Katie Hill: Right-Wing Media Disparage Women Because They Are ‘Easier Targets’

Former Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) suggested on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday that the right-wing media unfairly disparage women because they are “easier targets.”

The disgraced former lawmaker, who resigned after accusations of inappropriate sexual relationships with more than one member of congressional staff surfaced, continued her ongoing critique of the right-wing media, asserting that it unfairly targets women because they are “easier targets”:

I mean, as a public figure, you’re used to attacks, right? But when it gets to the level of these threats and feeling like you’re not, you’re not seen as a person anymore, and that’s — the dehumanization is something that I think people can’t really understand unless you have been there.

“And that’s exactly what the right-wing media does and that they’re doing to these witnesses. And look what they’re doing to Fiona Hill and what they did to Ambassador Yovanovitch,” she continued.

“And I think that you see it in particular with women, because … that is what the right likes to do, right?” she added. “They’re easier targets. And there are true threats to safety.”

“Look at what they’re doing to try to silence anybody who speaks out in a way that they don’t like,” she said.

However, Hill failed to demonstrate how the right-wing media unfairly targeted or disparaged either of the female witnesses – National Security Council official Fiona Hill and former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. What is more, Hill attacked Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) over the weekend, proclaiming that she deserves to be criticized for aligning herself with President Trump:

Nonetheless, Hill has a history of blaming her political demise on the “right-wing media.”

After admitting to engaging in an “inappropriate” relationship with a female member of her congressional staff and announcing her resignation amid an ethics probe examining the accusations of another relationship with a male member of her staff, the #MeThree Democrat largely ignored her own role in the scandal. Instead, she placed the bulk of the blame on what she called a “coordinated campaign carried out by the right-wing media and Republican opponents” whom she said were “enabling and perpetuating [her] husband’s abuse by providing him a platform.”

“I think what the rightwing media and those who attacked me wanted was for me to be silenced,” she said, once again blaming her woes on right-wing media and sexism.

“And I think something that we see on attacks against women, not just high-profile women, but women across the board, is that these kinds of attacks are meant to silence you, demean you, and show that you do not have power,” she continued, adding that she has a “responsibility” to “show that that’s not going to work.”

Hill’s feminist rallying cry is far from new. She voted in favor of the partisan impeachment resolution in the House as her final act in Congress and bizarrely attributed her action to President Trump’s purported “abuse of power over women.”

“And so today, as my last vote, I voted on impeachment proceedings not just because of corruption, obstruction of justice, or gross misconduct, but because of the deepest abuse of power, including the abuse of power over women,” Hill stated on the House floor.

“Today, as my final act, I voted to move forward with the impeachment of Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America,” she continued.

Nonetheless, Hill’s appeal to women has done little to diminish the facts surrounding her departure from Congress.

The former lawmaker signaled last week that she remains open to jumping back into the political realm. A future run from Hill would likely carry a different flavor, particularly now that she has exposed herself as a radical far-left Democrat – a fact she hid behind a more moderate persona in 2018.

As Breitbart News detailed:

Scandal aside, Hill did not tend to make headlines during her short tenure as a congresswoman. While she was part of the infamous freshman class of House Democrats – which includes Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) – she maintained a relatively low profile, at least in comparison. That could have had something to do with the fact that she represented a relatively split district, defeating incumbent Republican Steve Knight with 54.4 percent to Knight’s 45.6 percent.

The district has flipped from red to blue since its creation in both House races and presidential elections, causing its representatives, specifically, to play a different political game than counterparts in “safe” districts.

As an example, Ocasio-Cortez, who has championed radical proposals such as the Green New Deal and formally endorsed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), secured a win in New York’s 14th district with a whopping 78.2 percent of the vote.

Tlaib secured 84.6 percent in Michigan’s 13th district, and Omar garnered 78.2 percent of the vote in Minnesota’s 5th district. The wide margins grant far-left Democrats more flexibility in terms of promoting radical ideas and ultra-progressive proposals – proposals that tend to make more “moderate” Democrats in the House nervous due to electability.

Hill did not have that luxury, until now. The mask has slipped. She has been, essentially, celebrating her freedom from any burdensome cover like representing a politically split district, which forced her to keep her true thoughts at bay.

“Right now, we have a criminal in the White House,” Hill, who remained vocal on social media throughout the public impeachment hearings, continued in her CNN interview.

“We have Republicans on Capitol Hill who are doing everything that they can to defend him …even when it means that they’re sacrificing their own integrity and are lying to the American people non-stop,” she added.

Despite Hill’s assertion, the witnesses who publicly testified over the last two weeks failed to provide any sort of definitive proof of an impeachable offense by the president. Many believed Ambassador Gordon Sondland, one of the Democrats’ “key” witnesses, served as the Democrats’ best bet in hopes of laying out a solid case to impeach the Trump. Nevertheless, Sondland ultimately confirmed Trump told him he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine and “no quid pro quo.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) also noted, repeatedly throughout the hearings, that Ukraine got the call, meeting, and aid without any of the conditions that Sondland presumed were necessary.