First Bonnen burned the trust members must have in him for him to be an effective Speaker of the House by threatening them with loss of desirable committee assignments if they campaigned against any member of the House, even the opposite party. Yet we now know Bonnen himself was already engaged in doing such and then went big with the idea in the meeting he requested with Empower Texans’ Michael Quinn Sullivan.
We know that for a month Sullivan tried to get the troubling issues of the meeting dissolved with Bonnen in private, out of the public eye.
Garrett’s second item can be summed up by saying that Bonnen was drunk on naïve arrogance after his first session as Speaker and all the ring-kissing that goes with it. There is much evidence to support this charge.
In his “Mistake Three,” Garrett reverted to the media default of untruth by omission to sully conservatives. He wrote: “Mistake Three was Bonnen’s failure, after Sullivan in a July 25 blog post disclosed that they had met, to grasp that he’d been had.” This is the anti-conservative bias in much of the media.
We know that for a month Sullivan tried to get the troubling issues of the meeting dissolved with Bonnen in private, out of the public eye.
The entire situation was an exclusive creation of Bonnen so it is perverse to claim Bonnen was “had” by Sullivan in any way.
The entire situation was an exclusive creation of Bonnen so it is perverse to claim Bonnen was “had” by Sullivan in any way. It was all in Bonnen’s hands and Bonnen refused to do anything but start lying behind the scenes to colleagues while the matter was still private but when rumors of the meeting emerged. Those Bonnen lies are what lead to the public disclosure by Sullivan.
Again Bonnen, not Sullivan, created and pushed this scandal into public knowledge.
Bonnen, not Sullivan, pushed the meeting scandal to public disclosure
First Bonnen burned the trust members must have in him for him to be an effective Speaker of the House by threatening them with loss of desirable committee assignments if they campaigned against any member of the House, even the opposite party. Yet we now know Bonnen himself was already engaged in doing such and then went big with the idea in the meeting he requested with Empower Texans’ Michael Quinn Sullivan.
We know that for a month Sullivan tried to get the troubling issues of the meeting dissolved with Bonnen in private, out of the public eye.
Garrett’s second item can be summed up by saying that Bonnen was drunk on naïve arrogance after his first session as Speaker and all the ring-kissing that goes with it. There is much evidence to support this charge.
In his “Mistake Three,” Garrett reverted to the media default of untruth by omission to sully conservatives. He wrote: “Mistake Three was Bonnen’s failure, after Sullivan in a July 25 blog post disclosed that they had met, to grasp that he’d been had.” This is the anti-conservative bias in much of the media.
We know that for a month Sullivan tried to get the troubling issues of the meeting dissolved with Bonnen in private, out of the public eye.
The entire situation was an exclusive creation of Bonnen so it is perverse to claim Bonnen was “had” by Sullivan in any way.
The entire situation was an exclusive creation of Bonnen so it is perverse to claim Bonnen was “had” by Sullivan in any way. It was all in Bonnen’s hands and Bonnen refused to do anything but start lying behind the scenes to colleagues while the matter was still private but when rumors of the meeting emerged. Those Bonnen lies are what lead to the public disclosure by Sullivan.
Again Bonnen, not Sullivan, created and pushed this scandal into public knowledge.