Virginia House candidate Democrat Susanna Gibson performed sex for money online, and the far-left New York Times is lying about the video being “leaked” and it being a “sex tape.”
“State House Candidate in Virginia Condemns Leak of Sex Tapes,” reads the Times headline, and it is a blatant and deliberate lie hoping to make Gibson look like a victim. There was no “leak,” and there was no “sex tape.”
There was no “leak” because Gibson had sex online, which is the digital equivalent of having sex in public. As far as “sex tape,” the Times wants to make it sound like she and her husband filmed themselves having sex and the video was meant only for them. No, there was no “sex tape.” There were only two degenerates having sex online for money.
As recently as September of last year, 40-year-old Gibson (a nurse practitioner) and her attorney husband performed hardcore sex online. At the time, Gibson was raising money for her campaign. During these degrading videos, this mother of two small children offered to further degrade herself for money. She told her online audience she was raising funds for a “special cause,” presumably her campaign.
This is… INSANE. https://t.co/5tFX0T16Bl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) September 13, 2023
I have no intention of detailing the details again. You can read them here. Let me just say that even though I grew up on HBO, I am still shocked by how depraved people can become. This pig and her pig of a husband are parents. Nevertheless, they not only performed hardcore porn online, where everything is forever, but they also did it while she was eager to become a public political figure. No decent parent risks their kid coming across something like this.
Here’s how the Times tries to make this about Republicans instead of Mother of the Year Susanna Gibson:
Releasing damaging information about candidates of the opposing party into the heat of a campaign is an age-old political practice, but the sensational nature of the disclosure of sex tapes — reportedly featuring Ms. Gibson and her husband, a lawyer — is highly unusual.
The only reason it’s “highly unusual” is because people running for public office generally don’t raise funds by performing hardcore sex online.
Oh, but according to the propagandists at the Times, it’s the GOP doing something “highly unusual,” not the Democrat candidate promising to livestream herself urinating if her viewers send her a few bucks. And believe me, that’s the least sleazy thing this pig offered to do.
Susanna Gibson has accused Republicans of invading her privacy and engaging in revenge porn. When you have sex on the World Wide Web for money, no one is invading your privacy. And revenge porn is only revenge porn when you had an expectation of privacy that was violated out of spite. None of that happened here.
In this political climate where Democrats have openly embraced child grooming, permanent child mutilation, infanticide, open borders, and allowing violent criminals to run free, supporting a pig like Gibson seems like small potatoes. With this close and consequential race about seven weeks away and control of the House of Delegates on the line, don’t expect to see any moral courage from Democrats or their allies in the corporate media.
Moreover, the New York Times has no choice but to degrade itself with lies. The Times’ survival depends on subscriptions from a few million leftist readers who demand these lies. The tail wags the dog over there. Susanna Gibson and the Times do share one thing in common…
They both degrade themselves for money.