Sondland denies report accusing him of sexual harassment, calling it 'fundamentally false'

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well obviously all the gang here will want Sondland investigated right?

I mean there’s more evidence here than against the Bidens ... so an investigation is merited.

Right, righties?

Go for it. No one on the right likes Sondland, he's a leftist hero right now. These women should make criminal complaints.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
He has learned a valuable lesson on politics. You are the most important thing to them, until you are of no use to them anymore. Then, you are worthless and deserve to be destroyed.

Ah yes, I remember the Mexican Word of the Day following the Kavanaugh hearings: Harrassment.

Picture of blond female (Blasey-Ford) being ejected from a black SUV with the caption:
"Harrassment nothing to them after she testified..."

ganjoa

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well obviously all the gang here will want Sondland investigated right?

I mean there’s more evidence here than against the Bidens ... so an investigation is merited.

Right, righties?

Go for it. No one on the right likes Sondland, he's a leftist hero right now. These women should make criminal complaints.

Absolutely. I think we should have randomly selected investigations, just to keep it interesting.

Who knows what crimes people are committing?

/s

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well obviously all the gang here will want Sondland investigated right?

I mean there’s more evidence here than against the Bidens ... so an investigation is merited.

Right, righties?

Go for it. No one on the right likes Sondland, he's a leftist hero right now. These women should make criminal complaints.

Absolutely. I think we should have randomly selected investigations, just to keep it interesting.

Who knows what crimes people are committing?

/s

It's not random if the women file a criminal complaint. Go to the police, have him charged.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Notice the /s at the bottom of my last post?

I didn’t say that Sondland’s accusers are random.

I will say that abusing governmental powers of investigation is going to end in a loss of rights for Americans.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Notice the /s at the bottom of my last post?

I didn’t say that Sondland’s accusers are random.

I will say that abusing governmental powers of investigation is going to end in a loss of rights for Americans.

Absolutely. These accusations are becoming a real problem. There is a right way and wrong way to do it, it is never ever done the right way.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It appears Sondlin was playing both sides down the middle type stuff when he started off with in his opinion it was quid pro quo that I know is legal when given large sums of gov money to anyone at all, no matter why it is used.

Then when point blank asked about it he couldn't substantiate his opinion as fact. Dem's star witness ruined. I see why they are after him even though he tossed them a bone.

How does this impact how you view his character and this his testimony?

It doesn't.

Sondland gave conflicting testimoney which zeros him out.

If these claims are true.

Take him to court over it, and let a jury decide.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He reeks of white rich male privilege, sexually assaulted 3 women and you like him? Why, because he said something against Trump?

People liked Frank Sinatra too. (And Donald Trump)

Sondland is easy to like. He's so goofy! But, I can also see that underlying mean streak. Can't you?

I saw a man willing to twist things for political points, but I don't know what Sinatra has to do with this. Why do you keep calling sexual assault womanizing?

Because he's a troll plain and simple and isn't even worth directly responding to most of the time.... His whole purpose is clear every thread he responds to... Derailment and moving the discussion off topic....

If that doesn't work..... Just blatantly say stuff to get people riled up......

That's why most of the time I ignore his posts completely... Its all just very silly....

originally posted by: neo96

How does this impact how you view his character and this his testimony?

It doesn't.

Sondland gave conflicting testimoney which zeros him out.

If these claims are true.

Take him to court over it, and let a jury decide.

I would not go that far, that he gave conflicting testimony. the reason is that we do not have the full transcript of the "secret one" he gave in the Schiff Chamber. The difference being the questions he was asked in there. Had he been asked "What did you think after the telephone conversation of July 25th between President Trump and President Zelensky?" he would have answered about quid-pro-quo and activity that would warrant an impeachment inquiry. The Schiff Show's questions were likely all about feelings and impressions for ALL of the "witnesses". Whereas the in the public hearing they were asked point blank direct questions regarding facts, not feelings.

And does anyone wonder why those direct questions were not asked in the Schiff Chamber?
Or why when the line of questioning in the public inquiry was so controlled by Schiff from exposing any of that?

Sondland, IMO, was truthful in his answers both times. The difference being the questions asked.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Who’s that chap over there? He may have done something ... let’s investigate him too.

Investigations for everyone! Let’s just use the state to punish all of our enemies great and small.

Pfft.

Holy crap dude, this has been the left agenda for the last 3 years at a level 10 times anything Trump is looking at. Don't like someone investigate back to grade school....as example... It was Obama who weaponized the IRS, push politically motivated FISA warrants, promoted a anti-Trump FBI and so on with Hillary/DNC driving the train of investigations at a full retard level. Trump wants open concessions from Ukraine that they will actually tackle corruption with the whole Biden/son thing stinking too to warrant some investigation and all of a sudden its your statement above.

Do you truly believe that it is just normal business for a foreign company deep in corruption making the active VPs son a multimillionaire with a "nothing to see here folks" attitude..."Zero evidence of wrongdoing" with no investigation....OK

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You don't like my response, that I'm not surprised to hear that Sondland is an old school misogynist? So therefore, you think that I'm somehow trying to derail the thread?

What is this thread about anyway? I thought it was about Sondland being accused of sexual misconduct, but I guess it's really about Kavanaugh and the Democrats, and lying women.

My bad!

The fact is, Harvey Weinstein hasn't been convicted of anything, yet. And, regardless of the "Me Too" movement, rape culture is still alive and well.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

Sondland, IMO, was truthful in his answers both times. The difference being the questions asked.

I didn't find Sondland note worthy in his answers. Nothing new with nothing to gain for the left. At this point it would be impossible to suggest that all that trump wanted was dirt on Biden, or faked dirt. Even with Rudy nosing around the whole invention thing covers multiple layers of corruption with an investigation into Biden's son just one and that there is why this will go no where...no smoking gun...no direct evidences of wrong doing...nothing burger...

BTW you all do know that EVERY president had at least one person working directly for them bypassing many/all agencies as a back channel to work directly with foreign powers, right? Even Obama with Iran, so nothing new here too folks...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Its already resulted in a loss of rights for Americans. If you have a child attending a University they can be charged with a sex crime without the right of defense, no right to face the accusser, no right to examine the evidence if there is evidence, no right to cross examination of witnesses nor the right to be present for the preceeding.

It may not be a legal or criminal precedding, but the information and findings would certainly be used against any defendents in civil or criminal courts. The damage is done since decisions were made based on proceedings that denied the most basic of rights under our Constitution.

Another erosion of civil liberties, the presumption of innocence is being disregarded in the very halls of our system. No matter what one thinks of DJT, he must be allowed that same basic presumption, or it will be lost to all. Too many are saying he is guilty but have no crime to base guilt on so investigate and find one. We know he is guilty, now if we can just find a crime.

A special prosecutor failed to find one, the IRS has not uncovered any, several states have not come up with any, countless hostilie reporters over the last 40 plus years he has done business have yet to uncover anything criminal in nature, yet he is presumed guilty and they intend to find a crime worthy of his guilt.

I am a fan of where there is smoke that we should investigate and find any fires. God knows the man smokes like a volcano, but so do most bussiness people at that level, shady and on the edge and ethics dont apply. There is a cloud of smoke that perpetually hangs over DC, but it doesnt mean its burning, just bleching some gas and occasionally some fire will burn one who drifts too far.

If we were to use the same standards against all in DC, the town would burn in an hour from one big river of lava. We must protect the rights of even the most guilty otherwise we all lose. Justice is suppose to be blind, not deaf and dumb. She hears accusations but does not see guilt until clearly proven, and even then reviewed again and again.

The trend today seems to be that Justice must remain blind and can only hear accusations, can no longer speak or see evidence, because the desire to be heard outweighs the scales she balances so carefully. We must not allow the trends to continue due to our desires, we cannot lose that balance or some will forever tilt the scales with a thumb or two of desire.

"white male privilege"?

So if he was a white male and had no money would he still have "white male privilege" ?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's the "vibe" I got, so, like I said, I'm not surprised. No one should be, really. I mean, spend $1 million to get a position as the EU Ambassador reeks of rich white male privilege, and everything that comes with it. Including women, whether they like it or not.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
"white male privilege"?

So if he was a white male and had no money would he still have "white male privilege" ?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's the "vibe" I got, so, like I said, I'm not surprised. No one should be, really. I mean, spend $1 million to get a position as the EU Ambassador reeks of rich white male privilege, and everything that comes with it. Including women, whether they like it or not.

Plenty of low level managers, who are not rich, abuse their power over females in the work place.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate your perspective even if I don't always agree.
Happy Thanksgiving!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
"white male privilege"?

So if he was a white male and had no money would he still have "white male privilege" ?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's the "vibe" I got, so, like I said, I'm not surprised. No one should be, really. I mean, spend $1 million to get a position as the EU Ambassador reeks of rich white male privilege, and everything that comes with it. Including women, whether they like it or not.

Plenty of low level managers, who are not rich, abuse their power over females in the work place.

lots of sex preds in this administration