Rep. Katie Hill resigns

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well, ummm, then every Representative that has ever lied should resign immediately.

We can dream...


If only there were tabloid worthy proof of the lies, for each of them, that dream might have a chance.

a reply to: redmage

It wasn't just that Clinton lied...it is that he lied under oath. Perjury is a crime, punishable by a fine and/or jail, merely lying is not. It all depends on who you lie to and under what circumstances.

a reply to: BomSquad

Naturally, and I didn't claim that her lie was perjury.

That said, a lie is still an ethical issue, and those always create problems for elected officials in D.C. when those lies are sexual/tabloid-worthy in nature.

Had she just owned up to it, then I think there's a good chance it would have blown over. Few today take issue with marijuana use in CA or female bisexuality, and I think a majority would be understanding of an alleged "abusive ex" attempting blackmail with personal photos of such, but to publicly deny the allegations and lie creates ethical issues that aren't as easily excused.

According to wiki, Hill has a apartment with another rep in DC named Lauren Underwood....betting something pops up on her soon. Likely part of the investigation and why Hill resigned. Pelosi told her she had to so she didnt take out 2 dem reps....

a reply to: redmage

I don’t buy the whole story of “revenge porn” either to be honest.

What I do believe is since Hill was the Vice Chair to the Oversight and Reform Committee (Chaired by the late Elijah Cummings) she was the acting chair until Pelosi names the replacement and therefore in charge of a piece of the Impeachment Inquiry. That the exposure of her activities is due to keeping the Inquiry random and disorganized. Now Pelosi has to name two replacements to continue onwards.

Cue Queen’s “Another One Bites the Dust”

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I haven't really been following this sorry, but she's resigning because she was involved in a 'thrupple'?

What am I missing? Who cares?

She's probably resigning because there's a lot more about to come out of the woodwork and she had to bail as quick as possible. When the fuse of a 500 ct roll of Black Cats is lit, you run.

a reply to: redmage

Lying in public about an intensely personal issue is not something I have any issues with. I know few people who would willingly divulge personal improprieties in public.

This only issue I have with her behavior is the inappropriate relationship with a member of her staff. It's one thing to have a relationship with a co-worker if you are in different departments and not in each other's "chain of command", but if that person works for you, either directly or indirectly, that is a huge issue.

My wife and I worked for the same company, in the same building. The difference is, she worked in a completely separate department that had no direct contact with my department. I was in management, but she was not. Several times she had problems with her co-workers and sought my assistance. I had to tell her that she needed to work it out with her supervisor and/or human resources. I could not get involved.

She eventually transferred to another department at another office in a neighboring town. When she ran into issues again, I had to give her the same advice. My attitude is similar to what was expressed in the Godfather. When I have my "work hat" on, "it's nothing personal, it's strictly business." No matter how much I would like to intervene on behalf of my wife, I am bound by my code of ethics not to. I had to "recuse" myself from the situation because my personal interests could be seen to have conflicted with my professional interests. She needed to seek recourse in the avenues that were available to her without my intervention.

Eventually, when numerous departments were consolidated into a single department, many of our employees were considered redundant and were "laid off". My wife was included. I was not. I am still working for this company today. My wife has found employment elsewhere. Many of my co-workers were surprised to not only learn that she was my wife (I have no idea how they didn't know that, it wasn't a secret) and that I wasn't bitter about her getting laid off.

The reason I wasn't bitter about it (though we weren't happy about losing her income in our family budget), was that I knew the layoffs were done in a fair manner and that she was far from being alone in being let go from her position. I also knew we let go FAR too many people, she was even asked to return a few months later (she said, "No way in hell" to put it mildly), but that's another story.

The point I am trying to make (poorly) is that there can be no appearance of impropriety between a supervisor and their subordinate. Any impropriety, whether real or imagined, can open up the company (employer) to all sorts of liability issues. Want to have a relationship with a subordinate? Fine, but one of you needs to leave your professional position if that is something you want to pursue. The consequences otherwise can be far reaching beyond just your personal relationship. For better or worse, this is a lesson Katie Hill has learned (I hope).

So...in her resignation letter she states:

“However, I know that as long as I am in Congress, we'll live fearful of what might come next and how much it will hurt.

I'd like to know who the "we" in "we'll" is she refers to and a explanation of the "what may come next" means. Sounds like there is more that she already knows is out there and resigned so it wouldn't get picked up by the media.

I'm going to bet it has to do with her apartment buddy in DC...Lauren Underwood.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


I'm going to bet it has to do with her apartment buddy in DC...Lauren Underwood.

BINGO!

originally posted by: NewzNose
She was trusted as to be the decent Representative everyone voted for. Her resignation redeemed her to some, no doubt.

The only potential issue I have with this is whether or not she pressured her staffer(s) in any way. That would be oh so wrong, and worthy of punishment. It is pretty hard to believe they weren't pressured, because simply the fact that Katie is their boss is a very real form of pressure that nothing Katie does can eliminate.

I guess this is why relationships with those under your control is not only frowned upon, it is considered grounds for termination.

In this case, Katie terminated herself. So, she isn't a totally lost cause.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Katie Hill's fellow congresswoman/roomie, Lauren Underwood may have a secret history too.

‘Nurse’ Democrat Lauren Underwood Never Worked as a Nurse: Report

www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Agit8dChop

This is why older people are better. Less chance for this kind of thing.

No, people of any age with morals are better. No one I knew when we were her age and younger would have let anyone take nude pics of us, even our spouses or partners. I'm no prude but those were just stupid pics to take.

sad, she was probably a decent person getting an onslaught of bs thrown at her, the worse part is she will probably be replaced by some corrupt corporatist POS

You're not Bisexual when you're in an exclusive, committed relationship with one person. If you only want the person you are with, that excludes everyone else. Attraction is a form of desire.

If she says she's Bisexual, she was cheating on her husband - if only mentally.

Why bother getting married, if that's the case?

I'm sure her husband is no angel, but she's not either.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: ganjoa

" a rising presidential hopeful "

Is this the opening Chapter of your Next Fiction Novel ? It Stinks , in All Honesty .

I'm not the one who raised Kamala Harris to the status of Presidential hopeful.
The DNC started that pathetic rok-n-roll fantasy, not me.
Sounds like you're in agreement.

ganjoa

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

And the punishment is job loss?

Really asking.

Yes. Ethics rules state that you are not supposed to have a personal relationship with someone you're in a position of power over. In government positions this is a law. This applies not just government employees in a boss/subordinate relationship but even a government employee who is in a relationship with someone that does business with that office.

Most private businesses have similar rules in their HR policies in that two people at different levels in the same reporting chain cannot be in a relationship with each other.

The typical punishment for this is termination. In practice, it's very unlikely that Katie Hill would be expelled from Congress for this ethics violation (if only because expelling someone from Congress is extremely difficult), but resigning was the correct move.

Not only did she break the law, but she acted like a sexual predator in leveraging her position of authority over her aide to have a relationship.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Only Men get away with a Thing like this

That statement is a disingenuous false claim. Ask Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Al Franken, John Conyers, Bob Filner, Raul Bocanegra, Tony Mendoza, Ira Silverstein and many many more.

Sex Scandals