Connect with us

Politics

Rep. Katie Hill’s Resignation Ignites Debates Over Double Standards and Revenge Porn

Published

on

  • U.S. Representative Katie Hill (D-CA) announced her resignation on Oct. 27 after a right-wing political blog alleged she had engaged in two inappropriate relationships with staffers and leaked nude photos of her.
  • Hill publicly apologized for the relationships and has vowed to fight revenge porn following her resignation.
  • The incident has prompted a national debate over how female politicians are treated in scandals involving inappropriate relationships and nude photo leaks in comparison to men.
  • While some have called Hill a victim of revenge porn, others have criticized her for allowing the photos to be taken in the first place.

Inappropriate Relationship Allegations and Nude Photos

U.S. Representative Katie Hill’s resignation, stained by allegations of two inappropriate relationships with staffers and nude photo leaks, has sparked a national debate over how to treat sexual misconduct allegations against female politicians.

Hill, a 32-year-old Democrat representing California’s 25th district, defeated incumbent Republican Steve Knight in the 2018 midterms to secure her first term in office. Prior to Hill, Republicans had held the seat since 1993.

On Oct. 27, however, Hill announced she would be ending her term earlier than expected after a right-wing political blog detailed the potential misconduct allegations against her.

“It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress,” she wrote. “This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community, and our country.”

On Oct. 10, the blog accused her of having an affair with the legislative director of her congressional staff. Then on Oct. 18, the blog accused Hill of engaging in another inappropriate relationship, this one occurring before the first. According to the blog, Hill was involved in a three-way relationship between her husband and a female campaign staffer.

The second post also included private text messages and even nude photos of Hill. Although it did somewhat censor those photos, it still leaked them without Hill’s knowledge or consent. Since the leaks, Hill has implied that she thinks her husband might have supplied those photos to the blog.

By the time the second relationship with the legislative director was alleged to have occurred, Hill and her husband were estranged.

“This is what needs to happen so that the good people who supported me will no longer be subjected to the pain inflicted by my abusive husband and the brutality of hateful political operatives who seem to happily provide a platform to a monster who is driving a smear campaign built around cyber exploitation,” Hill said in her resignation letter.

“Having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy,” she continued before calling the leaking of her photos illegal.

Hill then went to the U.S. Capitol Police, which opened an investigation to find out who leaked the photos.

Under California and Washington D.C. law, cyber exploitation—more commonly known as revenge porn—is illegal. 

House Ethics Committee Investigation

On October 23rd, the House Ethics Committee announced it would also open an investigation, this time focused on whether or not Hill had that inappropriate relationship with her legislative director.

The investigation itself generated a fresh wave of headlines because of a new ethics rule passed in Congress last year to address sexual misconduct among lawmakers in the wake of the #MeToo era. If found to have engaged in such a relationship, Hill would be in direct violation of the rule, which prohibits members of Congress from engaging in sexual relationships with their aides.

Later that same day, Hill sent a letter to her constituents, admitting she had engaged in the “inappropriate relationship” with her female campaign staffer; however, she also noted that the relationship occurred before she became a Congresswoman. While not against the established ethics rules, advocates have still said such a relationship between a person in power and an employee is inappropriate.

Hill then denied having an inappropriate relationship with her legislative director and promised to cooperate with the ethics investigation.

“She has acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a Member untenable,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said of her resignation. “We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress, and in all workplaces.”

Revenge Porn and Reaction

Much of the debate over the handling of Hill’s scandal has focused on the use of so-called revenge porn to justify and prove the existence of the allegations made against her. 

In a comment on Fox News’ The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld said much of the story was exacerbated by the existence of the photos and that they were one of the main issues.

“Unfortunately, those pictures were leaked after an erotic adventure went awry,” he said. “I mean, everybody was having fun, and this when it breaks apart, that’s why you don’t take pictures! That’s the moral lesson here!”

The argument is similar to that actress Bella Thorne’s nude photo leak in June, where Whoopi Golberg criticized Thorne on The View for taking such photos in the first place. 

On the other side of things, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) told BuzzFeed News that Hill is the victim of a double standard for female politicians.

“It was clearly meant to embarrass her,” Harris said of Hill. “There’s so much that people do about women and their sexuality that’s about shaming them.”

Double Standard for Women in Politics

Harris’ comments struck another aspect of the debate: a double standard for women in politics. While Hill is being investigated for potentially breaking ethics rules, a very serious matter, the information came about by means of nude photos and private messages.

According to the New York Times, “[Hill’s] resignation highlights another generational issue: the new kinds of internet exposure that lawyers and activists say could have an impact on a whole class of rising politicians.”

Yesterday, Hill announced her vow to fight revenge porn following her resignation. 

“I will not allow my experience to scare off young women or girls from running for office. For the sake of all of us, we cannot let that happen,” she said. “I’m hurt. I’m angry. The path that I saw so clearly for myself is no longer there.”

“I never claim to be perfect,” she said, “but I never thought my imperfections would be weaponized and used to try to destroy me the community I have loved for my entire life.”  

See what others are saying: (Politico) (Vox) (USA Today)

Politics

Biden Calls on Congress To Extend Eviction Moratorium

Published

on

The move comes just two days before the federal ban is set to expire.


Eviction Freeze Set To Expire

President Joe Biden asked Congress on Thursday to extend the federal eviction moratorium for another month just two days before the ban was set to expire.

The request follows a Supreme Court decision last month, where the justices ruled the evictions freeze could stay in place until it expired on July 31. That decision was made after a group of landlords sued, arguing that the moratorium was illegal under the public health law the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had relied on to implement it.

While the court did not provide reasons for its ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a short concurring opinion explaining that although he thought the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” he voted not to end the program because it was already set to expire in a month.

In a statement Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki cited the Supreme Court decision, as well as the recent surge in COVID cases, as reasons for the decision to call on Congress. 

“Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” she said. 

“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.”

Delays in Relief Distribution 

The move comes as the administration has struggled to distribute the nearly $47 billion in rental relief funds approved as part of two coronavirus relief packages passed in December and March, respectively.

Nearly seven months after the first round of funding was approved, the Treasury Department has only allocated $3 billion of the reserves, and just 600,000 tenants have been helped under the program.

A total of 7.4 million households are behind on rent according to the most recent data from the Census Bureau. An estimated 3.6 million of those households could face eviction in the next two months if the moratorium expires. 

The distribution problems largely stem from the fact that many states and cities tasked with allocating the fund had no infrastructure to do so, causing the aid to be held up by delays, confusion, and red tape. 

Some states opened portals that were immediately overwhelmed, prompting them to close off applications, while others have faced technical glitches.

According to The Washington Post, just 36 out of more than 400 states, counties, and cities that reported data to the Treasury Department were able to spend even half of the money allotted them by the end of June. Another 49 —  including New York — had not spent any funds at all.

Slim Chances in Congress

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) urged her colleagues to approve an extension for the freeze Thursday night, calling it “a moral imperative” and arguing that “families must not pay the price” for the slow distribution of aid.

However, Biden’s last-minute call for Congress to act before members leave for their August recess is all but ensured to fail.

While the House Rules Committee took up a measure Thursday night that would extend the moratorium until the end of this year, the only way it could pass in the Senate would be through a procedure called unanimous consent, which can be blocked by a single dissenting vote.

Some Senate Republicans have already rejected the idea.

“There’s no way I’m going to support this. It was a bad idea in the first place,” Senator Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters. “Owners have the right to action. They need to have recourse for the nonpayment of rent.”

With the hands of the CDC tied and Congressional action seemingly impossible, the U.S. could be facing an unprecedented evictions crisis Saturday, even though millions of Americans who will now risk losing their homes should have already received rental assistance to avert this exact situation.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Associated Press)

Continue Reading

Politics

Mississippi Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade

Published

on

The Supreme Court’s decision to consider Mississippi’s restrictive abortion ban already has sweeping implications for the precedents set under the landmark reproductive rights ruling, but now the state is asking the high court to go even further.


Mississippi’s Abortion Case

Mississippi filed a brief Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade when it hears the state’s 15-week abortion ban this fall.

After months of deliberation, the high court agreed in May to hear what will be the first abortion case the 6-to-3 conservative majority will decide.

Both a district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had ruled that Mississippi could not enforce the 2018 law that banned nearly all abortions at 15 weeks with exceptions for only “severe fetal abnormality,” but not rape and incest.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law, it would undo decades of precedent set under Roe in 1973 and upheld under Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, where the court respectively ruled and reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the fetus is “viable” and can live outside the womb, which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks.

When the justices decided to hear the case, they said they would specifically examine the question of whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Depending on the scope of their decision on the Mississippi law, the court’s ruling could allow other states to pass much more restrictive abortion bans without the risk of lower courts striking down those laws.

As a result, legal experts have said the case will represent the most significant ruling on reproductive rights since Casey nearly three decades ago, and the Thursday brief raises the stakes even more.

When Mississippi asked the justices to take up its case last June, the state’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch (R), explicitly stated that the petition’s questions “do not require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey.”

But that was before the court’s conservatives solidified their supermajority with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who personally opposes abortion — following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

New Filing Takes Aim at Roe

With the new filing, it appears that Fitch views the high court’s altered makeup as an opportunity to undermine the constitutional framework that has been in place for the better part of the last century.

“The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion,” Fitch wrote in the brief, arguing that American society has changed so much that the previous rulings need to be reheard.

“Today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability,” she added, claiming the power should be left to state lawmakers. 

“Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that is decades out of date,” she continued. “The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Mississippi’s sole abortion provider in the suit against the state’s law, painted Fitch’s effort as one that will have a chilling effect on abortion rights nationwide.

“Mississippi has stunningly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and every other abortion rights decision in the last five decades,” Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the group said in a statement Thursday. “Today’s brief reveals the extreme and regressive strategy, not just of this law, but of the avalanche of abortion bans and restrictions that are being passed across the country.”

The Supreme Court has not yet said exactly when during its fall term it will hear oral arguments on the Mississippi case, but a decision is expected to come down by next June or July, as is standard.

An anticipated ruling just months before the 2022 midterms will almost certainly position abortion as a top issue at the ballot box.

See what others are saying:  (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Politico)

Continue Reading

Politics

Republicans Boycott Jan. 6 Committee After Pelosi Rejects Two of McCarthy’s Picks

Published

on

The House Minority Leader said that unless House Speaker Pelosi reinstated the two members, Republicans will launch their own investigation into the insurrection.


Pelosi Vetoes Republicans

Republicans are boycotting the select committee to investigate the insurrection after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) rejected two of the five GOP members Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) picked to serve on the panel Wednesday.

In a statement, Pelosi cited the “statements and actions” of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) and Jim Banks (R-In.), whose nominations she said she was opposing “with respect for the integrity of the investigation.”

Jordan and Banks — both staunch allies of former President Donald Trump — have helped propagate the previous leader’s false election claims, opposed efforts to investigate the insurrection, and voted not to certify the election for President Joe Biden. 

A senior Democratic aide also specifically told The Washington Post that Democrats did not want Jordan on the panel because he reportedly helped Trump strategized how to overturn the election and due to the fact he spoke to the then-president on Jan. 6, meaning there is a possibility he could be called to testify before the very same committee.

The aide also said that Democrats opposed Banks’ selection because of a statement he issued after McCarthy chose him.

In the statement, the representative compared the insurrection to the racial justice protests last summer, implied that the rioters were just normal American’s expressing their political views, and claimed the committee was a political ploy “to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”

Notably, Pelosi did say she would accept McCarthy’s three other nominees — including Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Wi.), who also voted against certifying Biden’s win.

McCarthy Threatens Separate Investigation

McCarthy, however, refused to select new members, and instead opted to remove all his appointees from the would-be bipartisan committee.

In a statement condemning the move, the minority leader said that Pelosi’s action “represents an egregious abuse of power.” 

“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth,” he said.

“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”

Pelosi defended her decision during a press conference Thursday, where she said that Banks and Jordan were “ridiculous” choices for the panel. 

“When statements are ridiculous and fall into the realm of, ‘You must be kidding,’ there’s no way that they’re going to be on the committee,” she added.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNBC)

Continue Reading