Said Gordon Sondland, quoted in "Multiple Women Recall Sexual Misconduct and Retaliation by Gordon Sondland/Three women recall Sondland made unwanted sexual contact in business settings. One says he exposed himself. All recall professional retaliation after they rejected him. Sondland denies the allegations" (ProPublica).
Why are these stories coming out now rather than earlier, when Sondland first appeared on the scene and seemed to be offering important anti-Trump testimony? If this is not a "concocted" or at least "coordinated" attack done for "political purposes," then why were these complaints withheld until after it appeared that Sondland helped Trump?
Trying to tear Sondland down this way — at this time — has the effect of bolstering the pro-Trump aspects of his testimony. It makes one think that Sondland's testimony was very damaging to the case for impeachment (that's why there's scrambling to discredit him and to warn others away from helping Trump). Moreover, it might — for some observers — reinforce the belief that the impeachment drive has been unfair — procedurally irregular and aggressive, a witch hunt.
I have no opinion on whether what the women are saying is true. I'm just talking about the timing and the politicalization of accusations of sexual misconduct.
November 28, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
277 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 277 of 277The usual suspects just know!
Wishcasting at its finest.
shouldn't even be possible. It's like, dividing by zero or something
It indicates a phase shift. You are now entering the Twilight Fringe.
ARM, since you are here and participating- if the same sets of testimony were identical, but the President was Barack Obama in 2011, and the former VP were Mitt Romney, would you be making the same argument that Obama should be impeached? Do you think the same media organs would be the ones promoting the story and the impeachment, and the same ones would be detracting against it? Can you give an honest answer to my hypothetical? Isn't it true that you would be the one making the argument I made above, and that I or Drago might be the ones making the argument you are making above?
Or, are you going to tell me that the poltical affiliations are irrelevant to your stance, and would be irrelevant to all the Democrats pushing impeachment today?
Here's how "successful" these hoax charges against Donald Trump for 4+ years have been:
Brad Parscale✔ @Parscale
Data from Broward Florida rally:
✅ 31,177 voters identified
✅ 19% voted once or less in last 4 elections (8% in zero)
✅ 24% Democrat
✅ 27% Hispanic
Incredible data from a county that is predominantly blue. Put Florida in the win column for 2020!
Great Awakening indeed. Well done dems/LLR's!! Well done!
It gets better:
Brad Parscale✔ @parscale
Data from Friday’s Mississippi rally:
✅ 16,432 voters identified
✅ 24% voted once or less in last 4 elections (12% in zero)
✅ 27% Democrat
✅ 20% Black
More winning numbers that will help secure #FourMoreYears for @realDonaldTrump!
Continue to outperform 2016.
Remember dems: You've got Trump right where you want him!! Impeach now!!
You have nothing to fear but fear itself!
Full speed ahead and dont worry about the blatant unfairness of your hack proceedings that all the polls show Americans have already internalized.
Dont give it another thought!
The Walls Are Closing In.....AGAIN!
Yancey Ward said...
would you be making the same argument
If you even made a modest attempt to follow what other people post you would remember that I have never been in favor of impeachment. An inquiry into Trump and Giuliani's ridiculous behavior is appropriate, as is a formal censure. There are limits to the power of every elected public servant.
At some point the walls will pass one another and the space will open up.
Donald Trump will be left standing there, unfazed.
Maybe even unphased.
It is ridiculous to investigate corruption of Democratics. -ARM above
"If you even made a modest attempt to follow what other people post you would remember that I have never been in favor of impeachment."
Can you point to where you said this before now? I don't read every comment you write, ARM, but you are going to have to offer some proof to this statement if I am going to believe you. I do know Howard has stated this, but I don't know it about you. Inga certainly hasn't.
ARM
He was hyped as having incriminating evidence. The people making the current accusations had the same information then as now. They held off. Then Sondland testified, and did not incriminate Trump. Then, and only then, were the accusations made. It should be clear that even if the accusations are true that the pattern suggests a political motive.
But, the question went unanswered, ARM- would you be posting the same material you did above? Would the media even be covering this "investigation" the same way? What say you?
“Then Sondland testified, and did not incriminate Trump.”
That’s the spin from the right. It’s not the reality.
Which crime, Inga- words like "incriminated" do have a meaning, after all. Lay out the criminal act
ARM: "An inquiry into Trump and Giuliani's ridiculous behavior is appropriate,.."
No, its not.
This sham investigation is an attempt by the dems to cover up their actual widespread corruption by falsely accusing Trump for what the dems actually did.
Just like the collusion hoax.
Whats appropriate is a very deep dive into the democrat corruption in Ukraine, Romania, China, etc.
And it appears Barr/Durham are doing just that.
Finally.
The Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Kavanaugh Gang Rape Hoaxer Inga: "That’s the spin from the right. It’s not the reality."
Wrong again hoax dossier girl. That iste reality and all of your latest lefty lies and spin arent fooling the American people.
At all.
And your flailing is glorious to watch.
Adam Schiff Burisma-connected staffers, Come On Down!!
You and Adam Schiff and Hunter Biden and the Fake Whistleblower are the next to testify on the Senate Dem Corruption Exposure Show!
Slow Joe twisting in the wind...
I also hope the Senate calls in those Ukrainian reps who were blocked by the Deep Staters for 3 years from providing additional details.
That should be fun.
Eric Ciaramella we are looking at you....
The material I posted were the opening statements of public officials provided as part of an inquiry into the behavior of other public officials. Even Trump's defenders acknowledge that he has an unusually loose relationship with the truth. I would argue that this verges into delusional territory, but this is only an opinion. Since, he lies continuously the only option for the public, who fund all these enterprises, to discover the truth are repeated inquiries.
If the town dog catcher was both a known habitual liar and engaged in what can reasonably be characterized as dodgy behavior an inquiry into his actions would also be appropriate.
Inga just wildly cutting and pasting incoherently again!!
LLR Chuck must be so proud!
LOL
BRIBERY.
Now I must leave for my family Thanksgiving. I’m not avoiding you Yancy.
incriminate: make (someone) appear guilty of a crime or wrongdoing; strongly imply the guilt of (someone).
Incriminate has a broader meaning and usage than a strictly legal one. The dog can incriminate the cat in the consumption of the Thanksgiving turkey.
ARM: "The material I posted were the opening statements of public officials provided..."
LOL
None of which survived bare minimum scrutiny under cross-examination!
Too funny.
It just keeps getting better and better!
So. Much. Winning.
Happy Indigenous People Harvest Moon celebration weekend to all of you people. We all have so much to be thankful for.
Not for or against impeachment. Just want Trump defeated in 2020. Then hounded by AG Kamala Harris until his jumpsuit matches his hair and hide
Drago gets an A in self-esteem class.
Inga just wildly cutting and pasting incoherently again!!
Inga posted a description of the Constitution because people in her circle don't know what it is.
Now it's time for Thanksgiving dinner with my MIL.
Y'all have a good Thanksgiving.
BRIBERY! After polling the dumb-shits, it was determined that Quid Pro Quo wasn't
clicking as a crime. Plus - Isn't that what Biden did?
Inga is a prime example of someone who swallows whole the media narrative. Even after it has passed her by.
When Trump has said anything that could be argued as untrue, it is virtually always about itterly trivial and inconsequential matters.
The Democrats and the media lie about Trump a hundred times more often, and always attempting to make them seem consequential.
Trump has never even come close to lying like Obama and his sycophants did and do on a regular basis.
The fact that the media covers for Obama and does anything it can to denigrate Trump doesn't justify giving Obama (and Biden, and every other Dem) the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time and Trump (and any other non-GOPe Republican) 0% of the time, but that's what we've got.
His testimony was the cause for the effect of coming for with the accusations, per one of the accusers. It was at the bottom of the version of the article I read. Had he not testified as he did, she said she would not have come forward. Can't find the reference right now.
Howard: "Drago gets an A in self-esteem class."
LOL
As if you understand the meaning of self-esteem.
Bribery!
It's clear Trump and Guiliani BRIBED the Ukrainians - just like JOE Biden did!
Howard: "Happy Indigenous People Harvest Moon celebration weekend to all of you people. We all have so much to be thankful for."
Well, the descendents of those indigenous people (like the Wampanoag and Narragansett) who barely survived the horrific slaughter by the Iroquois probably have mixed emotions.
So, what was the official act, to fit in the charge of bribery, Inga?
This is why Inga, left, by the way- she knew this would be the next question.
Odd how the president of Ukraine said that Trump never bribed him.
Weird.
Oh well, leftists get to lie!
All you have to do if you're a loyal hivemind prog - is yell out the latest fabricated SLOGAN!
"BRIBERY!"
That's some serious baseless allegation. But on the left, the seriousness of the charge trumps any need to prove the allegation. If you cannot prove the allegation, the media will dutifully provide cover with...
"DEVASTATING TESTIMONY!"
Still waiting for the local village progocrats to explain why the leftwing corruption machine are spreading lies about Sondland?
ARM ignores the cross-examination of witnesses.
Royal ass Inga ignores reality.
Advantage ARM.
ARM,
Inga was using the word with the stricter meaning, which is why I asked her the question.
You still didn't answer my question, though- what would you be doing today if the political affiliations were all the opposite of what they are? I give you my answer- I would probably not even be participating in the thread, but mostly because such a thread wouldn't even exist given that Althouse pretty much only reads the NYTimes and WaPo- in short, she would not even have blogged about Sondland in such a hypothetical because only the right-leaning media would even be talking about him in any fashion.
Were such a thread being run in that hypothetical world, I would probably be making fun of you and Inga for defending the behavior like you are doing today with us, but I don't think I would advocating impeachment or even an official impeachment investigation- the matter is just too trivial no matter who the president is. However, I am quite certain right leaning blogs would be breathlessly pining for impeachment, and the left would be doing the opposite. Really, we have seen this hypothetical played out in the past with a Democratic President and Republican Congress, so we do know what the answer to my hypothetical is.
I am arguing for potential criminal prosecution of Hunter and Joe Biden for their obvious scheme to receive bribes.
A cutout who is a lineal heir is not enough.
Biden should have used cutouts like lawyers.
Or lawyers to Fusion GPS to foreign agents.
That one at least gives plausible, if untrue, deniability.
This merle haggard song "if we can make it to December" might be on point for slow Joe about now.
https://youtu.be/U9TByT3QlWc
I had predicted he would be out by the end of November. I said yesterday that I was dubious but was sticking to it.
It occurs to me that this weekend is the perfect time.
"as my family and I sat down for Thanksgiving I counted our many blessings.
I realized that not even the presidency is worth allowing those shameless bastards to drag my son's good name through their filth.
Consequently I have decided to renounce my candidacy for his sake.
Goodbye and fuck you all very much. You won't have Joe Or Hunter Biden to kick around anymore.
And epstein did not kill himself. Perhaps nobody did"
John Henry
I am still waiting to hear why it is so important to replace Trump with a kleptocrat like Biden...
Apparently hunter Biden was caught in a strip club with a butt plug up his ass.
On this day of Thanksgiving we should be thankful it was not a Mayor buttplug.
John Henry
Note, I was using "mayor" in its Spanish meaning. Iykwimaityd
Yancey, if the current "impeachment" were being tried on Obama, my reaction would be "This is so pathetic it is effectively a coverup. If you're going to impeach, how about for disabling basic credit card verification so he could accept untraceable money from anywhere in the world? How about Fast and Furious? Or the Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal (right in my neighborhood, that one)? Or lying about Obamacare? Or arresting journalists? Or firing IGs in the middle of investigating his crimes? Or "more flexibility after the election"? Or..."
Obama committed literally dozens of crimes individually far worse than anything Trump's been accused of. If, with all that material available, Republicans went with something as absurdly weak tea as the current Ukraine nonsense, it would be prima fascia evidence of a whitewash of the rest of his crimes.
Althouse got from me the respect she deserved, which was none. She routinely insults her commenters, yet demands that they apologize to her when they retaliate. It is a point of view deletion and banning and she was insulted that I didn’t accept her vast knowledge on the subject. She IS a lazy thinker, I’ve seen it many times over the years. What she deleted was me telling her that as a law professor she should know better and be embarrassed. I also called her a stupid woman, which is not unwarranted.
I think that the law students she “taught” via text book lesson plans should demand a refund from UW. As for Althouse treating women commenters differently than the male commenters, indeed yes she does. I’ve seen it happen numerous times over the years of commenting here. Demanding respect from commenters for providing a forum in which to express one’s opinions does not warrant abuse from the blog owner. Commenting here isn’t worth the abuse, from Trump Cultists and from the clueless blog owner. There have been numerous liberals/ leftists whatever floats your boat that have left and haven’t returned. This blog has always been Althouse’s little shrine to herself. Her narcissism is sometimes revealed itself as it did yesterday. Not commenting here is NO loss to me. - Inga
Drago needs to go to the dictionary to tell which way the cookie crumbles. It's a standard trick the self-esteem gurus teach so you can give yourself a booster seat to sit at the big boy table. Nicely Done! Gold Star
Howard: "Drago needs to go to the dictionary to tell which way the cookie crumbles."
I defy anyone to decipher the point Howard thinks he is making.
I am not arguing this, but here's a possibility---these women, who may or may not have had bad experiences with Sondland, were "in reserve," to be deployed based on his testimony. Had his testimony destroyed Trump, the gun would have stayed holstered. Even if he had done all these things, he would NOT have been a target until after the impeachment played out, and maybe not then.
His testimony didn't greatly hurt Trump, so either they were told to act as they saw fit, or they were directed to come out with these charges.
Drago,
On this day especially, show some thanks for Howie's comments evolution to complete sentences...odd as they are.
PS.
"Cuck!!"
Now let us honor the expanding family of Grandpa Joe.
Martin,
I felt the same way. The problem Sondland gave the Democrats is that he was the one person who claims to have asked Trump directly what he wanted in regards to Ukraine, and the answer Trump gave, as related by Sondland himself, is that Trump wanted nothing from the Ukrainians.
That answer, given under a pretty withering cross examination, deflated the narrative that Sondland's written statement had briefly inflated.
If you cannot impeach him with anything real, make Schitt up
ARM: "Could you explain how Sondland's testimony 'helped' Trump?"
It really doesn't matter. He's from Portland; we don't need wealthy, politically connected Republicans in our community. The sooner he is discredited, bankrupted and removed from our society, the better! It will serve as a message to other R's that may have aspirations.
If we are going to go after the Bidens - the Clintons fall too.
Probably others. John Kerry? Lots of pay-to-play on team D.
Media exonerates, but we all know the media is corrupt too.
I defy anyone to decipher the point Howard thinks he is making.
I will need to open another bottle of wine before I can decipher Howard. Maybe two.
Only one bottle with the MIL wasn't enough to stave off boredom.
I pick Inga for a white elephant gift: my wife just noticed that we had a second turkey baster unused, still in the package.
I defy anyone to decipher the point Howard thinks he is making.
He's making the "Biden axiom" "facts don't matter, truth matters"
Howard is saying since Howard defines truth, you running to a dictionary to understand the meaning of the words under debate, you, in your cute but unknowing way, get caught up in the facts, and miss the truth. In short, we have all gone thru the looking glass.
You still didn't answer my question, though- what would you be doing today if the political affiliations were all the opposite of what they are?
@Yancey Ward, what would ARM do? He would lie, of course. It’s what he always does. He claims that he was “never” in favor of impeachment. Do you believe him? I don’t. Do you think he can post a link to an Althouse thread where he expresses opposition to impeachment without the word “but” In there? I rather doubt it.
Big Mike said...
Do you believe him? I don’t.
Here's a little task for you - you search the Althouse blog and find where I say otherwise. If you fail, your claim of a lie is as empty as your head.
ARM works hard for the money
So hard for it, honey
He works hard for the money
So you better treat him right
ARM: When you spend an entire thread arguing that Sondland testimony that Sondland himself contradicted under cross minutes later still has any value in moving impeachment forward whatsoever, it's pretty much implicit that you favor impeachment. The only other possibility is that you just lie by nature, even when there's really nothing for you to gain by it. If anyone responding to you is making an error, it is only in extending the benefit of the doubt (something you yourself only dole out in the most partisan way possible) that, when you lie, as you do constantly, you at least do so in service to some misguided goal. Apparently not.
Qwinn said...
- insert word salad here -
ARM is a useless shit stirrer.
He's a bitch who says as little of substance as possible.
There's nothing ARM days or does that matters, at all.
He favors anything that can be twisted to favor his preferred party: Leftist Collectivist.
@ARM, I don’t mount expeditions to look for Sasquatch and I am not going to undertake your “little task.” I don’t waste my time looking for nonexistent things. You assert you did something. You prove it!
Big Mike said...
I am not going to undertake your “little task.” I don’t waste my time looking for nonexistent things.
I am gratified to see you concede the nonexistence of this 'lie'.
When someone calls me a liar on this blog I know they have lost the argument on its merits, and I know they know it too.
ARM is a worthless prig.
Liar?
That's one of the better explanations for his nonsense.
I'm skipping way ahead here. For work reasons, my household won't have Thanksgiving dinner until tomorrow night and I have been cleaning gutters all day.
The war in Ukraine. [Doing this from memory.] I heard in some recent testimony that 11,000 have DIED. It started in 2014 and total Ukrainian army and militia KIA, according to their statistics, is about 4500. Little green men and Donbass militia about 5,000 some. Civilians on both sides make up the rest.
In 2019, through September, Ukrainian forces have had 78 KIA, including 13 during the SUSPENSION of aid to Ukraine. Why do we not hear of Ukrainian offensives or Donbass offensives? Because it's a stalemate, due in large part to Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to Ukraine, combined with the professionalization of the Ukraine military. Most of the casualties took place in the initial phase, when the Obama administration was withholding lethal aid.
Fuck you, Barry, and the party you rode in on.
No, ARM, you need to improve your reading comprehension. I assert that you never wrote a comment on the Althouse blog arguing against impeachment (unless you made such an argument and promptly undercut yourself with a “but” or “however”). All you have to do to prove me wrong is link to a comment where you really did express unqualified opposition to impeachment. But you can’t because you never did.
@Milwaukie Guy, does that include the 298 innocent civilians on Malaysia Air flight 17 in July 2014. They died when a Russian BUK surface to air missile shot them down over eastern Ukraine.
You made an assertion without any proof? You are not really on solid ground here. You just acknowledged that you make up slander without any factual basis.
Via Arm:
Volker said ..
"The problem was that despite the unanimous, positive assessment and recommendations of those of us who were part of the U.S. presidential delegation that attended the inauguration of President Zelensky, President Trump was receiving a different, negative narrative . . .
Hey. This is how they do climate science studies / recommendations / mandates-n-bans, federal reserving, huge bank bailouts at the Wall Street casinos, asset price levitation on ever-growing un-repayable debt operations using relentlessly debased currency out of thin air, unlimited immigration for population replacement sometimes bragged about by the NYT (see recent VA elections) and the LA Times (serving their new readers), among other things.
Viz: "We insider-gatekeeper-accrediting people have decided it is thus. You cannot show us contrary information because we have not permitted it." Here, it is the recently animated "interagency consensus" which is not even pretended to be composed of human organisms having agency in its naming for this trick despite that root word in the phrase-name. Oddly.
And, not only were we not asked, this is in explicit rejection of the expressed will of the people. I got your representative government right here.
I'm sure their count includes the downed airliner.
See?
ARM is a crafty misleader.
He makes very few substantive claims.
Just spouts random shit to screw a thread.
But he really takes almost no substantive positions.
He's a cypher.
ARM is here to pretend at usefulness.
ARM thinks he can con people into searching through the Althouse blog archive to prove he lied when he wrote that he never supported impeachment, a specious claim he made in this thread at 12:03. I think a reasonable man, which he is not, would regard many of his comments in this very thread prior to the 12:03 comment as supporting impeachment. Be that as it may, if he ever pushed back against impeachment he should know in response to which Althouse post he did do. He won’t because he can’t. He lied at 12:03 and it was a stupid lie that no one believes (except, perhaps, the liar himself).
You are now helplessly flailing about following a complete failure on your part to find proof for your unfounded assertion.
This is the sad thing about this blog, there is a group of older men who are hopelessly intolerant of any opposing views. They generally lack the resources to engage in a productive fashion so instead they try to drive off the opposition with personal attacks, such as unfounded assertions that someone is a liar. It is a pathetic strategy, but it has worked, in the limited sense that most center and left of center commenters have left the blog, making this a much less rich environment for discussion.
Post a Comment