Charlie Kirk: Biden’s National Child Care Scheme – Yes, Democrats are Targeting Families
They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and former California Democratic Representative Katie Hill seems to be taking advantage of that notion. “A judge just ordered me to PAY the Daily Mail more than $100k for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser. The justice system is broken for victims” Hill tweeted from her account Wednesday.
Except that’s not the whole story. Hill was involved in a scandal when naked photos of her “including one of her with a female campaign staffer” were published. Hill resigned from Congress shortly thereafter. When Hill sued media outlets the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, and two conservative journalists, the lawsuit was dismissed on First Amendment grounds.
Prior to the lawsuit, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation against her for having an alleged sexual relationship with a male congressional staffer; an allegation she denied. The relationship was in violation of House rules. “Following the #MeToo movement, Congress adopted a rule in February 2018 that barred relationships between members and any subordinates” reported ABC News.
Additionally, she had “acknowledged and apologized for having a sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer when she was running for Congress.” Not shying away from her actions whatsoever, Hill went on ABC’s “The View” and admitted that although a relationship with a campaign staffer when running for Congress didn’t violate any congressional rules, “it was wrong.”
Now, Judge Yolanda Orozco even awarded the parent company of the Daily Mail roughly $105,000 and for Hill to pay roughly $84,000 to the attorneys of Red State’s managing editor, Jennifer Van Laar, as well as roughly $30,000 to radio producer Joseph Messina. A dismissed lawsuit and being ordered to pay for the other side’s attorney fees still did not get Hill to reject the idea that she is the victim.
Hill claimed in her lawsuit that the media had conspired with her ex-husband to distribute the damning photos of her. Nonetheless, Hill continuously feels the need to draw attention to the matter, even when she is the one who looks bad. Hill reportedly will also appeal the judge’s decision.
Now, Judge Yolanda Orozco even awarded the parent company of the Daily Mail around $105,000 and for Hill to pay roughly $84,000 to the attorneys of Red State’s managing editor, Jennifer Van Laar, as well as roughly $30,000 to radio producer Joseph Messina. Judge Orozco did not award Van Laar all of her fees and A Go Fund Me page has been set up to cover the remaining balance. One more fee motion has been filed by RedState corporate which could result in Hill being ordered to pay over $100k.
A dismissed lawsuit and being ordered to pay for the other side’s attorney fees still did not get Hill to reject the idea that she is the victim. Hill claimed in her lawsuit that the media had conspired with her ex-husband to distribute the damning photos of her. Nonetheless, Hill continuously feels the need to draw attention to the matter, even when she is the one who looks bad. Hill reportedly will also appeal the judge’s decision.
"Kids in Cages" Was Created Under the Obama Administration
They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and former California Democratic Representative Katie Hill seems to be taking advantage of that notion. “A judge just ordered me to PAY the Daily Mail more than $100k for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser. The justice system is broken for victims” Hill tweeted from her account Wednesday.
Except that’s not the whole story. Hill was involved in a scandal when naked photos of her “including one of her with a female campaign staffer” were published. Hill resigned from Congress shortly thereafter. When Hill sued media outlets the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, and two conservative journalists, the lawsuit was dismissed on First Amendment grounds.
Prior to the lawsuit, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation against her for having an alleged sexual relationship with a male congressional staffer; an allegation she denied. The relationship was in violation of House rules. “Following the #MeToo movement, Congress adopted a rule in February 2018 that barred relationships between members and any subordinates” reported ABC News.
Additionally, she had “acknowledged and apologized for having a sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer when she was running for Congress.” Not shying away from her actions whatsoever, Hill went on ABC’s “The View” and admitted that although a relationship with a campaign staffer when running for Congress didn’t violate any congressional rules, “it was wrong.”
Now, Judge Yolanda Orozco even awarded the parent company of the Daily Mail roughly $105,000 and for Hill to pay roughly $84,000 to the attorneys of Red State’s managing editor, Jennifer Van Laar, as well as roughly $30,000 to radio producer Joseph Messina. A dismissed lawsuit and being ordered to pay for the other side’s attorney fees still did not get Hill to reject the idea that she is the victim.
Hill claimed in her lawsuit that the media had conspired with her ex-husband to distribute the damning photos of her. Nonetheless, Hill continuously feels the need to draw attention to the matter, even when she is the one who looks bad. Hill reportedly will also appeal the judge’s decision.
Now, Judge Yolanda Orozco even awarded the parent company of the Daily Mail around $105,000 and for Hill to pay roughly $84,000 to the attorneys of Red State’s managing editor, Jennifer Van Laar, as well as roughly $30,000 to radio producer Joseph Messina. Judge Orozco did not award Van Laar all of her fees and A Go Fund Me page has been set up to cover the remaining balance. One more fee motion has been filed by RedState corporate which could result in Hill being ordered to pay over $100k.
A dismissed lawsuit and being ordered to pay for the other side’s attorney fees still did not get Hill to reject the idea that she is the victim. Hill claimed in her lawsuit that the media had conspired with her ex-husband to distribute the damning photos of her. Nonetheless, Hill continuously feels the need to draw attention to the matter, even when she is the one who looks bad. Hill reportedly will also appeal the judge’s decision.