The only wrinkle is the outed affair was with a CAMPAIGN staffer who she broke it off with before taking her job officially. This does not violate any Congressional rules. The issue is the affair with her legislative director and she is denying that as of now. She already resigned but maybe she did not have to haha.
She is, unfortunately, from where I'm from. She represents what I saw happen to California. The state slowly filled up with tatted dirtbags, not sure how to put it any other way. Most of us living along the coast didn't notice it that much until we had to go inland for something. Nobody should be surprised that southern california sends a drug-addled skank to Congress.
As I said earlier, the House Ethics Committee is still obligated to continue the investigation and establish the facts and to talk to the alleged victim. No way the investigation ends just because she decides to resign rather than face the process. Will they continue? Probably not if the alleged victim does not want to go forward, but if she makes a claim, then the House is obligated to respond to it and pay damages/settlement if proven. I know there was a lot of talk about ending the slush fund there but I dont know that it was ever actually changed. Possible. But I have not seen confirmation. Contrary to popular opinion, I think Congress should be responsible for payment, not just the individual if it can be shown that they have continued to look the other way, as we all know they have. Word in the media is that Pelosi moved her out, which would be a defense on her part but still it would require an investigation to establish the facts - even though Thunderthruple has left.
There has to be an alleged victim though....the alleged affair with the legislative director is not producing a victim who is claiming harrassment or anything that would invoke the House Ethics committee or slush fund. Those get involved when a complaint or issue is raised. No issue was raised as the pics and texts mainly involve her campaign staff person that is outside of Congress. She resigned.....there is nothing more to see here. One cannot fabricate an ethics violation if the person is no longer employed or the "victim" is not filing a complaint.
Not necessarily. You are assuming that the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee is limited to the actions of a specific individual, when in fact they are also charged with monitoring activities and actions and making specific recommendations to the house for needed rules and legislation and to report on the success or shortcomings of current practices. They have full jurisdiction to interview departed reps and departed staff under their supervision to determine whether misconduct has occurred. If either the rep or the employee does not wish to cooperate or does not allege misconduct then they can say that or say nothing. But that is one of the issues that got congress fired up over such issues in the first place- reps just being allowed to resign and leave and Congress was very clear that it wanted more reporting, updating and monitoring of that kind of behavior. Also it has not been established that alleged victim does not a complaint. Only that Hill split before they investigated it.
I heard that Katie Hill prefers to go to Carpet Munchers to eat out. I guess that must be some kind of California food chain or something. Not sure.