October 24, 2019
So, Katie Hill, a freshman California Democrat Congresswoman – or shall we say, Congressperson – was called out for having a sexual relationship with a female staffer, which her husband was involved in. Basically, an unsanctioned polygamy relationship – although apparently with a lesbian element between the two women (which I’m pretty sure is HARAM in Islam and definitely not allowed in Mormonism – but it may in fact go on in these other modern polygamy situations, I don’t know).
Red State broke the story (never thought I’d write that sentence) a few days ago.
Apparently, the staffer/second wife figure – and the husband, maybe – went to them, because texts were printed between Hill and the unnamed staffer. This is Hill telling the staffer that she doesn’t want to see her again, after she allegedly broke off the entire threesome, dumping both her husband and the staffer:
They censored the leaked images (and didn’t even publish most of the nudes!).
I didn’t want to see this bitch’s titties, but would have liked to know what the staffer looks like.
Anyway, this is all whatever – who gives a shit about these freaks?
But my thing here is: I’m not exactly sure why this would be considered inappropriate.
I mean, we’re shooting little boys with puberty-blocker hormones to chemically sterilize them in advance of cutting their dicks off. The state is literally mandating it. A little threesome action is the virtual ideal of sexual innocence in this modern culture.
Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., admitted Wednesday she had an “inappropriate” relationship with a campaign staffer, but denied a report of an affair with her legislative director, all while vowing to cooperate with the House Ethics Committee in its newly launched investigation.
In a letter to constituents obtained by Fox News, Hill acknowledged that in the final years of what she called an “abusive marriage,” she began a relationship with the unnamed campaign staffer.
“I know that even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate, but I still allowed it to happen despite my better judgment,” Hill wrote. “For that I apologize. I wish nothing but the best for her and hope everyone respects her privacy in this difficult time.”
She continued, “I am going through a divorce from an abusive husband who seems determined to try to humiliate me. I am disgusted that my opponents would seek to exploit such a private matter for political gain. This coordinated effort to try to destroy me and the people close to me is despicable and will not succeed. I, like many women who have faced attacks like this before, am stronger than those who want me to be afraid.”
Hill repeated her denial that she had an affair with a congressional staffer but stated that she was “fully and proactively cooperating with the Ethics Committee.”
The committee confirmed earlier Wednesday it was launching an inquiry into Hill in response to the RedState report. That same report also described her relationship with the campaign staffer as a “throuple” with Hill’s estranged husband.
“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 Rule XXIII, Clause 18(a),” Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and Ranking Member Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, wrote. They added that the panel had launched “an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.”
The statement did not indicate the committee had empaneled an “investigative subcommittee,” the equivalent of a congressional indictment.
Last week, RedState reported that Hill, who is openly bisexual, had developed a “long-term sexual relationship” with the unnamed staffer from her congressional campaign, who ultimately entered into the “throuple” with Hill’s husband, Kenny Heslep — who later filed for divorce. The three of them, according to RedState’s confidential sources, had taken multiple vacations together.
I get the “power dynamics” thing, and that there is a law against sex with staffers because of this whole Marxist interpretation of power dynamics.
However, I think we all understand that this is about older men ostensibly “exploiting” younger women.
(In actual fact, these laws are set up to ALLOW women to exploit their bosses sexually, because only the boss gets punished.)
Surely, a lesbian relationship is outside of the bounds of these established rules, is it not?
That’s certainly the argument I’d be making if I was her. I’d be crying homophobia.
Because according to the internal logic of this Marxist doctrine, both of them would have been oppressed by power dynamics both for being women and for being lesbians. Yes, Hill would have had more power than the staffer, but Hill would have been forced to date the staffer because of power dynamic oppression keeping her from seeking a lesbian relationship outside of her immediate circle. She was oppressed into having a secret lesbian relationship, so she had to do it with the staffer.