John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not going to go point by point, down Solomon's crafty rabbit hole, on how his conspiracy riddled reporting is stilted, biased and misleading.

We know you won't because you can't. Please prove me wrong.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

I read all 28 talking points. They are biased and deliberately misleading. Yummy Pablum for the myopic and uninformed.

I'll ask you the same question I had to ask another dense person yesterday. How are quoted taped interviews with officials in Ukraine biased and misleading?! (Facepalm)

a reply to: JBurns

I couldn't go point by point without bringing up Jared Kushner's $1 billion dollar personal deal to bail out his 666 building, or Ivanka's dozen or so Chinese Trademarks she procured while having dinner with Xi Jinping. Not to mention DJ Jr and Eric's influence peddling globetrotting escapades.

Or, that secret billion dollar energy deal that President Zelenskiy recently found out that Trump and some American businessmen were hiding from him.

a reply to: Deetermined

How are quoted taped interviews with officials in Ukraine biased and misleading?!

Which taped interviews? Do you mean the impeachment hearing witnesses?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Complete deflections

We get it, no one is faulting you.

You are just parroting the dems and their witnesses saying solomon is wrong about everything and terrible, without giving any evidence to refute even one of his points.

Again, thank you for illustrating perfectly the tactics used to ignore his reporting.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
Just the Facts about all this legal or not legal mumbo jumbo'

A Little-Known, Clinton-Approved Treaty Lets Ukraine Help US Investigate Criminal Cases

.....The treaty in question is the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, ratified by the U.S. Senate on Oct. 18, 2000......

The treaty, crafted with drug trafficking in mind, allows either country to call on the other for assistance in “taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State,” according to the State Department’s summary......

All this Ukraine pro quid pro nonesense is just a Deepstate smokescreen to feed the brainwashed sheeple and further their objectives ... which are failing miserably

I keep wondering why Jim Jordon, John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes never brought that up, and why President Zelensky said that he would be happy to cooperate with an investigation, as soon as the White House puts the request in writing.

a reply to: Grambler

You are just parroting

I'm not parroting anything. I form my own opinions and do my own research.

Now you, Mr Republican Talking Points, are parroting, and more times than not, you parrot John Solomon's myopia.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Deetermined

First I heard about Biden being investigated, but there has been an investigation into Burisma going back to 2017. That sort of brings up the question then of why Trump was insisting on investigations if they were already happening.

I think the media is being misleading on this issue. I think Trump's request to the Ukraine president has more to do with making a public announcement about the investigation taking place instead of his desire to start one. Similar to the incident of Trump firing Comey for refusing to announce publicly that he wasn't the investigative target of the FBI. Which we all know Comey wouldn't do because they had been investigating him the whole time while lying to him.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

You are just parroting

I'm not parroting anything. I form my own opinions and do my own research.

Now you, Mr Republican Talking Points, are parroting, and more times than not, you parrot John Solomon's myopia.

Im not going to get the thread shut down

The thread was about the dems and their witnesses just claiming solomon is wrong about everything while providing no specifics.

It seems that same tactic has been used on this thread.

If you have anything you specifically think is wrong with the article, I would be happy to discuss.

originally posted by: ATruGod
Im kinda confused...isn't Quid Pro Quo an integral part of ANY negotiation? Thats why its called Negotiating everybody tends to get something.

This aid was approved by Congress. It wasn't Trump's money to negotiate with. As a matter of fact, his own legal counsel advised the State Department that withholding the aid violated the law. John Bolton release around $1.5 million.
www.bloomberg.com...

OMB is prohibited from using its “apportionment power” to determine or set an executive agency’s policy. OMB can only use its authority to ensure a congressional law is appropriately executed, and the money allocated for that law typically lasts through the fiscal year unless the money is made available for obligation over a longer period. In particular, 31 U.S.C § 1512(c)(1) states that OMB can use its apportionment or reapportionment power only:
(A) to provide for contingencies;
(B) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(C) as specifically provided by law.

This section also clearly states that “[n]o officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.”

www.lawfareblog.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined

How are quoted taped interviews with officials in Ukraine biased and misleading?!

Which taped interviews? Do you mean the impeachment hearing witnesses?

Go read another article from Solomon on his website explaining how he videotapes and audiotapes his interviews with the people he gets his information from so it doesn't appear "biased". He's just repeating the information given to him.

a reply to: Grambler

The thread was about the dems and their witnesses just claiming solomon is wrong about everything while providing no specifics.

This thread is about discrediting Lt Col Vindman, and to deflect to false accusations that Biden had a prosecutor fired to protect his son from prosecution. Instead of talking about the validity of impeachment hearing testimony, you want to get everyone all riled up about Hunter Biden's influence peddling.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

This thread is about discrediting Lt Col Vindman, and to deflect to false accusations that Biden had a prosecutor fired to protect his son from prosecution.

Once again, go do your homework and inform yourself. Solomon has a videotaped interview of the prosecutor claiming he was told that's why he was fired. You didn't even read the article. Fail. Move on.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Instead of talking about the validity of impeachment hearing testimony, you want to get everyone all riled up about Hunter Biden's influence peddling.

No, this thread is about people like you. You didn't read it either, did you?! LOL!

Solomon documented evidence to back up his reporting and all you want to do is ignore it and put it down without ever having read it. Shameful. That's what this thread is about.

a reply to: Deetermined

Was the corrupt prosecutor, who was fired for corruption, under oath? No?

Fail. Move on.

a reply to: Deetermined

Speaking as another supposedly "dense" person ... You keep crowing about his video and audio recordings ... Does Solomon make these available to the public to at least verify his "hearsay" evidence?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Maybe if we're lucky, the Republicans will actually get to spend an entire day (required by House policy) to bring every witness forward in one day that they want without Schiff being able to reject them. We'll see.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

Speaking as another supposedly "dense" person ... You keep crowing about his video and audio recordings ... Does Solomon make these available to the public to at least verify his "hearsay" evidence?

The entire e=article is 28 points he makes, showing evidence for every one.

When he interviewed lustenko on video, yes, he provides a link to it is this article.

Im not sure you understand what hearsay means

Him providing documents of direct interviews or testimony with people is not hearsay.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

Speaking as another supposedly "dense" person ... You keep crowing about his video and audio recordings ... Does Solomon make these available to the public to at least verify his "hearsay" evidence?

The Hill has copies of all of them to review and confirm, but you won't be hearing a peep out of them. I'm sure at some point Solomon will be forced to make it all public. Doesn't he have some of the documented evidence available on his website? I think he started this new website in part just for that reason.

a reply to: Deetermined

Joe and Hunter Biden aren't on trial, nor are they the subject of impeachment. Trump's apparent/alleged withholding Congressionally appropriated aid to personally benefit himself is why there are impeachment hearings.

If the Senate wants to open their own investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, they can certainly do that.