SIO215: The Case of Rep. Katie Hill

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only, this is episode 215, I'm Thomas, that's Jamie, how you doing, Jamie?

0:00:35 Jamie: I'm doing pretty well, Thomas, how are you?

0:00:36 Thomas: Doing well, another deep dive for everybody today, you know, we had some stuff left over we're gonna talk about on Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't know, maybe we'll leave that, I don't know if we, we'll do something else, let it, just let it suffice to say, we have plenty of stuff we meant to get to, but we kinda ran out of time, and some people chimed in with that stuff, and that's, that's all cool. I'm glad to hear it. But a lot of it was like, we just, you know, we had a lot of notes and in the 60 minutes we got to what we could get to. But I think that episode holds up really well and timed great with the fact that Tulsi is now not really pretending anymore. Don't you think?

0:01:17 Jamie: Yeah, I suspect we're going to be going back to that, because I'm anticipating her pulling some more nonsense out of thin air, given that she's not going to run for re-election for Congress anymore. So, can't wait to see what that's about.

0:01:30 Thomas: Yeah, I really am Curious. Yeah. Well, I think so. That was something I was going to talk to you. I know we both said like, oh, we got everything from our notes. And then afterwards, I realized there was a bunch of notes I missed. But but she uh she has an actual progressive challenger I think now and uh I'm pretty sure she realizes she wasn't going to win that primary race so maybe that's why she's not running again. I mean it can't be to focus on her certain loser presidential campaign, like that, that wouldn't really be why she is not. Anyway, so that's Tulsi. We maybe that it's worth covering it more. A lot of people talked about her cult upbringing, which was something we didn't really touch on for different reasons. But today we've got to talk about this Katie Hill situation. There's so much here. There are a lot of threads on this.

0:02:19 Thomas: And for me anyway, it's like if you focus on any one of them, there's a lot to talk about. But I think it's also important in this case to keep track of a lot of what's going on and not just focus in on one thing to the exclusion of another. Because I guess to introduce it for me, I think it's absolutely possible for somebody to be the victim of something, which Katie Hill definitely is, but also potentially have done some unethical things that would result in her resigning. So that's kind of where I'm coming from, but we're going to talk it through and see what we think. So do you want to start us off on Katie Hill?

0:02:59 Jamie: Yeah, so actually, I'm kind of disappointed because I am worried now we're not going have that much to disagree about. Out, um, I, I agree, I think you've summed it up accurately. There's certainly, um, enough here for feminists, um, or just, you know, decent thinking people in general to be upset about. Um, it's definitely the case, um, that there is misogyny at play here. Um, this definitely came to light because of revenge porn. Um, this, you know, is exacerbated by the fact that she also has, you know, the marginalized identity of being bisexual as well as in a polyamorous relationship. However, um, none of that changes the fact that she engaged in behavior that was unethical, inappropriate, and according to the rules the House had adopted after she was elected, warranted an ethics investigation for which, you know, she resigned in order to avoid. And personally, I find it really uncomfortable, um, in the way that a lot of people have sort of rushed to her defense because of the way she is legitimately a victim, um, and sort of are overlooking, um, her own sins that she admits to in this. Yeah.

0:04:25 Thomas: Absolutely. I just want to star off with one thing though. I think we can all agree on this, but it bears, um, I think it's important to, to just lead off right off the bat. It is absolutely not okay to ever share a post pictures of somebody nude without their consent in any way. That's not okay. Uh, her husband should face, I Think whatever the, you know, whatever the punishment would be, whatever, the jurisdiction, I hope there's good laws in, uh, if it's either California or DC, I don't know what, you Know, specifically how that works, but, uh one way or the other, I think they both have some sort of revenge porn laws. Uh, and so I hope that she pursues that. And I hope that he's punished for that because that's horrible. Um, there's, and it's, it's a lot to in delving into all this.

0:05:10 Thomas: It is just, there are so many things that pissed me off about that situation so much, um, because he shared so many photos that wouldn't have even been necessary under the stupid logic that they even had like, Oh, well, it was important to establish that there was a relationship, but like that clearly wasn't the motivation based on what he shared with, with different journalistic outlets. So that's not okay at all. And I just want to come out strong saying no matter anything about Katie Hill and what, you know, what we think she should or shouldn't do after this, or, or whether or not she engaged in any unethical behavior, that part isn't okay regardless. So I just want to make sure that is stated. I also wanted to run this by you. This is something I hadn't thought about really consciously.

0:05:58 Thomas: I saw some people talking about just how bad the term revenge porn is. And I was thinking about it like, yeah, that is a really bad term because it's almost like if we called rape revenge sex or something, it's like that's not what it is. What do mean? It's not, it's not really porn. You know what I mean? Like it, I think contained in that phrase is already a lot of bad misconceptions about what's going on there. What did you think about that?

0:06:28 Jamie: So that's interesting, I hadn't seen those comments. So I'm sort of responding to it now kind of off the cuff, and I definitely need to spend more time thinking it through. But I think that's really interesting. And I think that raises something worth thinking about. You know, you're right, like the way that we frame that suggests, you one way of looking at it that sort of obscures that this is itself a a violation.

0:06:39 Thomas: Right. Yeah.

0:06:58 Jamie: And, you know, you mentioned it earlier, if someone consents to their photos being taken, consent is not transferable. And, you know, if I consent to my lover to take a photo, I'm not consenting to him or her sharing that photo with somebody else. And so you're right, when you talk about revenge porn, we have this conception of porn as, you know, to be consumed, presumed pleasurably for enjoyment, setting aside all of the criticisms of porn. And there's the sense of betrayal that is inherent to what is happening here really does get overlooked when you frame it as revenge porn. I hadn't thought of that before.

0:07:37 Thomas: Yeah, we really need to come up with, and I don't know if anybody has or seen a good term, let me know. It would be, there's got to be a better, a better term. And I don't think anybody like maliciously came up with that term as a way to normalize it. I think it just kind of evolved out of a lot of our background assumptions and, and also the fact that they're posted on porn sites often, like there are people who will just post the pictures on porn websites. And so it's described as porn in that way, but like, it really should be what, like something that is some phrase that captures the fact that it's a non-consensual and B like it's, it's a, it an invasion. It's an assault of, of, uh, it, it almost, it a sexual assault in a certain way. I mean, I don't know what that phrase would be, but it really feels like there ought to be something better.

0:08:24 Jamie: Yeah, I think you're right. I think, yeah, I Think you're absolutely right.

0:08:28 Thomas: Like, what would they have called it back in the day? And God knows, I'm sure this happened at some point before the internet. If somebody just like printed out naked pictures of somebody and posted them, you know, around a place physically without their consent. I mean what would that have been called? Revenge porn? Or is that like, Don't know. I don't what it would be.

0:08:44 Jamie: Yeah, I'm not. I'm not sure how that would be classified. I think you're right, though, that it should be understood as a as a type of sexual assault and a violation um, and I think that you know that gets at what a lot of people were talking about regarding the double standards for how men are allowed to enjoy sex and women aren't, um, and when you frame it as revenge porn, I think now that I'm thinking about this all off the cup, so I may change my mind about what I'm saying right now later but it sort of suggests this idea that, you know, her sexualized image out in the public is for other people to enjoy, and her sexuality is not a thing for herself. And I think that's why trying to reframe this in terms of assault would actually really get at something helpful in understanding just how negative an impact it can have on a person. Yeah,

0:08:47 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think while we're on this particular topic, maybe we can talk about this component first. Um, I, you know, we could go through the timeline, I guess, but I just have to say, and I guess this will be an explicit episode because I just Have to give a hearty, uh, fuck off to some, some people online. Like there there's, there's even an LA times opinion that I like, I know it's the opinion section. So I'm, I'm going to, I Guess I won't blame the entire LA Times, but it says, opinion, Katie Hill somehow missed the lesson of Anthony Weiner, never take photos. Okay. I've done a ton of research into this and I've seen a lot of what's gone on here. Every single photo I believe that's been published has been blurred out and censored, but she didn't take any of them.

0:10:31 Thomas: Like it's saying never take photos. Fuck off. All of these were taken by the husband. Like every single photo that I've come across in any of these articles that this right wing red state bullshit blog posted, and also the Daily, what is it? The Daily Mirror or whatever, that Daily Mail, one of those, uh, they had the other major, um, article that had a bunch of photos. Every single one was not taken by Katie Hill. So to conflate this with Anthony fucking Wiener, who's sending dick pics to minors and shit at all, is just so insulting and it's off base. It's not a fair comparison whatsoever. She very much could have I mean, it does look like some of these she kind of posed for or whatever but it very easily could have been the case that she didn't even know any of these were taken.

0:11:18 Thomas: Like depending on which ones he had shared that the husband had ex-husband had shared with, with these websites. There's no amount of never taking photos that can protect a woman from this. And it's insulting to suggest otherwise.

0:11:33 Jamie: I might even stake out a position a bit more extreme than that. One, I don't care if she did take these photos herself. We need to and I think this is a criticism that people have been getting right from what I've seen we need to permit women the sexual autonomy to engage in sexual behavior that they enjoy, and that includes, you know, if they so want, taking and sending nude photographs of themselves. We need to sort of set this aside, that if a woman or a man, for that matter, wants to run for political office, that they're somehow not going to behave in what are now totally normal and mundane aspects of modern dating and relationships. Nudes are just so commonplace that to say we should just nobody should ever take them is just to not be living in the real world.

0:11:43 Thomas: Yeah.

0:12:31 Jamie: And like moral prescriptions are of absolutely no value if they're not actually going to guide us in the behavior we actually carry out. Secondly, you made a good point. Anthony Weiner's nudes were sent to people who did not want them. They were sent to minors. This is an entirely different category. And it just further reinforces the way that we shame and stigma, stigmatize women for engaging in sex acts. And this is, you know, similar to a comment that that someone had made online whose name I'm forgetting. At the moment, she was a law professor somewhere. But she had said that we tend tend to shame women more for consensual acts than we do men for non-consensual acts.

0:13:12 Jamie: And I think this is an excellent example of the way that we do that, because we're conflating Katie Hill's consensual involvement in these relationships to Anthony Weiner's pursuit of, of people who were not consenting to seeing his penis. And they're not the same. They're just not. Beyond that, though, I think something really that isn't getting stressed enough off is that Katie Hill did not resign because of the photos. Katie Hill was not simply shamed out of Congress because of naked photos she took with, you know, fully consenting, ethically consistent, non-problematic relationships. Katie Hill was forced to resign because what these brought to light is that she was engaged in an inappropriate relationship with at least one of her staffers.

0:13:11 Thomas: Yeah. I

0:14:05 Jamie: And I think we're too quick to sort of overlook that because of the violation that took place. And I think we need to be able to pay attention to both while we while we talk about this.

0:14:17 Thomas: Totally agree. I was going to get to that. I also want to say, totally agree on the you're absolutely not taking a more extreme position, I don't think that should be extreme at all. I meant to kind of go through two levels of this fucking LA Times opinion thing. Like on one level, she didn't even take the photos. And on the second level, you're right, she has every right to be able to take photos whenever, and every woman has any person has the right to be able take photos and the expectation that somebody isn't going to violate their consent and distribute them with without their consent. Like, that. That's an assault.

You have the right to be able to expect that that's not going to happen. And one thing I wanted to go over did you happen to see, the it's kind, it's hard because this is a Pelosi quote, but based on like hearsay, it's not a direct quote she gave anyone, but did you have to see that she said uh, allegedly, you know, this was like from sources, you know, kind of thing. Like, it's not a this is not a quote she she gave, but according to sources, she said something like like it goes to show you, we should say to young candidates and to kids in kindergarten, really be careful when transmitting photos. And I, yeah,

0:14:51 Jamie: Right.

0:15:10 Jamie: I'm not sure you want to read it?

0:15:33 Jamie: Okay boomer.

0:15:34 Thomas: Yeah. Like on one so this, this has me frustrated. And I think that, again, she didn't transmit shit, you know. Like, so factually, why are you why even commenting on something that doesn't have any relevance to the actual situation? Situation. But on the other hand, I, I wanted to ask you this what is your opinion on, while I fully, fully agree that like we need to just recognize that this is a normal part of human sexuality in the age of, you know, smartphones, like it just is, it's not, you know, like that the option isn't for everybody in the world to change their consensual normal behavior, it's that we need to punish any sort of, uh, for lack of a better term, revenge porn kind of thing, and that shouldn't be be expectation.

0:16:20 Thomas: But I do wonder, is there a like, when it comes to, I don't know, raising kids or something, like, is it fair to is it fair to, in your opinion, Jamie, I guess I'm just asking, you know, like this could come up for me in parenting like, is it faire to say that, yes, you should be very careful who you might be sending pictures to, in that try to gauge whether or not they're a shitty person who might violate your consent? You know, is their way to to do that that doesn't also, like, you slut shame or shame somebody for expressing their sexuality in a healthy way? It's

0:16:55 Jamie: So I'm not short, because, you know, even the idea to be cautious about it is itself parasitic on the idea that there's something, something shameful, and that you should rightfully be embarrassed about regarding what you're doing. And I'm not sure how to unpack those things. Because I think it's, yeah,

0:17:13 Thomas: Not being embarrassed about it's about, like, even though I'm fully comfortable with like certain exchanges involving my body, it doesn't mean that I want everybody in the world to see my naked body. It so doesn't mean that it's inherently shameful full or something.

0:17:28 Jamie: So I, you know, I'm just, I'm not sure, you know, like, if, if we dug down deep enough, if, you know, the reason that you're not comfortable with everybody seeing your naked body isn't because of some sort of, like, internalized subconscious, like, hangups about the vulnerability involved in being naked. And what people will think about your naked body versus other perhaps idealized naked bodies. And maybe that's not it, I don't know. That's sort of like my first intuition. I think it's you're right, though, and oh my God, I'm closer to this than I am in any way ready for, because I have an 11-year-old with a smartphone, um, yeah, yeah, it's terrifying, um, there is definitely a need, though, to to teach internet safety and to teach caution and to say, hey, you know, be careful, anything once it's out there, you don't have control over it, um, and you, I don't know how to how to quite balance that yeah

0:18:06 Thomas: Yeah. Yikes. Yeah. Yeah, that's kind of what I'm feeling too. It is the balance. Like, I absolutely do not want to reinforce any negative, you now, kind of feelings about what is obviously healthy behavior. But at the same time, you want to be like, OK, at least, you know, maybe you trust somebody now, but just be aware that they'll have this forever, and maybe you won't trust them later. It's like being cautious about it, I guess, seems healthy. On the other hand, what I absolutely do intend on trying to instill in my, my son, is like, you should never pressure anybody for nude, because that seems to be I've read about this becoming an alarming trend, you know, like so much pressure for, you know, girls to send nudes in high school and stuff.

0:19:20 Thomas: It's just like horrifying and there should never be any any pressure like that. And so it's I don't want this to all be a burden on, you women, obviously.

0:19:29 Jamie: And so I think that's something that is going to have to change. But I think just our sexual mores are going to having to change more broadly. I think a lot of this is caught up in our gendered expectations about who's allowed to like sex, who's allowed to want sex, pursue sex, um, and there are a lot of disparities here, um, that haven't meaningfully been addressed. And I think this may be, you know, the beginning of a turning point, hopefully.

0:20:01 Thomas: Getting back to this ex ex husband and how he's a piece of shit, though, regardless of the fact that like there's lots of allegations that Katie Hill might have been kind of abusive in some ways in this relationship. And, you know, we obviously we can't know about any of that for sure. But what I do know for sure is this piece of shit ex-husband shared like hundreds of nudes with journalists that like for what possible purpose? You know, like ostensibly the Red State blog thingy said, well, we, you know, this was important because there was an alleged relationship. And so we shared censored versions of a photo to demonstrate that the relationship was there. But like they're also, he also shared a picture he had posted on Reddit of her in like 2016 or 15 that was just like a Reddit thread where people post pictures of their wives or whatever. What possible relevance would that have to anything other than trying to shame her, her and to like embarrass her publicly.

0:21:04 Jamie: So to be clear, I think we can like both like stop pretending that Red State is doing this out of like any altruistic notion because they like care about, you know, the the functioning of Congress. Like, give me a break. Um, and some of these photos are absolutely gratuitous. If they merely wanted to corroborate the claims, there are non-sexually explicit photos that they could have limited this to. Um, and again, I don't know that I'm ever going to forgive you for this because I actually went to Red State and and read through their articles, um, and there, there are photos of Katie Hill kissing the female staffer.

That's enough. Nobody, you know, kisses somebody else on the mouth who is one of their employees, unless they're engaged in some kind of romantic relationship. That sufficient to corroborate the claims, as well as the text messages that are there. And so it was just completely gratuitous. And this, I think, was done to shame her and embarrass her and to do the work of the clearly abusive ex-husband, um, which I think ties into, you know, the issues that are mostly being overlooked. You know, this husband is clearly abusive, um, but it seems like this polyamorous relationship they had was also abusive, um, which

0:21:10 Thomas: Right. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:22:25 Jamie: Impacted the staffer's life and professional aspirations, her social circle, and this sort of bled into everything. And you know, we're so concerned, and this is, this is the real double standard that I've noticed, and it's really stood out to me, where people have been so quick to rush to Katie Hill's defense because of the way that she has been violated, and that's true, but nobody seems to notice that there's... there's this, there's a young 22, 23 year old woman who was just beginning her political career, who has been devastated by this and has been significantly harmed, um, and nobody seems to be talking about the damage that's been done there and the significance of that and why that should matter.

0:23:06 Thomas: Was very curious if if we're going to have to argue about this because I was going to make similar points. So it sounds like we were on the same page. Disappointing. When are we going to be on a different page? I guess we are regarding Hillary Clinton and 20.

0:23:16 Jamie: Let's talk about Bernie next.

0:23:17 Thomas: Yeah I talk about 2016 election. Yeah, I wanted to just one more thing on the the X. I think all your points are great. I want to to also emphasize that, even if, and you know, agreed that obviously the Red State bullshit blog is a bad actor, but even if they weren't, like even if it was, you know, they posted whatever was necessary, you don't just get to share hundreds of nude photos with journalists of your ex-wife just to let them see like which ones would be good for publishing. Like that's also a part of the revenge porn, uh, violation. Like I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure, even if you don't, you know, even if you share a bunch of nude photos without someone's consent with a, with an entire, think of like, you know, all the staff that's like going through these things and how embarrassing that must be for Katie Hill.

0:23:17 Jamie: Right.

0:24:06 Thomas: You know, how many people have gotten their eyes on these things? And yes, sure, maybe only a few were like actually published, but that doesn't mean that the initial sharing with these outlets wasn't revenge porn also. So it's not just about what we saw, it's also about what you, the right wing hacks that he shared this stuff, saw. Yeah.

0:24:27 Jamie: And there's also the fear that she has to live with about what else is going to come out, and there's the fear on the part of this staffer about what else may yet come out. And again, like I think we're pretty much in consensus, and few people are disputing the fact that Katie Hill's husband is abusive. This was done to be punitive and to reassert whatever dominance he felt he lost after she decided to end their relationship and it seems like pursue something with someone younger. This is a sort of classic down girl kind of move, because if this were really motivated by like legitimate concern for her staffers or the functioning of Congress, there were less abusive ways to go about this. He could have reached out to, you know, Nancy Pelosi staff for example, and handled this much more discreetly. If his concerns were actually the well-being of anybody on the staff, or you know, the overall functioning of Congress, that he did it in this way, and particularly through Red State, um, just goes to show that what he was most interested in was being maximally damaging.

0:24:31 Thomas: Yeah, Yeah, So maybe let's talk about some of these underlying facts, because I know there are going to be people listening who probably aren't on the the same page with this and hope she wouldn't resign. There's a lot going on. I think what isn't disputed and what she admits, though, is that, as you said, this relationship, it was kind of a three-way relationship with her husband at the time and a staffer. And it's important to note this was a campaign staffer, so technically speaking, this wouldn't have violated the House ethics rules, because they, they apply to House staff, not to campaign staff. Um, but I just want to point out that, like, how would we feel if this was a Republican dude who had had a relationship with a 22 year old staffer? Like, would we be quick to point, like, the, well, technically the, you, technically the House ethics don't apply to that.

0:26:23 Thomas: Or would we be saying that this is an awful Me Too story kind of thing? Like, I just really think we should put that in perspective. Like, that's, and somebody, she was technically the boss of, um, and I think that's just not okay. What's up. I

0:26:34 Jamie: Yeah, I think anybody making that distinction is just not being honest with themselves. That, you know, if the money that this person is in charge of allocating to them comes out of this bucket, then that's problematic. But if the Money they're in charge of allocrating to them comes out Of a different bucket, and suddenly that's fine. That seems not real to me. Furthermore, there's the allegation that she was involved with her legislative director, which is another one of her employees. And I think taken together now, and I think you're right. If there were a man, and especially if it were a Republican man, who been credibly accused of having multiple affairs with employees that were 10, 15 years younger than him, we would, and I think rightfully be incensed at his refusal to take accountability for this.

0:27:30 Jamie: And I think we need to be honest with ourselves and live up to our own standards and say this is not acceptable. And it sucks. Like, I get it. It sucks. The last thing I want right now is to lose a Democrat in the House and particularly a woman Democrat. But you can't do this.

0:27:49 Thomas: Agree. I mean, I think it's a small price to pay for being a representative in the United States government. You, and here's the thing, there's so many ways this could have been not unethical. You, if they wanted to have a consensual relationship with an adult person, they just needed to not do it with somebody who was under her direct report. You, I don't think there would be the same outrage about a consensial relationship with just any person, like assuming everybody was on the same page. But when you talk about any sort of employer employee, like supervisory relationship, I think it's a pretty easy ethical bar that we ought to require, well, at least Democrats, because we know we can only make ethics apply to our side, but we have to do what we can.

0:28:35 Thomas: It's not too much to ask to say, don't do this with somebody in your staff. And so I do want to talk about the finance director. So this is an allegation and she denies it. She vehemently denies It. And I've done a lot of digging to try to see if I I could find what the evidence for this is. The best evidence that I found, and you can chime in if you found anything else, it seems to be from the ex-husband sharing text screenshots that, here's the thing, it's very hard to know what to believe, but I think it's reasonable to be very suspicious of this allegation. I think It's entirely possible that she wasn't in a relationship with her finance director director because the best evidence, like I said, is just the ex-husband's posted screenshots of texts where he texts a photographer, a campaign photographer and said, Hey, did you know about this relationship?

0:29:33 Thomas: And the photographer says, I didn't, but now I do. And then they like talk about it. And that's from what I can find, that's the only evidence of a relationship and she denies it. So, I mean, I, you know, it's not, I wouldn't be like super shocked if she's lying and it was a relationship, but I also think it's important to state that like, there isn't really any evidence of it other than that text thread, which doesn't, I mean, it doesn't really, especially when you're talking about the bad actors involved in this red state blog and the Republican hacks that are doing this, that, that to me doesn't seem terribly compelling. So what were your thoughts on that?

0:30:10 Jamie: So I have to go back and look at that text, because I had read the authorship in the reverse order. I had read it as someone informing the husband that this relationship was taking place and asking him if he knew, and him saying that he didn't always, but he had recently. And so that made it seem more credible to me that it wasn't originating from the husband. So I'll go, to I'll go and take a look at that, because maybe I miss, I Misread, um, again. Yeah, it's totally possible that it's not credible, but again, um, I'm not really sure where to fall here.

Um, she does admit to one of the affairs, so that does lend her credibility when she denies the other one, um, and it's not the finance or the legislative director himself saying, yes, this happened, right? And so this can sort of be an open question, I guess. But I think there's enough here that she did admit to and what is in the screenshots. That's enough to warrant at the bare minimum an investigation. And I think her resignation, because reading some of the texts from the campaign staffer are really heartbreaking, and

0:30:40 Thomas: Oh, interesting.

0:31:24 Thomas: Yeah.

0:31:24 Jamie: Really gets to how these power dynamics exacerbate like the emotional difficulties of breakups, and how this poor woman has to both balance her heartbreak and her professional ambitions. And she has to be around a person who it seems like to me, at least from these texts, was at minimum, in order to continue to pursue her political ambitions. And for me, that's enough. And so even if she didn't sleep with the legislative director, even if that's totally made up by her husband and red state, fine, set that aside. There's enough in these screenshots for me to say, you should resign. This is not acceptable. Because again, we're talking Talking about the larger political context, we are now living in what's been dubbed the Me Too era. This is not going to be the last time, regrettably, that we're faced with one of these situations. And personally, I'm grateful that the next time this comes up, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, Democrats will be able to say, we stood up for our own values.

0:31:47 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:32:31 Jamie: We hold our own accountable for this kind of behavior. And I think they'll have far more credibility the next time they have to call out Brett Kavanaugh, or, you know, Ray Moore in Alabama, right, for this sort of unscrupulous behavior. Personally, I'm proud and grateful that this is the way that Democrats handled it, because I think it gives them more credibility, the next time they have to address this.

0:32:32 Thomas: Yeah.

0:32:58 Thomas: I'm guessing this isn't how you mean this, but I also think it's just important in and of itself. It's not merely important because maybe next time we'll be able to get the Republicans or something, like we also should just, and again, I don't think this is how you meant it, but I just want to make, make clear, like, it's not just because strategically it's good to be, to have, like, some upper hand, you credibility when it comes to this. Like, we should also just be the party that we want to be. Like, we should just have the ethics that we wants to be, the right ethics. And it is so fucking frustrating for Republicans to not have that and to get away with whatever, and then also to double down on, like, you know, bad faith critiques of our politicians with, with standards they aren't even using themselves.

0:33:47 Thomas: Yeah, that sucks. And that's super frustrating. But I don't think it really is a rational response to say, well, then, therefore, we're going to be like be OK with Katie Hill having been in a potentially weird, abusive relationship with a 22 year old, you who she was the employer and the supervisor of like that, that doesn't solve anything to, to allow that and to say, well, then therefore she shouldn't have to resign. Cause that's nonsense kind of thing.

0:34:14 Jamie: Yeah, I agree with all of that. And you're right. Like the reason this is important isn't just because of the instrumental value and being able to stick it to Republicans next time. It is just valuable in its own right. We should not do this. We should live up to our own values. We Should not tolerate any kind of sexual impropriety on the part of like our blue team. You're right? Yeah, yeah, I agree with all of that.

0:34:38 Thomas: I wanted to say this about the, the staffer, you know, it really is possible she was in a relationship with this finance director. I don't know. It's, I don't think we have any evidence of that, but I think the fact that she resigned kind of makes me wonder, you know, like she resigned right after, um, because the reason the, the, uh, the specific House rules matter, I think, at least a little bit, is when it came to the, you know, throuple relationship with the campaign staffer, that wasn't going to run her afoul of a House official House ethics investigation.

But then when the allegations came of the finance director relationship, that would have, because that is, you know, by the letter of the House ethics rules, uh, against the rules, so since that was opened, that investigation was opened, and then she resigned a few days later, like, it does kind of make me wonder if that's, maybe it was going to come out that that was real, I don't know, it's, it's hard to know.

Um, I will say this, the other thing that enemies of, uh, Katie Hill and have been pointing out is this, like, he was, he also received, that finance director received a bonus, and it's like, okay, he got a $5,100 bonus for having raised $8 million for her campaign. Like, what are we talking about here? It, yes, it was the highest bonus, but, like, some other people got some $2,700 bonus, like, that. I don't know, that that seemed like, in and of itself, really not, that didn't jump out at me as like this awful, you, corrupt dealings.

0:36:11 Thomas: You know, he got a, he had a $5,000 bonus for being finance director for a successful campaign. It really doesn't, it doesn't seem like, you know, it seems like that would have happened anyway.

0:36:20 Jamie: Yeah. Yeah, and again, finance directors tend to get the biggest bonuses because they're primarily tasked with raising money.

0:36:27 Thomas: Raising the money. Yeah. Right.

0:36:30 Jamie: And so, you know, fair or not, it's just what finance directors do tends to be quantifiable in a way that even canvassing isn't, right? Because even if you talk to 100 voters, you can't count that as 100 votes, where if you pull in a hundred bucks, you can count that as a hundred bucks. And so I think finance directors just generally tend to be paid better and receive bigger bonuses. And that has, you know, far more to do with how our political system operates than I think any reliable evidence that would like corroborate their affair.

0:37:06 Thomas: I mean, the fact that she resigned though, does make me wonder, like maybe that was going to come out and make, cause like I would have, one thing that's frustrating about all this is it would have been nice to have this fight in a certain sense. Like I would love the opportunity, especially I'm in California now. I'm not in her district, but if let's say it were, you know, my district as a voter, if the entirety of the conflict had been that she was in a consensual relationship with somebody who didn't work for her and pictures were shared, I I would be really pissed that she was resigning because I would want the opportunity as a voter to be like, no, I don't care about this. That isn't something you should resign over if it's, if it were just the photos, you know, and that kind of thing. So it's unfortunate.

0:37:52 Thomas: I think a lot of people maybe are feeling that way. Like they want, they want the chance to be able to have that battle a little bit, you know, and, and show that like, no, your voters would still support you. But I just, it sucks that, you Now, I think she's guilty of at least the behavior she's admitted to because she admitted to it. I was going to read just, just to be clear. So, so everyone's on the same page.

Here's a quote, quote, "During the final tumultuous years of my abusive marriage, I became involved in a relationship with someone on my campaign. I know that even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate, but I still allowed it to happen despite my better judgment. For that, I apologize." End quote. So, I mean, she's admitted, you can't dispute that, that, um, and so I, I think for Democrats, that's behavior that I'm pretty sure we're deciding is not okay for, for uh, for people in Congress, but even though it's, you know, technically was a campaign staffer and not a House staffer, um, but at any rate, I think that complicates the issue. I know a lot of people want to fight back on the revenge porn component of this, but I guess this, this just isn't the right, you, her not resigning is what is not going to help that because she seems like she should resign.

0:39:02 Jamie: Yeah. And again, even if I were to accept that this was a thoroughly consensual relationship, in no way troubled by power dynamics or power imbalances, there's still the issue of abuse in this relationship. And that this relationship was abusive comes through loud and clear in these text screenshots. Both Katie Hill's husband admits to it and the staffer admits to it. And in fact, you can even see the staff her talks about blaming herself for accepting the nature of abuse. And this to me seems particularly credible because this is something she's saying without thinking anybody else is going to read it.

0:39:48 Jamie: And I think we should pay attention to that too. You know, these, when we talk about improper sexual relationships, when it revolves around, you know, otherwise consenting adults, we're sort of on the outskirts of abusive relationships, relationships, right, or at least power, exploitative power dynamics. But this was clear-cut abuse. And that should matter as well. And if this is how she's treating one member of her staff, what does that say for the rest of her staff? What does that save for the sort of environment she's fostering in her congressional offices? What does that say about the impact on their career trajectories of the people who have invested their young working lives for her and her campaigns. Like, this is troubling on a host of levels.

0:40:36 Thomas: Agreed. Yeah. You know, I also came across this. I just want to mention in doing this research, there was somebody I didn't really even hear about this at the time. But there's a representative named Stacey Plaskett, who a few years back had photos stolen from her. Really weird story by by her own campaign staff, because she like had them turn in her phone to like for repair at the Apple store or something. And they like stole nude photos from her phone, her own staff. It's pretty crazy. But anyway, those were shared and distributed and she didn't resign. Resign. Um, so as much as this whole thing sucks, I don't think it's currently the case that if there's a nude photo that comes out of you and you're a woman, obviously it's a whole different standard for men apparently, but it doesn't seem to be the case that that means you have to resign or you're forced out of office or anything.

0:41:29 Thomas: So like, as bad as this all is, I think it seems more like she's resigning because of these legitimate, uh, ethical lapses rather than the fact that some people have like seen parts of her body. Oh.

0:41:44 Jamie: Right, I agree. I think whether or not it was going to be the details of this legislative director, or the more embarrassing details of just how this particular relationship with the campaign staffer was abusive, that there were more details here that would have been damning to her reputation. And she made, you know, the calculated risk assessment that it was better off, things to consider, just to resign, because I did some looking as well, and you have, there's another representative in California.

0:42:12 Thomas: Really?

0:42:13 Jamie: Um, this time a Republican, who also has been accused of having, um, quote-unquote, consensual relationship with a, with a subordinate, you know, two decades his junior, um, and the House was going to lost, launch an investigation into him, um, he had not yet resigned, and the only reason that hasn't been, had done is because the Department of Justice, um, asked them to back off because they're investigating him for like campaign finance fraud, and said, "Please don't open any more investigations until we do what we're doing here" and he's just Duncan

0:42:41 Thomas: Is this the guy with the plane flights and all the way, which guy is this, yeah Duncan Hunter is this crazy, crazy story, but he hasn't resigned, right, isn't he still yeah what a piece of shit, yeah

0:42:48 Jamie: Hunter, yeah no he hasn't resigned, um and So again, Katie Hill could have equally refused to resign, just like Duncan Hunter has refused to resign. And she chose not to. And so, you know, it raises the question of why. And obviously, we don't have the answers to that. But given what's been released in these texts, I suspect that we would have found out a whole lot more information that would have been far more damaging, at least as it relates to this campaign.

0:43:00 Thomas: I think Yeah, I think the push back on us will be, or would be, if anybody disagrees, "Look, she's just," and especially, and there's something to be said for this in the speech she made and everything. Clearly, this has taken a huge toll on her, and just this horrifying experience of having someone share all these photos of her and like this coordinated campaign with this Republican blog and all these Republican office operators to try to get her out has just been such a disaster and an emotional, like, abuse of her, that that's why she's resigning. And I think that would be the counter argument to us, um, I think could be true, but I feel like, she, I, I don't quite buy it. Like, I feel like she would have stayed and fight and fought if, if it weren't for these actual ethical lapses that she, again, she's admitted to at least one.

0:44:15 Thomas: And as you say, we've seen some of these text messages between, it's between the ex-husband and the staffer, the 22-year-old at the time staffer, where they talk about kind of the, just the, the, uh, the emotional abuse and stuff that happened. Uh, so I, I think that's, that's an objection to look at. Like, I think people will argue it's just because of the abuse of the end and it'll, it'll make people double down on the whole, she shouldn't have resigned, you know, and the injustice of it all. But personally, I, I don't know, I, I think it was probably more that she was, because she was going to stay and fight until this latest, like, ethics investigation was kind of underway, and then she decided she wasn't going to stand fight. So, I, I don't, yeah.

0:44:59 Jamie: Yeah, again, and that's a good objection, and I'm sure that's at least part of it. Right, she's going through a divorce, um, it definitely hurt just given what her husband did by outing these photos to Red State, um, is abusive just on the face of it, and so that he was abusive above and beyond what we've already seen doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to to grant as legitimate right and so in addition to going through a divorce, which even under the best of circumstances is difficult. She's going through a divorce that is not the best circumstances and is involved in abusive behaviors, literally leveraging the legal system against her to further punish her.

And I don't disagree that that's likely to be taking a significant emotional toll on her, while also sort of going through the breakup with this campaign staffer and who knows what with the legislative director, you know, I'm sure this is legitimately overwhelming, and it may be that, you know, for mental health reasons or emotional well-being, she decided, best things all considered, to get herself out of the spotlight, not have to deal with this at least on a professional level, and sort of take a step back and lick her wounds. Like, that could be real, right?

0:45:16 Thomas: Yeah.

0:46:10 Thomas: That again, even on the barest of facts, if you happen to strike something up with a with someone you're supervising like that, you just have to not, or they have to resign or something like, it's just not, it's not ethical. And that that brings up another can of worms, like if the if the whole, that that's why the relationship, like that any sort of sexual romantic relationship in a supervisor supervisee kind of role is so fraught, is because the the the problem, you're not going to stop running for Congress, you know, like they're going to have to quit their job or something, even to try to not run afoul of any ethics obligations. And that just shows the the disparate power, you know, like the fact that that would be, if there's any way to avoid it, it would be that this staffer would have to like resign or something.

0:47:06 Thomas: It just goes to show like what a can of worms that is. Is. And if you're going to represent, you my state or anybody's state in the, uh, the United States house of representatives, I feel like the least, the least everybody should be able to do is not engage in a romantic relationship with their staff.

0:47:22 Jamie: And it's also, so it's obviously unfair to the to the staffer who's involved in that relationship, but it's also unfair to all of the other staffers. I'm sure it's at least theoretically possible that there's someone who is like sufficiently rational and dispassionate and can make, you know, promotion decisions for example solely through like cold, clear-headed logic. I really don't think that's the case for most people, though. And so when it comes time to who gets promoted, who gets, you know, the letter of recommendation for their next step up the political ladder job, there are all of these factors that are going to cloud one's judgment and influence how they're able to leverage their political experience to move up the ladder.

0:48:10 Jamie: And that's not fair to all of the other people in the campaign staff or the legislative staff, not sleeping with the boss.

0:48:18 Thomas: All right. Well, uh, I think unless, unless Katie Hill was in any cults that I don't know about, uh, I think, I mean, this time we got to everything. Is there any, any other thoughts you had?

0:48:27 Jamie: Yeah, the only thing I'd say is there are like 8 billion people on earth, don't sleep with your employees or your students. It's not that hard. Yeah.

0:48:37 Thomas: Yeah, and it's, I know I just know there's going to be the people who are saying she was forced out because of the revenge porn. It's like, I I just don't think that's it. So sorry if you disagree. But that's, I again, randomly, Jamie and I are on the same page. Someday we'll disagree more again if we ever talk about the 2016 election. We apparently disagree to no end. But on this, I think we agree. So thanks, Jamie, for the breakdown. And it's really, you know, it's a really shitty, sad story, by the way. Like, it absolutely sucks to lose what seems like a fantastic representative in all other, you know, in all other ways. I mean, she was, she seemed like a great member of Congress and was doing good things. But hopefully, hopefully we can just keep that energy.

0:49:22 Thomas: And, you know, there will be another candidate that maybe can wow us. And that's we just have to hope. I mean, it's not Congress is made up of, you know, however many 400 billion members like we can, hopefully Hopefully we can come up with one other good one, I guess is what I'm saying.

0:49:36 Jamie: I think that that's the exact number, but you know, it reminds me When David Foster Wallace was outed as being an abusive piece of, and you know, people kept saying like, oh, he's such a genius, he's such a great writer, he's so brilliant. Well, you know what, there are a whole bunch of other great writers who aren't abusive jerks. And I'm sure we can find another representative in Congress who isn't abusing her staff. Just seems like a bar we're capable of clearing. Happy

0:49:39 Thomas: Yeah. All right. Thanks so much for listening. Yeah. Please support the show. We intend on doing some bonus stuff again real soon. So that's good reason to hop on the Patreon and we'll do some bonus stuff. If not, we'll probably see you next week.

0:50:20 Jamie: Halloween, guys.

0:50:21 Thomas: Oh, yeah.

0:50:30 Clip: Thank you so much for listening to Serious Inquiries Only. If you like the show, the absolute best thing you can do is support us at patreon.com/seriouspod. The second best thing you can do is please share it on social media or by word of mouth. Speaking of social media, if you'd like to follow Jamie on Twitter, she's at Euthyphro. And follow me at SeriousPod. If you'd like to be Facebook friends, send me a request at facebook.com Thomas podcast. If you're not up for that level of intimacy, that's fine. Maybe you want to join the discussion at facebook.com/groups/SIO members. Thank you again for listening. We'll see you next time.