Amb. Sondland denies molesting women & retaliating against them

2
370

According to an article published by ProPublica and the magazine Portland Monthly, three women say they faced sexual misconduct by Gordon Sondland before he was the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and one of the major impeachment witnesses before Congress.

The articles’ writers say he retaliated against the women professionally after they rejected his advances.

In one case, a potential business partner recalls that Sondland took her to tour a room in a hotel he owns and grabbed her face and kissed her. She allegedly rebuffed him and he then refused to do business with her.

Why would she want to business with him if her story is true?

A different woman, a work associate, says Sondland exposed himself to her during a business interaction.

She also recalls falling over the back of a couch in shock or something. After she made her lack of interest clear, she says Sondland called her, screaming about her job performance — allegedly.

Strange story.

A third woman, 27 years Sondland’s junior, met him to discuss a potential job when he allegedly pushed up against her and kissed her. She shoved him away and that was the end of the job help.

Why would she want job help after that?

All three women agreed to use their names.

AMB. SONDLAND SAYS HE’LL SUE

Sondland denies any of this happened and he plans to sue, according to a statement on his website.

In his statement, he wrote, the report “is fundamentally false and was produced with deceitful journalism methods far outside the bounds of basic ethical standards.  Both the timing and sourcing of the reporting seem obviously intended to influence congressional proceedings in which Amb. Sondland is a witness.”

Can you get three women to make up a story like this? Of course, you can. We can’t just believe the women. It could go either way. He’s a bit kooky as his performance during the hearings indicated.

Sondland said he had only a little over a day to respond to the article and listed some of the flaws in the argument which included:

  • The primary source for the reporting, Nicole Vogel, is also the owner of the publication in which it appears, Portland Monthly.  This is an outlandish conflict of interest yet neither the magazine nor ProPublica never attempted to explain or justify to us.

  • Ms. Vogel also solicited Amb. Sondland to invest in that magazine in 2003, at a meeting in which she claims to have been harassed.  After a due diligence effort, Amb. Sondland declined to invest.

  • Ms. Vogel is a frequent Democratic party donor and close associate of Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who has spent many weeks maligning Amb. Sondland and threatening his company, misconduct that is now the subject of a Congressional Ethics Office complaint.

  • A second source, Natalie Sept, has been similarly active in party politics and has been a political aide to Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, who is also a stringent critic of the current administration and is demanding its removal.

  • Another source, Jana Solis, had also pitched Amb. Sondland on a business proposal, to purchase insurance from her then-employer, which was declined.  In 2016, years after she claims to have been victimized, Ms. Solis encouraged her new employer to again pitch Amb. Sondland’s company, and they cited her good relationship with him.

  • Ms. Solis also altered the date on her allegation by five years, first claiming it occurred in 2003 and then later saying it was 2008 – this despite insisting that contemporaneous conversations with a friend backed up her account.

  • No mention was ever made about these three claims in the many preceding years, not even during the Ambassador’s confirmation process, when federal investigators were thoroughly pursuing input about his background, both personal and professional.

  • Reporters from both Portland Monthly and ProPublica spent many weeks contacting dozens if not hundreds of employees at Amb. Sondland’s former company, Provenance.  As many of those employees recounted to us, the reporters began those interactions with the unsupported innuendo that sexual harassment had occurred at the company – and then solicited the employees to describe anything similar.

Don’t just believe the women, definitely.

Every time someone doesn’t say what the left wants, molested women pop up. We don’t trust this report yet.

And anyway, who cares? Failed passes years ago. Boring.


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments