EXCLUSIVE: Shocking photos of Congresswoman Katie Hill

EXCLUSIVE: Shocking photos of Congresswoman Katie Hill are revealed as she’s seen NAKED showing off Nazi-era tattoo while smoking a bong, kissing her female staffer and posing nude on ‘wife sharing’ sites

“Hill and Helsep also posted her naked photos online under a thread called ‘WouldYouF**kMyWife’.” https://t.co/xmokwmtlbd— Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) October 24, 2019


and she’s resigned congress saying that she did it for all the kids that she is a role model for. that’s funny.

This is what you do when you are under investigation and you know that there is a great potential for the rest of your shenanigans to come out.

For the children indeed.

1 Like

Nazi tattoos, drug abuse and using your underlings as your personal sex servants; I don’t understand why she resigned.

She was on track for Speaker of the House and just walked away after proving her commitment to democrat party principles?

Go figure


She and AOC would be a cute couple. The trouble is AOC has told us that she is “sis”, much to her regret, so I guess it won’t work out … such a pity.

But those photos would have looked good in Playboy magazine’s “Year in sex” review they once published.

no they wouldn’t. she should avoid naked selfies from now on out.


I’m curious, does any of this matter if it happened before she was a Rep?

Well, sleeping with underlings is generally frowned upon these days. It’s condidered an abuse of power, is it not? So I’d say that matters in someone elected to a position of power.

The nudie pictures don’t bother me. Personal choice, whatever.

Oh, I agree, I was just curious what the outrage was over. If it was the pics or the consensual relationship with a staffer.

Does the tatoo bother you? She claims it’s not an iron cross. What do you think. Is it? If so is that a problem?

She’s a has-been minor socialist idiot politico from ffs crazyfornia. I don’t give a crap if she has Nazi swastikas branded on her hoohaw and everywhere else. She isn’t important enough to pay attention to so I couldn’t tell you about her tatoos. I. Don’t. Care. Her politics are God-awful insanity, she violated an ethics rule that democrats find pretty important when republican’s break it, and she got the ol’ heave-ho. It’s a minor win for mom and apple pie, worth a round of high fives and a few chuckles. That’s it. Done. I would encourage her to retire to a life of more obscure promiscuity, but she’ll probably wind up on reality tv or in porn…

I am not bothered by it, I have been rejoicing that the Democrats are finally comfortable enough to come out of the closet regarding who they are and what they believe; being from Kalifornia I get to say “see I told you so” every day :slight_smile:


I guess the closet just wasn’t big enough…

1 Like

I just can’t address a statement that stupid (RET’s not yours).

Trying to group millions of people into a single mindset like that is ignorance and frankly, it’s a fascist appeal to emotion and anger in order to drive political ideology.

If the Democrats are NOT of a single mindset, then can you explain why they ALL sound alike on the “debate” stage? Can you explain why they are, in fact, “coming out of the closet” about their socialist leanings…usually to thunderous applause from their audiences? Can you explain why the MSM talking heads ALL use identical language in their “news” coverage? It started with “gravitas” back in 2000 and today is all about “impeachment,” quid pro quo, “bribery” and “obstruction” simply because the President is asserting (finally) executive privilege and telling the House leadership to pound sand.

1 Like

Are you really asking me why representatives of the democratic party share some ideological ideas?

Some ≠ All

Some are seeing that people they want to represent are more accepting of socialist economic ideas?

This is America, right? The people decide their representatives, right? If people want leaders that extol ideas that are socialistic, as long as those ideas do not violate the Constitution, is that consistant with how US system works?

Because media, of all types, has, over the last 50 years, learned, that emotion sells better than facts. Since media is largely a for-profit operation, appealing to emotion makes for better sales of media/

Do I think this is the ideal way to implement media in our society? I think, and I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I’m going to say we can agree this is not the best way for media to operate in society.

No, it’s because the President solicited a bribe, not in the nation’s best interest, but his own. There are a million ways that the alleged stated goal of the President, the reduction of corruption in Ukraine, could have been accomplished without the President implicating himself.

BS, of course. What “bribe”? He asked a foreign president to cooperate with our own AG in investigating the corruption of a previous U.S. administration. How is that a “bribe?”

I said “solicited a bribe”, just for clarification.

Let’s be clear, I have no problem with investigating corruption regardless of what form it takes or who commits it.

If the President had spoken of corruption generally, that wouldn’t have been an issue. If the President had said, on that call that he wanted Zelinsky to make a public proclamation of his commitment to eliminating corruption in Ukraine or that the US would have to re-evaluate its a financial commitment, that would have been ok (IMO), where it crossed the line is when he threatened to hold back money appropriated by Congress unless Zelinsky announces publicly to investigate the ex-VP and by extension his son and Croudstrike server in Ukraine. Thus using public funds as a lever in his own interest.

If that were the President’s actual intention there are numerous ways to accomplish that goal (investigating Hunter Biden’s role as part of Burisma and whether his father’s role as VP).

There is something called the “mutual legal assistance treaty” that would facilitate those sorts of goals.

The problem that is transparent to everyone, but the “Trump base”, is that Trump’s goal was simply to get Zelinsky to announce investigations into his political rivals. I mean given how well it worked when Comey announced re-opening investigations with respect to Clinton right before the election.

If rooting out corruption is the president’s stated goal, something the President has decided to dedicate his time to, can you tell me where the word corruption appears once in any of the transcripts between the President and Zelinsky?

July 25th

April 21st

He never threatened to “hold back money” in ANY phone call. Just because the left SAYS that’s what he did, doesn’t mean it’s factual. You must have him confused with Joe Biden who, as U.S. VP, BRAGGED about threatening to hold back aid funds if Ukraine didn’t fire a prosecutor who was targeting both Biden’s son and the company on whose board he was serving.