In 2019, former Rep. Katie Hill resigned from Congress after the disclosure of sexual relations with a staff member. Ordinarily, the media and various public interest groups would have been outraged and unrelenting in their “MeToo” coverage, particularly with a young staffer recently out of college. In the case of Hill, however ,media outlets like MSNBC picked up on Hill’s claim that she was subjected to a “double standard” and a “misogynistic culture.” It was the ultimate form of ironic hypocrisy where a politician claimed a double standard in being forced to resign — seeking an accommodation that was wisely denied to male colleagues in past scandals. Various male politicians from Sen. Bob Packwood to Rep. Trent Franks have resigned under such scandals. Sen. Al Franken resigned for acts that did not involve an actual sexual affair. Hill abused her position of power but somehow converted that abuse into a women’s rights issue. Hill sold that narrative and is now bizarrely treated by many as a victim. Now, Hill is suing over the coverage of her scandal in a lawsuit that challenges core protections for the media.Hill filed suit in Los Angeles Tuesday against her ex-husband, Kenneth Heslep, and the owners of Redstate.com and the Daily Mail for the publication of intimate personal material, which she describes as “nonconsensual porn.” Ironically, like President Donald Trump, Hill is challenging the “carte blanche” protections for media under the First Amendment. I was critical of Trump’s position and I am equally critical of this lawsuit.
First, I should note that I have no problem with Hill suing her ex-husband. If Heslep released revealing photos of his wife in a malicious public campaign, he is obviously subject to lawsuit. A few weeks ago, a judge granted a temporary restraining order against Heslep, ordering him to stay 100 yards away from his Hill, her relatives and her pets. (Hill claims Heslep has threatened her pets in the past).
It is claim against the media parties that concerns me the most in this action. The 41-page lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and violation of state law for distribution of intimate personal material without Hill’s consent, against defendants Salem Media Group Inc., Mail Media, Inc., writer Jennifer Van Laar (the deputy managing editor of Redstate.com), and Joseph Messina, the host of “The Real Side” Radio Show, as well as other unnamed individuals. Van Laar’s work also appeared in the the Daily Mail (which is named as a defendant).
The complaint alleges an abusive relationship with Heslep that included the posting of nude pictures of Hill on dating sites allegedly without her consent. She then blames him with launching a campaign to destroy her politically and that the media defendants assisted in that effort.
The problem is that the media often uses sources that have malice or personal reasons for their disclosures. The key is to confirm if the story is true. This is done with sources or confirmation beyond such any sources with malicious intent. You do not rely only on a source with a personal or malicious interest. In this case, Hill did not deny the affair with a young staffer or other key details. Moreover, Hill does not appear to claim that the photos were false. Just embarrassing. That would be a dangerous standard to apply to any media outlet.
RedState, a conservative site, ran revealing pictures of Hill, which she describes as “nonconsensual porn” in the suit. The complaint alleges that defendants had over 700 such images that Heslep shopped around to the media. Van Laar authored the original post and Hill announced her resignation on Oct. 27, 2019. Unlike the Packwood and other stories, the mainstream media did not cover the story until the controversy was raised on sites like RedState.
Hill insists that “Deciding who is allowed to see our naked bodies is an essential right.” However, this is about the media and a public officials. If that were true, pictures in scandals like the Julian Epstein case could be withheld by the accused individuals.
The complaint filed by attorneys Carrie Goldberg and Ashley Parris appears at points an amplification of Hill’s public campaign as a victim of her abuse of power:
“Here we reset the ideas that abuse in a woman’s past should quash their political aspirations and that public sexual humiliation is an acceptable way to vanquish a political opponent. This case pleads that everybody, even publicly elected officials and celebrities, is owed the right to sexual privacy and redress from our courts when they experience intimate partner violence.”
The complaint asserts that “All Defendants knew or should have known that Hill had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private.” The complaint notes that 46 states and the District of Columbia have criminalized the dissemination nude or sexually graphic images. However, revenge porn laws are not directed at the media but rather private parties like Heslep if he did distribute these photos. Even then, there can be countervailing or complicating issues of political speech when disclosing abuse by a public officials. There are also be claims of consent or knowledge.
The use of emotional distress claims runs against the grain of various cases, including the Westboro decision of the Supreme Court in 2011. In that case, the Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church. Westboro is infamous for its deranged, homophobic protests at funerals of fallen U.S. troops. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court refused to allow the universal disgust at Westboro’s views influence its decision. Only Justice Samuel Alito was willing to curtail free speech to punish Westboro.
The father of a fallen Marine sued the small church under claims of harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress. I have previously written that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column.
Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly subjective approach espoused by Alito in his dissent:
“Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995).
The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”
On the dissemination count, there are also seriously issues raised by the application to the media defendants. Here is the provision:
1708.85. (a) A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes by any means a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another, without the other s consent, if (1) the person knew that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, (2) the distributed material exposes an intimate body part of the other person, or shows the other person engaging in an act of intercourse, oral copulation, sodomy, or other act of sexual penetration, and (3) the other person suffers general or special damages as described in Section 48a.
(b) As used in this section, intimate body part means any portion of the genitals, and, in the case of a female, also includes any portion of the breast below the top of the areola, that is uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing.
(c) There shall be no liability on the part of the person distributing material under subdivision (a) under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The distributed material was created under an agreement by the person appearing in the material for its public use and distribution or otherwise intended by that person for public use and distribution.
(2) The person possessing or viewing the distributed material has permission from the person appearing in the material to publish by any means or post the material on an Internet Web site.
(3) The person appearing in the material waived any reasonable expectation of privacy in the distributed material by making it accessible to the general public.
(4) The distributed material constitutes a matter of public concern.
(5) The distributed material was photographed, filmed, videotaped, recorded, or otherwise reproduced in a public place and under circumstances in which the person depicted had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
(6) The distributed material was previously distributed by another person.
There are obviously a number of exceptions that can be cited by the media the defendants. Most notably, this is a scandal involving the abuse of power by a member of Congress and thus “a mater of public concern.” Second, “the distributed material was previously distributed by another person.” Finally, there is the potential conflict with the First Amendment similar to the Westboro case on the emotional distress tort action.
Once again, I have no problem with Hill going after her husband. However, the complaint is seeking a radical extension of liability for the media.
On a final note, it is notable that many of Hill’s supporters point to the fact that Bill Clinton was not forced to resign after his affair with a staffer. However, Democrats protected Clinton in that scandal, many of the same people now supporting Hill. In a strange sense, it is not a double standard. It is the same biased standard based on the identity or affiliation of the accused. We have discussed that hypocrisy in relation to other claims of sexual harassment or assault involving figures ranging from Joe Biden to Andrew Cuomo. The position in those scandals was markedly different than the one voiced in the Kavanaugh hearings. The view that “women must be believed” changed the minute that Joe Biden was accused of sexual assault and then refused to allow the review of his papers held under seal at the University of Delaware. Suddenly, figures like Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer insisted that they believed Biden without any review such papers or even speaking with the alleged victim (a former Biden staffer). Ethics experts like Richard Painter attacked those who suggested that the accuser might be telling the truth as endangering the election. Others like Rep. Iihan Omar, Linda Hirschman, and Lisa Bloom found an even more startling resolution: they stated that Biden was clearly a rapist, but they would still vote for him.
Now, in addition to claiming to be the victim of a “misogynistic culture” for being forced out for her abuse of power, Hill is now seeking to rollback on the protections afforded to the media in such cases. The media again is silent on the implications of such arguments.
“We have discussed that hypocrisy in relation to other claims of sexual harassment or assault involving figures ranging from Joe Biden to Andrew Cuomo. ”
Why don’t we ever discuss the multiple sexual harrasment and assault complaints on Donald Trump? Maybe Katie Hill should’ve grabbed her lover’s pussy.
Elvis Bug
they still givin Katie a hard time about her Iron Cross tatt? looks kewl to me. not into tatts myself but that’s a favorite among millions of people, not really any big deal
if i said to her she had a hot bod, d’ya think she’d hold it against me?
Sal Sar
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7609835/Katie-Hill-seen-showing-Nazi-era-tattoo-smoking-BONG-NAKED.html
This kind of post really detracts from the Voice In The Wilderness thing you had going. Sad.
Sorry Brad I am no prophet only a man of flesh and blood
anyhow don’t be too hard on Katie. Girls just wanna have fun! Reminds me, here’s a fantastic song from Mexico, Jenny Rivera singing that she’s a woman of flesh and bone. a favorite!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYKGIMRdxb0
Sal Sar
I can’t read the garbage you write any more, Turley, because you have so demeaned yourself and your education by becoming nothing more than a Fox News shill–your assignment is to attack mainstream media while ignoring important news stories that could benefit from your expertise– like Trump’s threat to impose martial law, what happens if Republicans refuse to confirm Biden’s victory and try to acknowledge votes from electors who don’t represent their states. How about what to do if Trump refuses to leave the White House, or how he has done absolutely nothing since losing the election other than stew over his loss, whine about nonexistent fraud, and abuse the pardon power by pardoning people who don’t deserve pardons. These are bigger stories with much broader implications for all of America than today’s stupid story. You are becoming predictable, and it’s really sad.
Natasha, Trump’s threats to impose martial law should be the paramount issue now to any law professor calling himself a ‘constitutional scholar’. The fact that Turley won’t even address this subject shows, beyond a doubt, where his sentiments lie.
IS NATCH FINALLY GONNA SPLIT AND QUIT FLINGING VERBAL DUNG HERE EVERY DAY!
HALLELUJAH!
Natch can not afford to quit her job at Trolls Inc.
Well, nothing much, of course, except a fourth Middle-East peace deal. Of course, if Obama had brokered deals among Israel and four Arab states, the media would have clamored for him to get a second Nobel. But since it’s Trump, it doesn’t count. Because, of course, “Orange Man Bad,” so nothing good he did can be noted or counted.
You need to stop watching Fox. These “brokered deals” are nothing. All of these countries had already been informally trading with Israel up to now. Anything to make the sloppy fat loser stinking up our White House look successful.
Ellen, we’ve never seen your name before. Just popped out of nowhere?
What’s The Issue Here?
1) Revenge Porn And Media Reprints?
2) Alleged Suppression Of Katie Hill Story?
3) Democrats Supporting Clinton But Not Hill?
Since Donald Trump’s defeat, Professor Turley keeps scrounging up issues he feels should be embarrassing to Democrats. Turley then makes knee-jerk claims that mainstream media is suppressing the story.
The Katie Hill affair got enough media attention to force her resignation from Congress less than a year into her first term. Therefore Turley’s claims that the media ignored Hill’s indiscretions is simply not true.
Hill, however, has a right to raise the issue concerning media reprints of Revenge Porn. There should be clarity on this matter. ‘Should disgruntled ex-partners have a right to take revenge porn to media outlets’?
The question of Revenge Porn and media reprints is the ONLY issue to be considered here. But Professor Turley feels an obsessive need (since Trump’s defeat) to make every column a laundry list of What Abouts.
the thing about law school, is that professors do that in every class discussion every day,. what about this and that
so it’s not stranger nor sinister that is Turley’s approach
we call it socratic dialogue. there was an old greek guy…. oh just forget it.
Sal Sar
Is she queer?
switch hitter
How do you feel about non-disclosure agreements for Trump’s affairs with porn stars? And the National Enquirer catch and kill scandal involving those stories.
I mean, the double standard here is that a rich guy (Republican) should be able to prevent his affairs from being exposed or pictures released if he can afford it. But if it is a not so well to do woman, then she just has to accept it.
Non-Disclosure Agreement….a Contract between parties that sets forth an agreement where an action is undertaken by both parties by mutual agreement usually involving payment from one to another for the agreement.
In the case you mention….it is alleged the Porn Star happily engaged in a sexual relationship with a Man who later became the US President.
At some point that Man and the Porn Star mutually determined an agreement where she would not discuss the matter and in return was paid some sum of money for that agreement.
Tell me where the harm in that is?
The very same Porn Star has engaged in lots of sex acts for money in her working career and was quite happy to do so.
Think not….hit Pornhub and watch her perform all sorts of acts with many Men….sometimes with many men at one time.
Though we find clandestine meetings with such Women by a Married Man to be objectionable and cause us to think poorly of that Man….it is not illegal.
But…if we look at the media treatment of that situation we should also consider the media’s attention to the Hill Case….and now the Law Suit filed by. her.
Let’s use the Good Professor’s standards….what is the ascertainable truth obtained from multiple sources that was published….was what was published true?
If so….there is no case against the media in either the Trump or Hill situations…..if the media did not publish the truth in either case then they are culpable and at risk for losing in their defense of themselves.
The case against the Hubby is far easier….and upon determining his “fingerprints” determine him to be the original leaker of those videos and photos….he is going to lose in Court.
Likewise….the argument is not about the leaked material being true or false….Hill’s case confirms they were true.
We all know about Ms Hill and her sexual activities as a result….that is her reputation gone, her Office in Congress gone, and now this is her legacy.
As we have been taught…..the truth shall find you out!
Trump has forced public employees working in the WH to sign NDAs. Does that concern you?
You ignore Trump’s defamation of Daniels. He still hasn’t admitted to it. Do you like having a liar for a President?
You ignore Trump’s involvement in campaign finance law violations in how he arranged with his felon lawyer Michael Cohen to hide the payment to Daniels. Do you like having a President who breaks the law and gets away with it?
You’re a closet lesbian, you get naked, do a little porn, video or photo your performance, run for office, pi*# your X male husband off, then think nobody is ever going to see your performance? Yea right!
I wonder who was behind the camera on the non selfie’s?
Nice to know that you don’t mind her ex-husband breaking the law, your condemnation is only for her.
If you feel so strongly that he broke the law contact her and tell her you’ll handle her case.
She already has a lawyer handling the case. Jeez, man, did you even read the article? She has already filed suit against him.
Jeez AW, I read the article but you seem to think he’s guilty and obviously you must have proof positive of same. So AW I repeat contact her and take the case. Jeez!
So any time you think someone is guilty, it’s because you have proof positive of same, and you’ll contact the victim and offer to be their lawyer, got it.
You never ever ever conclude that someone is guilty on the basis of the available evidence and the fact that the person hasn’t proclaimed their innocence. Clearly that would be inappropriate, and you condemn everyone who does it.
Perhaps you missed the point being made….it is her via her Lawyers who drafted the Suit that the good Professor is saying goes too far in its attempt to succeed in its effort.
He does not object at all with the Suit targeting the Husband who leaked the photos and video.
That tells me the Good Professor sees a Wrong that can be addressed by the Court.
What he challenges is the attack on the Media and its long standing special treatment under the law that assures it can post the truth without challenge to its doing so or even its. motives for doing so.
That is a saw that cuts two ways…..as long as the media is publishing the “truth”…and does not knowingly publish something that is false then the press is protected by law.
When the media/press intentionally reports something they know is false that those protections go away.
This is about the Law….not politics, gender, race, party affiliation, or political persuasion of the parties of the Suit….it is all about the Law.
The Good Professor is a darn good Lawyer and undetrstandds the Law…..do you?
Turley desperately tries to make Katie Hill today’s biggest story. Trump just publicly vowed to end the political career of a high ranking Republican Senator who had the audacity to say the Electoral College has now certified that Biden won the election. Trump just pardoned 2 Republican Congressmen who were convicted & sentenced to prison for stealing campaign funds & other corruption charges. Trump just pardoned government contractors who were convicted of a massacre of innocent civilians in Iraq. Trump, his attorneys & numerous GOP House members refuse to accept the results of numerous state recounts & over 50 judicial reviews which verified that after every legal vote was counted, Biden is offcially our president-elect.
Meanwhile Turley presents his case about hypocrisy & double standards as it relates to Katie Hill. It all boils down to playing to the base, right?
Trump saying what he did is politics….not a violation of the Law.
Professor Turley debates issues dealing with the Law.
Do learn the difference and your life will become a lot more pleasant and reduce a lot of hate and bitterness in your life.
Trump is pardoning Duncan Hunter, a former California congressman who pleaded guilty to a campaign finance violation last year after using campaign funds to pay for extra-marital affairs with five different women.
He’s pardoning Chris Collins, a former New York congressman convicted for securities fraud.
He’s pardoning George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, both of whom pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during the Russia investigation. Trump has now used his clemency power on four people charged in the Russia investigation.
He’s pardoning the Blackwater guards convicted of massacring 14 civilians, including 2 kids.
Yep, these men are undeniably worthy of pardons. And it makes sense, after all Trump is fond of pardoning supporters and war criminals.
Or maybe there are legal issues to discuss in Trump’s pardons and what kind of message they send.
Can I do the discovery for the defense? Pretty please.
Based on your performance here, why would anyone hire you as a lawyer?
Probably a lot of people. I likely would.
Yep, conspiracy theorists and bigots would be happy to hire mesblow. I bet Squeaky would hire him. Where is she these days? Still sulking from the election loss?
you guys obviously don’t understand how regular people choose lawyers.
it has very little to do with politics except as politics relates to social networks and word of mouth
it also is usually a very focused search that takes account of narrow information and not broad. mostly it depends on advertising which is very narrowly focused on supplying relevant information based on user search terms
unless we are talking big companies and billionaires. they hire lawyers full time and then those lawyers cultivate relations in big firms
then, that’s where the sucking up and political correctness comes in
lawyers in big law firms are all mindless automatons, robots, well paid slaves ,nothing more
the only thing they’ve proven to be good at before they get hired, is doing a lot of homework,
and having a track record of banality and obedience
big law firm lawyers won’t read this and be offended, see, because THEY DONT READ STUFF LIKE THIS AT ALL
SS
Young:
Yep and we’d sure take you — with the Turley discount, of course. 😀
I think there will have to be a lottery to see who does Hill’s depo. And I am sure they will do it pro bono.
Aninny:
“Based on your performance here, why would anyone hire you as a lawyer?”
******************************************
I think we’ve now handled over 9000 cases and have a current case load during the pandemic of around 375. We even handled two cases referred from JT’s blog with good results.
Sorry, Aninny but we wouldn’t take you on. You have to be credible first.
I have no need for a lawyer, but if I did, I certainly wouldn’t hire you Marky.
Here’s betting you will.
Anon, did you ever get around to shining Mespo’s shoes?
I’m sure the gratuity would be generous if you did a good job.
Of course, I know that JOB is a dirty 3 letter word to a troll who wants to get paid just for breathing air and taking up space.
You’re a troll, Rhodesy, so you would know.
Mendacity and hypocrisy go hand in hand. Protect the First Amendment
Women across the country are laughing at her
What were the idiots thinking with the # (Pound) MeToo meme when they came up with it?!
Katie has said she is bisexual. So she may want to just go full lesbian at this point, as it appears that she has a history of problems with men.
I used to be bisexual until I learned how much fun it is to be with little boys. They really dig me.
For all you Trumpters claiming religious superiority, if it were not for religion I would be the leader of NAMBLA.
An interesting thing, Rhodes. I liked your comment, and somehow it got unliked. Liked it, again, and it got unliked, again. Not sure what’s going on there.
Diogenes, you ‘are’ Rhodes; just commenting to yourself.
Anon ChiCom. I have to admit that it is quite entertaining that I live inside your feeble pinhead to the extent that you are constantly seeing imaginary Rhodes’.
Diogenes, I have no idea, as I have never utilized FB, Twitter, etc.
someone told me there are two kinds of lesbians. not sure if this is a legit generalization or not. i dont’ have much experience with them
type a is the undersexed kind. type b is the oversexed kind
the proponent of this hypothesis claimed lipstick lesbos like katie hill were the oversexed kind and butches usually the opposite
this was all before the tranny stuff caught on. now, who knows!
I could not possibly care any less about Hill, the stupid slut got herself into this mess and fully deserves all the grief that has befallen her.
I do care about the Freedom of the Press and pray that the courts toss out her frivolous lawsuits.
In the 1980’s and previous years, most reputable newspapers required a “written release consent form” from anyone identifiable in any photograph before it could be published. This included photographs recorded on public property. Many Americans – without consent – have their personal photos and private information published today on Facebook and social media. Not by Facebook members but by their family or friends without permission.
Also do children have any rights here? Can they remove information from social media posted by others when they turn 18 years old? Kids today have their entire life history posted online without their consent. This information can be abused by criminals, future employers or anyone.
The question is was this practice protected by the “Federal Copyright law of 1978” and when was that federal law overturned? Do we need a new one for social media and electronic publishing?
What do you call a person who does something wrong then sues the damaged party and the media? A politician. A corrupt, worthless politician. Coming from the “everyone’s a victim” party in an era in which the party is advocating systemic racism into every institution, it isn’t surprising.
A money hungry plaintiff
Is that a blue dress she’s wearing? C’mon, man!!
Those who forget history are doomed to embarrass it — Diogenes the Younger
At this very moment, Trump is fighting a court order to provide a DNA sample in a defamation case linked to a rape accusation. His DNA would be tested against a sample on another dress.
He has tried to rope the DOJ into defending him. The court ruled against allowing the DOJ to take over, and the DOJ is appealing.
I’m sure that you want the court to rule against the DOJ again and for Trump to provide the DNA sample. C’mon man!!
Don’t change the subject. I just want to know if it’s Joe’s or Kamala’s. Inquiring minds want to know!
You’re not an “Inquiring mind”. Is there a mouse in your pocket?
You ChiCom’s are renowned for eating Rats, Joey.
Are you hankering for some fried rice with mouse?
Interesting. A bad divorce releases materials that someone finds embarrassing and resigns. Now she wants to sue saying she is a victim of the bad behavior? I certainly feel bad for the release because of the divorce. They can turn into such nasty incidents. However I am trying to find how she is a victim. As far as I understand, she willingly participated in the affairs. I have not heard the pictures were taken in secret. She wa a forced out due to her behavior. I am not sure where the victim hood is in this case. I understand she is angry and embarrassed and would not have had her affairs and pictures released. It cost her political career. Yet it was the House rules that forced her out and she was treated like the men. I do not see a double standard in this case.
The photos are from her marriage, not from her affair.
She consented to the photos being taken but not to them being distributed to others. Her husband committed a crime by distributing them. Read the law that JT quoted: (a) A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes by any means a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another, without the other s consent, if (1) the person knew that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, (2) the distributed material exposes an intimate body part of the other person, or shows the other person engaging in an act of intercourse, oral copulation, sodomy, or other act of sexual penetration, and (3) the other person suffers general or special damages as described in Section 48a.
She is playing the invisible victim cared Quiet Man
Discovery in this case is going to be great. I hope it makes it past anti SLAPP so we can depose her.
Katie Hill is an exemplar of collective moral decay. She also carries with her a charming assumption – common among women born after about 1938 – that it’s illegitimate to hold her accountable for anything.
Fortunately Deco, we at least have a president of exemplary moral character. No wonder you are such steady supporter.
Yep, Trump is President “No I don’t take responsibility at all,” but you won’t find Arty saying that Trump carries with him a charming assumption – common among men born after about 1938 – that it’s illegitimate to hold him accountable for anything.
He doesn’t carry that assumption. He does refuse to make public apologies. The demand for such apologies is media gamesmanship and never done in good faith.
In March, Trump literally said “No, I don’t take responsibility at all” when asked whether he took any responsibility for the lag in coronavirus testing, after he’d lied and said that anyone who wanted a test could get one.
He wasn’t asked for an apology.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4861158/user-clip-no-dont-responsibility-all
In March, Trump literally said “No, I don’t take responsibility at all” when asked whether he took any responsibility for the lag in coronavirus testing,
The people responsible were officials of the permanent government in the FDA and the CDC. Of course he didn’t take responsibility. Nothing he did do or did not do caused the lag.
He could have used the DPA to ramp up production of testing kits if he’s wanted to.
Trump is the opposite of President “The Buck Stops Here” Truman
“The President — whoever he is — has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.”
Now you’ve changed the subject. The delay in the testing was caused by the CDCs insistence on developing its own test and the FDA’s insistence that the test be able to distinguish between COVID and the SARS virus. There are hardly any available samples of the SARS virus. There were other SNAFUs, all of them occurring several layers deep in the bureaucracy.
Ahh…the autopsy of a failed presidency.
Elvis Bug
No, I’m not changing the topic. Trump said on March 6 that “Anybody that wants a test (for the coronavirus) can get a test.” He was lying, and then when asked about the lack of availability of the tests a week later, he said he took no responsibility for it.
The tests were already developed at that point, but there weren’t enough of them available, and he as President could have made sure that there were enough tests.
You also seem confused about being able to distinguish between COVID and the SARS virus. The tests test for the virus. COVID is the disease that some people infected with the virus develop.
No, I’m not changing the topic. Trump said on March 6 that “Anybody that wants a test (for the coronavirus) can get a test.” He was lying, and then when asked about the lack of availability of the tests a week later, he said he took no responsibility for it.
Let’s see the full quotation, in context.
Here you go.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-tour-centers-disease-control-prevention-atlanta-ga/
You voted for the Biden Crime Family. Piss off.
Deco, KMA. I voted for Joe Biden, an unlike our President, he is not “individual 1” in a criminal case nor has he been cited by a special prosecutor for 10 incidents of obstruction of justice, being investigated by state prosecutors for criminal offenses, and sued by numerous women for assault.
Comrade Joseph:
Tara Reade. Whatever happened to her? Bidenized? As for “individual 1,” give it time.
nor has he been cited by a special prosecutor for 10 incidents of obstruction of justice,
What’s amusing about you and your son is that the two of you pretend to take this seriously. If we had a responsible US Attorney in Frisco, someone’s kid would be out on the curb.
I had a client who was an unindicted co conspirator and had his house searched. after some consultations, decided to wait and see.
that was about a decade ago and he just passed. swell guy
you know why they name some people as unindicted co conspirators? well if you’ve ever written a complaint it makes sense because you may have to add a person to certain crimes to make them a go
but they dont indict them, why?
BECAUSE THEY LACK EVIDENCE THAT’S WHY
but for some simpletons they always believe the government that the unindicted co conpirator just MUST be guilty
and usually these are the same people who run around calling stuff “conspiracy theories”
they believe every fake and weak government conspiracy hypothesis,
and habitually disbelieve every well founded anti-government conspiracy hypothesis
this is because they are IRON HEEL BOOTLICKERS
Saloth Sar
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm read “The Iron Heel” but the great Jack London at the link
In this case, he was unindicted because of OLC guidance blocking indictment of sitting presidents. Evidence? He’s on tape and signed the check.
Elvis Bug
“Individual 1″…..not yet! “Big Guy”, “My Guy”….shall certainly find himself promoted to “Individual 1” if the current Biden Investigation is done properly and Groping Joe is found to be directly involved.
It is coming……count on it.
You on the Left best pray he does not live to see the 2022 Election where you lose the House as then you can count on Articles of Impeachment coming forth to a Senate held by the Republicans.
However, relax there is an insurance policy in place already….called Kamala Harris.
Just as in the Clinton Impeachment…..Al Gore was Bubba’s Insurance policy.
One should be a student of history.
More evidence that Washington is full of low class people.
In normal society, Ms. Hill would have moved away to rebuild her life in a less public role.
But Washington wallows in narcissism so these people keep coming back.
The shamelessness is startling; look at Lisa Page – she cheated on her husband, was the architect of her childrens’ humiliation, and now she presents herself as the victim.
And the Dems love them – look at the number of followers Ms. page has on Twitter.
Hill’s action is the definition of ‘chutzpah’. What a disgrace she is, good riddance to her!
Yeah monument, good thing we at least have a president of such high moral fiber.
friday:
I hope that in real life you are more interesting; on this blog, you are a bore.
Yeah monument, nothing more boring than being ticketed by the morality police, your usual job.
But hey, I especially liked your “Washington is full of low class people.” It just made me think of examples of that and low and behold ….. Well, only 20 some odd days left, emphasis on the “odd”.
I suspect in real life he’s just as tiresome as he is here.
Joey D has all of the moral fiber of Bubba Clinton.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
He looks like death…..check for his recent images or video appearances. the face of evil