She was not removed on the basis of accusations, but on the basis of staff testimony to the PTB in Congress.
Tough for her to leave a high paying easy job with plenty of benefits.
Could not find what her employment was previously.
Did she get any sort of a payout for resigning?
Nothing says Young Democrat Super Star quite like a naked flashing her coochy with a bong photo and the sexual exploitation of a much younger employee.
Mark my words: She'll be Chair of the DNC within 10 years.
As for the hot/crazy matrix, Hill seemed a bit more crazy than hot.
She's a garden-variety California Leftist, which is what I oppose, but I'm not sure that sleeping with staff or cheating on husband or threesomes is necessarily a firing offense. Weird, Yes. But weird isn't necessarily bad, unless someone is hurt. Not sure who the victim here is.
From The Official House Code of Official Conduct:
18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.
So does that mean if she married her underling this would've been OK? Of course she would've had to divorce her husband, unless polygamy has become legalized since I last looked.
I'm all for cutting politicians slack for purely personal behavior, regardless of political party, but it appears she violated the rules of the House by fucking the help.
As a former Army Security Manager, I can tell you that sleeping with subordinates is not only unprofessional, but will get you charged with adultery under the UCMJ if you're married, and cause you to lose your security clearance, as well as your position. Of course the rule are sadly different when it comes to our political class, which is really a shame.
politico, of course, attacked the reporter who investigated the matter, Jennifer van laar, because otherwise 'democracy dies in darkness'
Being this devoid of the most minimal amount of common sense resigning is the least she could do. She really is too stupid to serve.
I am with Althouse on this. She won an election for a two year term. She ought to hang in there and let the voters decide. She is a great poster girl for a lot of things. She should have defied Pelosi and joined the squad! She’d fit right in in a kinky sort of way. Who are we to judge? There were no children involved (much to Pelosi’s regret). If the Dems wouldn’t take up her cause, I’m sure she could get campaign money from the GOP. They want her out there! This is what Dem governance looks like. Maybe I’ll they could get a fourple going with Hill, Omar, and their boyfriends. We want the grifters, sleezebage, and drunks out front. Katie Hill of the Hill!
Everyone who has an affair with a co-worker has to walk away from their job? That's not happening.
Every boss that has an affair with someone in the office — a voluntary thing, with no quid pro quo (as we say). There are a hell of a lot of people who do this. Are they all expected to say okay, I'll just leave when it comes to light.
What if magically everyone who had done that thing were to be identified right now and you could look at them and you had the power to decide either that all must lose their job or all must keep that job: Do you think you'd decide all must leave?
More like Castanzaed
"Work is the best place to find your sexual partners."
It may seem that way sometimes. But if you're in a place where the same people, basically, are working together longterm, it's laying groundwork for all sorts of trouble. It would be better to go elsewhere. Work is too important, but love can feel even more important, and you may hurt your life horribly.
I said "love," but if it isn't even love, just a temporary fling, you really are an idiot to choose a co-worker.
I would respect her resignation a lot more if she'd been a bit more direct about what she did - I had affairs with staffers, that was wrong, so I'm stepping down - then followed it up with a big Eff You to those who engineered or reveled in her public humiliation.
Instead, her official statement serves up a passionate, eloquent paragraph about her abusive husband, hateful political operatives, unprecedented cruelty, fear, and so forth; followed by a very bland paragraph that hints at what she did: For the mistakes made, for those who have been hurt, I am so sorry. I am not perfect and have never pretended to be. [Damn it all, we need to stop hounding the rare imperfect people out of government!]
As for what comes next, I would recommend to her the John Profumo route, as described by Mark Steyn:
"He accepted that his career was ruined and never sought public sympathy. As extraordinary as his downfall was, the aftermath was unique. On June 5, 1963, he resigned....Not long afterward, he contacted Toynbee Hall, a charitable mission in the East End of London, and asked whether they needed any help. He started washing dishes and helping with the children’s playgroup, and he stayed for forty years. He disappeared amid the grimy tenements of east London and did good works till he died. And, with the exception of one newspaper article to mark Toynbee Hall’s centenary, he never said another word in public again."
"At the end of the day, fucking your staff is rarely the right answer."
Swede, I am so going to steal that.
If the sex was out of hours, it's her business.
I happened across this story several days ago. What struck me at the time is that (apparently) she was involved with the female love interest and then hired her!
when you're in the public eye - the rules are a bit different.
Any joe schmo can screw the office intern behind his/her wife's back and nothing will come of it. It won't make the news if it all comes to light.
Public office demands more.
Look at what the "grab em' by the pussy' tape almost did to Trump. Thing is - it was old, and he wasn't a politician at the time, and it was mere words.
Katie Hill crossed a line with the staffer. with photos. Should we normalize crossing that line?
AA asks rhetorically if everyone who screws a coworker must quit.
No. But ... she voted in favor of the rule I believe, and it does not apply to everyone. It does apply to her though. Maybe it’s a dumb rule. But she voted for it.
"This kind of aversion to the human body and to sex is unsophisticated and unmodern to me."
Good grief. How many stories do you need to see before you accept that age-old customs and guidelines of sexual propriety were created FOR A REASON?!?! I'm not saying all those old rules are great but how in the world can you possibly look at Katie Hill's behavior and say an aversion to it is "unsophisticated?" If Hill exemplifies what modern life is all about, the SMOD can't get here soon enough.
Mike
There are a hell of a lot of people who do this. Are they all expected to say okay, I'll just leave when it comes to light.
So do you believe the Congressional Code of Conduct should be revised to reflect that (by removing section 18).
To be clear, I personally don't really care. I have such a low opinion of most house members that I just assume that the code of conduct is violated fairly regularly, it's just that the violators aren't usually caught red handed and in such an undeniable way. To me the entire code of conduct is just a silly veneer of ethical guidelines for a fairly feckless pack of reprobates.
Ann Althouse said...
Everyone who has an affair with a co-worker has to walk away from their job? That's not happening.
Every boss that has an affair with someone in the office — a voluntary thing, with no quid pro quo (as we say). There are a hell of a lot of people who do this. Are they all expected to say okay, I'll just leave when it comes to light.
What if magically everyone who had done that thing were to be identified right now and you could look at them and you had the power to decide either that all must lose their job or all must keep that job: Do you think you'd decide all must leave?
10/29/19, 1:18 PM
Agreed. And I would also add that sometimes these relationship are very public knowedge around the office and not hidden at all.
unless polygamy has become legalized since I last looked
Why stop with couples and couplets? Arbitrary. Capricious. Punitive? Unions for all consenting adults. It should be legal #NoLabels #NoJudgment #LoveWins #Platonic #etc. However, not with the establishment of Pro-Choice, and the secular doctrine: political congruence ("=").
Likely that resigning was the option that best served her short and long term interests. If so that makes her smarter and more practical than most. She can take time for this storm to pass, a year or two perhaps, and then run for this or another seat. Franken made a similar calculation, though he was under substantially more attack by friendly fire in his own party.
How is this "Ethics Rule" different from "Zero Tolerance" idiocy?
When I was in law school, the managing partner (male) at the firm I worked for entered into a consensual relationship with one of the subordinate attorneys (female). They eventually got married and are happily married with children. One of the other female subordinate attorneys filed a sexual discrimination lawsuit against the firm because she felt there was favoritism towards the subordinate attorney dating the managing partner. The firm settled with the plaintiff, she left the firm and went to work elsewhere, even though, IMO, the plaintiff was not nearly as good an attorney as the female subordinate. The managing partner was stripped of his managing title, but both he and his wife continued to work for the firm for several years thereafter. The managing partner was one of the best attorneys I ever worked for, but dating the subordinate did cause issues within the firm, even though personally, I liked both of them.
As for Hill, I'm not sure if she has a security clearance or is privy to classified information, but like Strozk and Page, she would be a huge target for blackmail if her conduct was found out before the recent publicity. I'm sure there's more we don't know, but I don't have a problem with Hill being "pressured" to resign by Pelosi or whoever.
furthermore,
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/2019/10/28/on-cnn-jill-filipovic-calls-for-congressional-investigations-of-a-reporter-and-decries-private-sources-in-defense-of-katie-hill/
Met one of my wives at work. Worked out great.
If you meet women at work, you know some things about them you can’t discover anywhere else.
Do they have decent jobs skills? Do they show up at places on time? Are they reliable, sensible people?
I hated the online thing. Bars? No way.
Blogger NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
Nope, nothing like Franken. He behaved boorishly and resigned due to pressure from his party. Hill violated the Congressional Code of Conduct, she'd have been out of office one way or the other. Having her resign was just expediting the matter.
The Dems pushed Franken to resign because he would be replaced by a Democrat, they were attacking Ray Moore for being a sleaze, and he would be defeated by a Democrat (Doug jones)
But if Franken stayed in the Senate, the attacks on Moore would have fallen flat.
So Franken lost his seat to give the Ds one extra seat in the Senate for 4 years.
Hill was told to resign because she violated a law that she had voted for: The law saying that Members of Congress can not sleep with staff.
There will be a Special Election for the seat. The Dems hope they can win it. But they were pretty sure they'd lose it in 202 if Hill didn't go now
So Hill went
If Ms. Hill were as bold in her professional life as she is in her sex life, she certainly would have fought for her position. But she's not a real person, she's a machine created and controlled apparatchik, and now that she's no good to them, the machine chewed her up and spit her out and she went along with it, probably in the hopes that the machine will accept her back in for being a team player. Which it will.
I'm curious, though, how such a defiant stance aligns with the goal for a boring, drama free politics. I'm all for letting elections be sacrosanct and the main means for removal of elected official besides truly extraordinary situations. But defying the leadership will create drama, perhaps useful drama, within the party that's desperately trying to get back to normal behavior in time to hoodwink the electorate.
My caveat is that I was not a status monger or careerist.
I had a job, not a career. I didn’t care about advancement. Just the amount of the paycheck.
The women I met at work had the same outlook.
Great comment by William " ...maybe we're evolving to some brave, new world where sex is not the crank shaft of evolution but rather the tail fins and chrome on a hand wagon to hell."
I miss tail fins and chrome.
What if magically everyone who had done that thing were to be identified right now and you could look at them and you had the power to decide either that all must lose their job or all must keep that job: Do you think you'd decide all must leave?
That's a false dilemma. Some workplaces have explicit HR policies regarding fraternization, and some don't. The House is one that does.
Work is the best place to find your sexual partners."
You obviously do not have a professional identity or adhere to a professional Code of Ethics.
Every boss that has an affair with someone in the office — a voluntary thing, with no quid pro quo (as we say). There are a hell of a lot of people who do this. Are they all expected to say okay, I'll just leave when it comes to light.
1: How can there NOT be a "quid pro quo"? That person is in charge of your salary, your raises, your work assessments, deciding what assignments you get, deciding when the rules won't be rigidly applied to you. Of course there's going to be a positive payoff from you sleeping with him / her, and a negative one if you don't.
And, since we don't have access to "alternate reality machines" that could let us see exactly what would have happened if the choice had gone the other way, there's no way to prove there wasn't a quid pro quo.
Which is why that situation is generally considered "sexual harassment", and even more generally considered a "bad idea", no matter what.
Since only an idiot would get in to that situation, I have no problem with anyone who gets into it, being fired when found out
Perhaps Pelosi demanded Hill’s resignation because of the “ick” factor and maybe Pelosi demanded her resignation because it is bad optics to pass a law as clearcut as the one Hill knowingly violated and then not apply it to a Democrat. Trump could have had a good time with such a high profile case of “laws don’t really apply to Democrats” had Pelosi not demanded Hill’s resignation, and the chances that did not factor into Pelosi’s actions has to be zero.
Maybe one of the younger women who comment here can explain why a young woman would let herself be photographed or videotaped in the nude. Pixels are forever, ladies! Contemplate your teenager son or daughter someday calling you over to their computer monitor and asking “Mommy, is that you in this picture?”
Ken B said...
Didn’t she admit breaking a law she voted for? Admitted, proven.
No. She admitted to sleeping with campaign staff (the other female in the pictures) which does not violate a congressional rule. But her husband is divorcing her for sleeping with her legislative director and there is sundry evidence available showing enough people know about it any investigation will be forced to paper it. Since he is Congressional Staff sleeping with him is a specific violation of the rule she voted for.
That's why she has denied this instance while admitting the others. But with the investigation started the outcome is inevitable which is why she resigned.
I see Dems are complaining about misogynists publicizing and criticizing her sex life. But Obama became a Senator because a corrupt judge opened his Senate opponent's divorce records showing he had taken his wife to sex clubs and asked her for threesomes.
None of those whining about Hill's privacy criticized Obama for it nor claimed the Dem media are misandrist for relentlessly publicizing it.
Everyone who has an affair with a co-worker has to walk away from their job? That's not happening.
Not "co-worker" but subordinate. And yes, if there's an explicit rule against it. Though the House Code of Conduct does not seem to indicate any specific punishment for violating it. That suggests to me that Pelosi wanted her out for strategic reasons.
No doubt she negotiated a golden parachute from Pelosi in return for her resignation.
You shouldn't be boffing your subordinates...period. Men can't do it, women can't do it, no one should do it.
She didn't get frankened, she committed sexual harassment in the workplace.
Franken got MeToo-ed after a series of embarrassing accusations came to light, along with accompanying photos. These accusations revealed a years-long pattern of him laying his grubby booger-hooks on whatever woman he though he could get away with groping, under the cover of clownery. It was bad timing for him that MeToo was reaching a fever pitch. But still, he was lucky to get out before any more unsavory incidents came to light.
Katie Hill, on the other hand, is just a general mess. She is the poster child for bad decision-making. If she and her husband were swingers or into polyamory, so what? I'm sure in her district that elicits a big yawn. With girls? Meh... But then she picks a young female campaign staffer to screw, and is stupid enough to allow multiple compromising photos to be taken by the husband she is quickly becoming estranged from. Once disentangled from both her hubby and the young campaign staffer, she then moved on to one of her male congressional staffers (which is against the rules.)
Perhaps, a lot of her bad judgement was a result of her drinking to excess. Her "throupling" went on while she was being seen by a psychologist and being treated for manic/depression. Still, in multiple texts, it is clear she often drank until drunk. The fact that she missed planes on the campaign trail and even attended a campaign event while visibly intoxicated, seems to have been of great concern, both to her ex-husband and her staff. Do we think that might have worried the campaign staffer she was having an affair with, as well? How did her shrink feel about her mixing meds with alcohol? In her texts, Hill seems to recognize that she should not be doing these things, and still she can't help herself from engaging in self-destructive behavior.
Does this sound like someone who was capable of holding it together under pressure? Does she seem like someone Nancy Pelosi should take a chance on? Or was the writing on the wall that there could be more embarrassing revelations yet to come? No, Katie Hill is not the victim of "revenge porn". She is a victim of her own poor judgement. And no, she wasn't "Franken-ed," either. She was mercifully given the hook by Pelosi, who already has enough on her hands with the caterwauling of "The Squad." The Dems do not need Ms. Nude Bongsalot dragging focus away from their main objective - impeaching Trump. And now Katie is free to play at being a martyr to some imaginary double standard.
There was a House Code of Conduct change that made sleeping with a subordinate staffer very bad. Her relationship with a member of her Congressional staff is what is sinking her, not the throuple relationship with the co-ed on her campaign staff. The rest of this stuff is just tabloid fodder coming out of a bad divorce (like the Jack and Jeri Ryan divorce).
HR 724 change the rules:
18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.
quid pro quo (as we say).
quim pro ho
That intern girl saw “ lifetime gifting career in politics” more than “exposed vagina”.
Everyone who has an affair with a co-worker has to walk away from their job?
She broke the rules of the House, not the suggestions of the House.
If she didn’t like the rules, she was — and is now — free to work somewhere else that better supports her life choices.
You obviously do not have a professional identity or adhere to a professional Code of Ethics.
Precisely. See above. I wasn’t a professional. Just a programmer, mostly freelance and contractor in NYC.
I had jobs, not a profession, although my skills were in huge demand and I was very well paid.
I worked in the back room and nobody gave a shit what I did. The women I dated occupied a similar status.
I worked in NYC. There was always another job.
Never run with (those you’ve) scissors(ed)...
And I don’t think Al “Rapeyfingers” Franken is an apt comparison.
This isn't about meeting your next love at work. This is about working for the government and deciding to go all Monica on your staffer with weird photos.
I mean come on.
Blogger rhhardin said...
If the sex was out of hours, it's her business.
Really? So you work all day, then spend all night being your boss's sex slave, and it's "none of anyone's business", because the sex is "after hours"?
10/29/19, 1:27 PM
Blogger Tomcc said...
I happened across this story several days ago. What struck me at the time is that (apparently) she was involved with the female love interest and then hired her!
They propositioned the girl, she said yes, and shortly thereafter she was hired as a campaign aide.
People who work on campaigns do so to get a job if the candidate wins. But the girl did NOT get hired for Hill's Congressional staff.
However, Congresswoman Hill did send the girl "consulting fees". That's corrupt, whether they're from campaign money or taxpayer $$$.
It was a hot mess. Pelosi did the right thing for the Dems by telling Hill to go.
But I think the Special Election for that seat is going to be quite interesting
I recall with some affection my days in San Francisco, in the early 70s.
People had a good time in the office. Nobody was paranoid about dating co-workers. Happened a lot.
This was back in the day when SF was a hetero party town. That slowly faded away in the mid 70s.
Political propaganda about sexual harassment is what created sexual paranoia in the workplace. Lawyers created the paranoia in order to “garner” a payday.
This is about working for the government and deciding to go all Monica on your staffer with weird photos.
Lighten up. It’s normal human behavior.
I always find it interesting that we’ve become so tolerant of gays, especially gay men, but we go nuts over hetero perverts.
Are any of you aware of what gay men do?
She slept with a staffer, sleeping with a staffer is against the house rules. The Boss enforced the rules. End of story.
If you want to say that in the Hill case, Pelosi "schumered," that would work in my dictionary.
I say the proper verb would be Gillibranded, not Schumered.
Beth B @ 2:12
Excellent.
She quit to end the investigation that'd confirm the wrongdoing we know about and likely reveal more.
I'm not sure Franken quit for the same reason--he quit because of what we already knew and the seeming contradiction between his behavior and his beliefs. I don't think Franken was worried that an investigation would show more wrongdoing, but I guess that's possible.
"Following AA link, it is obvious that there is a double standard here. A man would not be forced to resign. Democrats hold themselves to a higher standard. Katie Hill is a victim."
It's not like the kid was in INTERN, she was a STAFFER.
Perhaps we'll soon find out if the 20's will be the Katie Hill Decade?
Let's see what we have on the hair-brushing photo:
1) the boss is naked
2) the boss is doing sth to the subordinate
3) the subordinate is fully clothed
4) the subordinate is turned away from the boss
5) the subordinate passively receives whatever the naked boss is doing to her
Now, let's try same with Harvey:
1) Harvey Weinstein is fully naked
2) Harvey Weinstein is doing sth to the actress
3) the actress is fully clothed
4) the actress is turned away from Harvey Weinstein
5) the actress passively receives whatever the naked Harvey Weinstein is doing to her
not a good look for Katie Hill!
Ann Althouse said...What if magically everyone who had done that thing were to be identified right now and you could look at them and you had the power to decide either that all must lose their job or all must keep that job: Do you think you'd decide all must leave?
I don't hear anyone pushing to revise the UCMJ to remove fraternization; do you?
I can't find the statistic at the moment but I remember reading some large number, possibly a majority, of senior officers (might have been generals) who've been dismissed in the last 20 years for cause have been for fraternization or some other sex-related accusation/offense.
There's clearly a difference between relationships between peers and those between superiors and subordinates. Neither may be a good idea, but the latter is well understood to be worse.
Add in the fact that Hill had authority to direct funds from her office--some of which may be provided by the public--towards the subordinates she is alleged to have had a sexual relationship with, and I'm honestly not sure on what basis people are defending her (alleged) actions here.
It's fine to imply that people are only objecting because they're old fashioned sex-negative fuddy duddies but there are pretty clear rules and ethical guidelines that were violated in this case. "It's different 'cause she's a girl" is silly.
Given the antics of Horndog Clintoon, she should have stood her ground. This was sexist
Hill could've gone for a Der Fuhrer 'stache look, or maybe a Luftwaffe Landing Strip. But NOooo. She had to go full Iron Cross.
You never go full Iron Cross.
Hill should remain in office and let her district's voters let her know next November what they think of her shenanigans.
It seems, to me, the whole thing was blown out of proportion to include sordid details (pictures not withstanding - the story came out in a British tabloid, after-all).
She had a relationship with a subordinate, which is against the rules. This is, potentially, a fireable offense. Is there any leeway for her to terminate the relationship and retain her position? Perhaps, but the media are playing it for all its worth, pictures and all. Hard to fight that.
But Obama became a Senator because a corrupt judge opened his Senate opponent's divorce records showing he had taken his wife to sex clubs and asked her for threesomes.
The records showed that Jeri Ryan made those allegations against her husband Jack during the divorce proceedings. The Chicago Press then hounded Jack Ryan out of a race he was favored to win over a no-name State Senator.
Gee. Isn't it amazing that Republicans are held to a different standard of behavior.
Hill (Dem) campaigned as a moderate in order to toss out the incumbent GOP Congressman in a fairly red district. Her re-election was not a sure thing. With this info coming out, Nancy needed her out.
Now there will be special election in a few months - here's just one of the GOP candidates that previously announced they were going to run against her in 2020: Mike Garcia, son of immigrants, veteran (Super Hornet strike fighter pilot in the Navy) and Raytheon executive.
Of course, Dems are leaving the seat open for four months (special election will be held in March, same day as Presidential primary) - I guess representing "the people" isn't so important after all.
Blogger stlcdr said...
She had a relationship with a subordinate, which is against the rules. This is, potentially, a fireable offense. Is there any leeway for her to terminate the relationship and retain her position? Perhaps, but the media are playing it for all its worth, pictures and all. Hard to fight that.
"Hey, you caught me stealing. how about I give it back, as we all agree 'no harm no foul'?"
No
So - it's wrong to have sex with a subordinate if a man holds the power position. But it's okay if a woman does. After 30 years of feminists telling us that sex across a power differential can't be consented to it is about time a woman got caught in this net. Metoo!
Why did Nancy tell Katie to GTFO? Simple, an ethics investigation/hearing would have sucked all the oxygen out of the House at a time when Dems are trying to convince American that the Bad Orange Man did something beyond the pale in the Ukraine.
What do you think would garner the biggest headlines....some arcane talk of quid pro quo, or lurid stories of some heavy drinking, bong smoking, pussy eating, staff boning, Nazi tattoo sporting blue wave millenial.
"So do you believe the Congressional Code of Conduct should be revised to reflect that (by removing section 18)."
18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.
(b) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not engage in unwelcome sexual advances or conduct towards another Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House.
(c) In this clause, the term ‘employee’ includes an applicant for employment, a paid or unpaid intern (including an applicant for an internship), a detailee, and an individual participating in a fellowship program.
I think that's a good rule. I would keep it. I'm looking at the other conduct rules. How are they all enforced? I don't see Congresspersons up and quitting on a regular basis. What's the punishment? Expulsion? I'm familiar with the provision of the Constitution that says: "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."
That's a required 2/3 vote to expel. That almost never happens.
As I said in the post, "There are other things about Hill, I believe, that deserve criticism. I haven't followed the story closely. (Should I?) But the activity you highlight is not disgusting (other than that a boss is getting sexual with an employee)."
But I think an elected member of Congress has a strong basis to continue her term.
I think an elected member of Congress has a strong basis to continue her term.
I suspect pretty much all of her political opponents wishes she would.
There's an unstated assumption that members of Congress are highly differentiated individuals whom we elect to office. They're often, maybe mostly, party apparatchiks built up by a political machine and utterly beholden to it. Katie Hill wants a career: she's a young woman, after all, and has gotten pretty damned far for her age. If she plays nice now, takes one for the team, she remains useful. That's why she resigned. She may be adventurous in the sack, but she's a political hack. Her resignation and the pathetic announcement of it confirm that.
But Obama became a Senator because a corrupt judge opened his Senate opponent's divorce records showing he had taken his wife to sex clubs and asked her for threesomes.
Anybody who has ever been in a divorce or a child custody battle knows that spouses lie.
Back 25 years, an LA city Councilman named Art Snyder was going through a divorce. His ex-wife accused him of molesting their 3 year old daughter. She got the daughter to submit an accusation. Years later, when the kid had grown up, she admitted she had lied to please her mother.
I don’t give a shit who she has she with EXCEPT when it is a SUBORDINATE.
If a man did this, especially a Republican man, there would be no one saying he shouldn’t resign.
Why is Althouse willing to be completely clueless about this story?
Cuz there too much behavior here that she finds appealing.
Pelosi is a Leftist Collectivist.
Everything is subordinate to The Cause.
Hill may not have known her place.
Now she does.
She is a pawn.
Hill involved consenting adults. Franken did not.
YoungHegelian @11:57: "Pelosi had no choice but to ask her to resign."
There is *always* a choice. Surprisingly, astonishingly, Pelosi this time chose to honor the Rule of Law.
Throwing in a new ingredient: Ilhan Omar is accused of a similar relationship but has not been asked to resign. The pictures which establish the Katie Hill relationship, were of a campaign staffer and Katie Hill; and that relationship (House member / campaign staff) is not against the rules, which is why there is no pressure from Pelosi for Ilhan Omar to resign. Also, in the case of Ilhan Omar there are no salacious pictures garnered off someone's phone; and it's only the truth to say that that is a crucial difference in fact but not in law.
Ms. Nude Bongsalot
quim pro ho
And that's why I come to Althouse!
Is it sophisticated to gawk simply because a woman is naked? That seems wanton to me which is not at all sophisticated. I suppose you can always invent a new word to describe it.
Pelosi came down hard on Hill because she can't come down hard on those four colored girls who are spoiling her moment in the sun and she has a lot of frustration built up that needed a release.
Democrat party politicians act and function just like a typical gang. Independant thought and actions are outlawed once the gang leader has spoken. All gang members are expected to fall in line irrespective of their views and opinion. Obama killed that party.
I dunno, you can always tough it out like Gerry Studs did back in the 1980's Censured for sleeping with a 17 year old congressional page but revered and cheered back home in Massachusetts
"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure"
The rule is;
"Don't shit where you eat, and don't fuck where you work."
Like everyone else has noted; Hill didn't resign because of the sex. She resigned because she violated the rules she helped put in place. As Kurt Schlichter noted back in 2015, "Liberals May Regret Their New Rules".
But I get Althouse trying to make this about sex. Loyal Democrats tried the same when Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. It was ok that he had consensual sex with Lewinsky. The issue was he lied about forcing previous staffers to have sex with him. Alas, before there was Hill resigning because of the new rules, there was Gingrich. So she actually Gingrich'd herself.
Link
Here's confirmation along with the key nugget:
"The Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction to investigate a lawmaker once that member has resigned, as has happened in the past."
The Democrats just weren't quite ready to debut their throuple legislation yet.
Look. I get the whole ethics thing, the rules and all. She probably should have stayed and fought it out since, given the comments above, everyone at some point has crossed this line. Perhaps with a bit more aplomb and discretion. The morality issues, from these yahoos are a bit over the top. I guess they needed a blood sacrifice given the probable impeachment bomb. Come on, one of their own out trumping Trump?
Nevertheless, I, personally, would not mind combing her hair with or without a hit on the bong, while she sat naked in front of me. I have no problem with female body parts. She's attractive. I would have taken better photos, however, certainly with better lighting.
It looked like they were in a hotel room. You don't have to be Niles Crane to be grossed out by someone depositing their fluids on "public furniture" like that. I don't do that, not because I have an aversion to the human body, but because I think it's rude. Hotels wash the sheets and towels but not so much the chairs. Remember the discussion a while back about the woman in the super-short skirt on the airplane seat?
The new phrase should be “frankened out.” As in, “She frankened out!”
1992 was called the Year of the Woman. President and Mrs Clinton supported and promoted the idea that a female could not give consent to sexual activity with a male who was in a superior employment position. When the Lewinsky story broke, George Snapplepuss, Clintons' comm director stated, "If this is true, he must resign." The Clintons thought, 'Let's see if we can ride this out.' Delay, delay, delay. The Media changed the story from a Male in a position of authority preying on a young subordinate female, to...oh it's just consensual sex. The French do it all the time. It's very cosmopolitan, you stupid rubes. The Clintons got away with it and...
The culture changed irrevocably.
She was in a position of power (employer and boss), Trump wasn't. These are not comparable.
It's not like we'll get a good Congresscritter from a district adjacent to Adam Schiff's. I'm gonna miss her.
used to be buck McKeon's district,
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा