2020 Senate & House

EHu8P2PXYAY7pZW.png
 
Has anyone seen national TV news pick up this story?
It broke 5 days ago

There is photo evidence of Hill:
- Sexually/emotionally abusing her staff
- Procuring her staff for sexual abuse by her husband
- Smoking a bong, completely naked, while revealing what sort of looks like a Nazi tattoo
- Making graphic sex jokes about her staff

If this had been a Texas Republican in the House having a 3-way with two male staffers, you can be it would an orgy of coverage
 
Last edited:
This story is getting funnier all the time
Too bad people who only watch the MSM will never hear it
 
Joe Fan said:
Of course she did
"The married California Congresswoman under fire for her steamy “throupling” with an aide paid a male staffer she allegedly slept with the highest bonus she doled out to aides working on her campaign, federal documents show...."
​
Maybe the female-staffer-throupler will sue because she only got 70% for her throupling compared to her male throupler
Katie Hill paid ‘campaign bonus’ to alleged male lover
Click to expand...

And get this -- the monthly payments began the same month their relationship ended. In other words, she was paying him hush money.

A quality ethics investigation would expose this. But they are Democrats, so a quality ethics investigation is about as common as a unicorn. So, they will all get away with it.
 
I feel pretty confident that she is wrong here, this was not the hardest things she has ever done.
The hardest she ever had to do was keep her pants on in the vicinity of her employees.

 
"Katie Hill, an austere ethics scholar, has stepped down from her prestigious position."
-- The Washington Post​
 
Joe Fan said:
Click to expand...


I can honestly say that no one will ever pull a revenge porn on me. The reason why is that I've used the best defense one could have against revenge porn - I've never let anybody take a picture of my junk. If there's a camera in the room, you pull up your pants. I know it takes a lot of brains to think of that, but if we just teach that to the younger generation, it'll save them a lot of headaches later on.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I can honestly say that no one will ever pull a revenge porn on me. The reason why is that I've used the best defense one could have against revenge porn - I've never let anybody take a picture of my junk. If there's a camera in the room, you pull up your pants. I know it takes a lot of brains to think of that, but if we just teach that to the younger generation, it'll save them a lot of headaches later on.
Click to expand...

Ann's book on this topic was a much quicker read than yours
 
Joe Fan said:
And get this -- the monthly payments began the same month their relationship ended. In other words, she was paying him hush money.

A quality ethics investigation would expose this. But they are Democrats, so a quality ethics investigation is about as common as a unicorn. So, they will all get away with it.
Click to expand...
Democrats...quality...ethics.

There is a grouping of three words not commonly seen in a single sentence, except and unless you are posing the question of which item does not belong with the other two.
 
Joe Fan said:
I feel pretty confident that she is wrong here, this was not the hardest things she has ever done.
The hardest she ever had to do was keep her pants on in the vicinity of her employees.

Click to expand...

Are you really sure THAT was the hardest thing? I mean, the scandal, err affair, err whatever DID involve another male...

Just sayin'
 
Seattle Husker said:
Hill was an idiot for ever getting involved with coworker(s), especially while choosing to go into politics. With that said, California has a pretty strict Revenge Porn law. Her ex-husband is ******.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is. I'm sure he'll claim to have been hacked, but nobody's going to buy that. Hill's damages case will be interesting though. She'll try to blame this for her political career on this, but I'm not sure how sympathetic a jury will be. He argument will basically be that if he hadn't sent out the photos, she could have lied about everything. That's not the kind of argument juries like.

The husband was stupid though. What he should have done is filed for divorce alleging infidelity. Then he could have filled the photos with the court as part of his pleadings or a motion. That would have made them public, and he would have been in the clear.
 
Pelosi does not even know the preamble to the Constitution.
She is pontificating on the floor now and is so faux outraged she has to open impeachment hearing.
:confused2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top