John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

a reply to: Deetermined

So you believe Solomon then. Fair enough.

That's not fact based reporting claiming that he has backup. It's also not factual that anything to the contrary to the designation Opinion is correct.

All due respect both you and Grambler are believers in Mr. Solomon. That doesn't make it fact.

Nor does your anecdotal claim that you've never seen anything to the contrary.

His editor at the Hill moved him to Opinion. Rather than adapt, he went on his own.

Does that strike you as journalistic integrity?

No, I disagree ... I'm not the dense one here.

The guy who claims it's fact because the other guy said so might be though.

a reply to: Grambler

The Kent stuff is a bit of a strawman. Was that what Vindman was talking about? Truth is, nobody knows.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The USA, the EU and the IMF all required that the prosecutor be replaced as part of the anti-corruption agreement, in order for that aid to be released.

Do you have a link for that? Biden only mentioned Obama during his threat, not the IMF. While the IMF money was dependent on routing out corruption, I have NEVER read anything stating that the IMF required that the prosecutor be fired. I'm more than willing to consider what you are stating is true if you can back that up.

But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.
In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.

www.factcheck.org...

The IMF’s programme involves disbursing money in stages and has always been contingent on economic and political reforms. A third tranche of assistance has been held up since October because IMF officials have grown increasingly concerned that the financial assistance would be squandered or stolen by corrupt officials.

“I am concerned about Ukraine’s slow progress in improving governance and fighting corruption, and reducing the influence of vested interests in policymaking,” she said.

“Without a substantial new effort to invigorate governance reforms and fight corruption, it is hard to see how the IMF-supported programme can continue and be successful. Ukraine risks a return to the pattern of failed economic policies that has plagued its recent history. It is vital that Ukraine’s leadership acts now to put the country back on a promising path of reform.”

Lagarde’s comments follow the resignation last week of Ukraine’s economic minister, Aivaras Abromavičius, after he accused a senior aide to the country’s president, Petro Poroshenko, of blocking anti-corruption reforms

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha


You mean THIS
Christine Lagarde?

She's not the poster child for anti corruption. Lol

But She's like AIG....to big to be prosecuted.

In fact she's now head of the European Central Bank.

That's how they roll......

a reply to: pavil

She's not the poster child for anti corruption. Lol

Neither is Trump. LOL

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's also not factual that anything to the contrary to the designation Opinion is correct.

The only fact involving Vindman/Ciaramello is that their personal opinions do not equal facts.

Who cares what their mere opinion was? Feelings/emotions/opinions do not equal facts nor are they objective or even relevant.

What does it matter what a federal employee thinks of his boss's foreign policy/how he handles his duty to execute the law? His opinion is one thing, but obviously every executive branch employee is merely an extension of the President. In place to further the President's policy objectives, not think they are smart enough/important enough to contradict or oppose the sitting President.

IMO, Trump should order Vindman to publicly state Ciaramello's name and then imprison him for insubordination if he is as goofy and dumb as he looks and refuses to obey the CINC.

a reply to: JBurns

That's such a tired argument.

They are called to attest to what they know.

The "transcript " shows the phone call so opinions about it are not hearsay. Also, Lt. Col. Vindman was listening to the call.

They are not giving testimony as to anything other than what they know, conversations they engaged in with colleagues, meetings they were in and memos they were involved in.

This bleating about hearsay is a) incorrect and b) unimportant.

The Senate has Trump's back so you all can stop pretending to be upset about partisanship soon.

Besides that the $&#@? Speaker of the House invalidated the whole thing by stating on the record that they have to impeach because they can't trust the American people.

That should be all anyone needs to hear.

But for God's sake get a cogent argument.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The "transcript " shows the phone call so opinions about it are not hearsay. Also, Lt. Col. Vindman was listening to the call.

You can scream it from the rooftops if you want, but in the end, that's just your opinion. I didn't hear anything but hearsay and that's my opinion. The fact that they chose the Ukraine phone call to try and impeach Trump was a bad idea from the get-go. Trump destroyed the left's narrative when he made an unprecedented strategic move and released the transcript and now the left is in damage control.

a reply to: Gryphon66

His editor at the Hill moved him to Opinion. Rather than adapt, he went on his own.

Does that strike you as journalistic integrity?

I had to stop here and respond. Curious in your mindset in responding this way. I am guessing that perhaps your thought did not come across correctly in your text writing.

Are you denigrating a journalist because he refuses to adapt to another's opinion, editor in this case?

For me, I will definitely say Solomon has integrity for following his own truth and not negating his truth of investigating due to editorial pressure. That is journalistic integrity!

What isn't journalistic integrity is when a journalist is fearful of going against the collective, editor, or falls for the peer pressure to sensationalize a story by twisting/cutting quotes to suit a confirmed bias.

Solomon has an opinion, but often provides actual sources to peruse and understand why he has his opinion. Most journalists today do not provide sources and exaggerate their opinions to please the editor. that is not journalistic integrity.

Please, share why you feel different or how I misconstrued your above post.

a reply to: CynConcepts

His writing was moved from fact-based journalism [sic] to their Opinion pages by the editor of The Hill. The Editor made the statement that this was because they could not vet his claims.

On phone atm, I'll provide the citation later.


EDIT:

Cyn, I’m going to use an article from Politico and one from Politifact that summarizes the backup for my statements. I had thought I had the statement from the Hill regarding the move of Solomon to Opinion and the current review of his articles bookmarked but can’t find it and I don’t want to lose the 4 hour window. If you have any other questions, let me know, sorry for the secondary sources:

The Hill is reviewing reporting by John Solomon, a former columnist at the publication whose writings on Ukraine have come under heavy scrutiny during the impeachment inquiry. “Because of our dedication to accurate, non-partisan reporting and standards, we are reviewing, updating, annotating, and when appropriate, correcting any opinion pieces referenced during the ongoing congressional inquiry,” editor-in-chief Bob Cusack informed staff Monday in a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Politico

And

In 2018, The Hill began labeling Solomon’s articles as opinion. Then, in March and April 2019, Solomon published a series of columns alleging conspiracies involving Democrats and Ukraine.

Politifact

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CynConcepts

His writing was moved from fact-based journalism [sic] to their Opinion pages by the editor of The Hill. The Editor made the statement that this was because they could not vet his claims.

On phone atm, I'll provide the citation later.

After you read Solomon's Rebuttal to Vindman, tell me what parts are Solomon's opinions. He provides sources galore in the article.

Thanks

a reply to: pavil

That's completely fair. I'll do that asap.

originally posted by: pavil

EDIT: Whoops, my bad, Gryp has accepted the challenge!! That I can respect.

edit on 22-11-2019 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: pavil

EDIT: Whoops, my bad, Gryp has accepted the challenge!! That I can respect.

Don't ya hate it when that happens ?

LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

That's completely fair. I'll do that asap.

Can't have reasonable political discussions on ATS, you're making us all look weak with such a calm reply. Give me a little insult or something at least......

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

So you believe Solomon then. Fair enough.

That's not fact based reporting claiming that he has backup. It's also not factual that anything to the contrary to the designation Opinion is correct.

All due respect both you and Grambler are believers in Mr. Solomon. That doesn't make it fact.

Nor does your anecdotal claim that you've never seen anything to the contrary.

His editor at the Hill moved him to Opinion. Rather than adapt, he went on his own.

Does that strike you as journalistic integrity?

No, I disagree ... I'm not the dense one here.

The guy who claims it's fact because the other guy said so might be though.

I expect that garbage from Snookie, but I thought you had a bit more substance.

Grambler is making a statement that has yet to be refuted. Soloman backs up his work with links. Now it's entirely possible his links are lies, but you can't just say you think they guy is wrong, then not prove it, or you are exactly what the OP is describing, or in other words, just like Snookie.

Please, if there are wrong things with Soloman's work, point it out. Show us why it's wrong. But if not, then explain why what you bring isn't just mental masturbation?

a reply to: network dude

Yes that’s what I am asking

I did a video on this but I’m on phone right now so it’s hard to put links

Here is my most objective stance off my memory

I felt a few of Solomon’s points while proven true with sources, weren’t very meaningful

Like even though it may be technically against the Geneva convention for an ambassador to weigh no in an election, I don’t care the Ukrainian ambassador wrote an op ed against trumps Crimea statement

There was at least one of his points, I think about Ukrainian officials reaching out to the ny ag office etc, that Solomon linked his own interview with the Ukrainian but only backed it up by saying it’s up to the reader to call the US attorneys office to confirm, which clearly I was unable to do

And a couple of his points, although sourced with Ukrainian court documents, will be written off because it’s just the testimony of shokin who many say is corrupt

However, the overwhelming majority of the important points he has raised are multiple sourced with official documents, testimony etc

Enough to shame Vindman and the rest of the witnesses that said he was wrong about everything

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Biden was working on behalf of the interests of the USA, as a part of an international envoy.

Somehow you imagine that the IMF involvement
makes Biden's corruption off limits?

Somehow "international cabals" are now the unassailable
pillar of integrity? Similar thinking was employed by
the coup plotters when they involved other nations
to circumvent U.S. laws in spying on a political opponent.

This is the new tyranny.
Previously known as The New World Order.

a reply to: network dude

Soloman backs up his work with links.

First of all, Vindman was responding, during his testimony, to John Solomon's accusations against Ambassador Marie (Sasha) Yovanovitch.

Read page 321-322 of the transcript that Solomon linked here: apps.npr.org...

Secondly, John Solomon's 28 point response to Vindman's testimony “I think all the key elements were false,” are not in defense of his campaign, publishing false allegations against Ambassador Yovanovitch, which Vindman testified that
"key elements" of his reporting was false.

But within weeks, Lutsenko hit back at Yovanovitch with an accusation of his own conveyed via The Hill‘s John Solomon: that she had previously provided Ukrainian prosecutors with a list of officials not to be prosecuted.

Through March and April, Lutsenko was conferring with Giuliani, and Solomon continued to pump out articles citing Lutsenko as accusing Yovanovitch — and later, the Bidens — of corruption.

The intelligence community whistleblower wrote that Yovanovitch’s “tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from Mr. Lutsenko’s allegations.”
....
Within one week of Yovanovitch’s removal, Lutsenko began to walk back his statements, telling Bloomberg that there was “no evidence” of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

talkingpointsmemo.com...

John Solomon: How a conservative columnist helped push a flawed Ukraine Narrative
www.washingtonpost.com... 498eabc129a0_story.html

Solomon's 28 point response and the OP are just giant deflections, meant to discredit the testimony of Lt Col Vindman, and his defense of Ambassador Yovanovitch.

a reply to: pavil

LOL ... oh, I’m sure I’ll snap back one of these days, Pavil. Just remember you asked LOL.

Okay, here’s the article I’m responding to (I want to make sure I’m responding to the right one.)

johnsolomonreports.com

So, if that’s not It, I’m about to waste a lot of time.

Off the top, Solomon plays a semantic game. He quotes Vindman saying “I think all the key elements were false.”

However, Solomon portrays this as:

“You see, under oath to Congress, he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine ere false, except maybe my Grammar.

And here’s what Vindman actually said:

MR. ZELDIN: Did your sources, though, say that everything was false, or just parts of it were false?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: I think all the key elements were false.

MR. ZELDIN: Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements. Are you referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false.

Transcript of Vindman Public Testimony

I have to shorten this somehow, so if you’re interested, you can check out page 322 in the transcript I linked at NPR.

What Vindman stated in his testimony forgoing was that John Solomon had falsely claimed:

1. Yovanovitch proffered a no prosecute list.

2. Yovanovitch embezzled funds.

Two specific items that Lt. Col. Vindman called “key elements” in his testimony linked above and also referred to as “criticisms of corruption.“

TWO ITEMS, not 28 “factual elements” as Solomon phrases it as he then goes on a Gish gallop riding a Strawman talking about these 28 things that VIndman’s testimony didn’t even address.

Then of course, he follows up with a list of very carefully worded claims with hypertext backup (I didn’t check every piece of backup at this time.) which does not regard what Vindman actually testified to.

Here are the relevant items from Solomon’s 28 items that could be said to address Lt. Col. VIndman’s actual claims somewhat:

Fact 22: Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here.

Fact 23: Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko’s claim, calling it a “fabrication.” I reported their reaction here.

So, now to give you my opinion of these “Facts” relevant statements of Solomon’s based on VIndman’s actual testimony:

Solomon says that Lutsenko said that Yovanovitch offered a list of names not to prosecute. He offers a video link to Lutsenko’s interview with him on that point.

Solomon then states that Yovanovitch called this a fabrication (and that he reported on it and links to his own article of November 13, 2019 on his website).

Now, here’s my problem. VIndman’s statements in his Congressional testimony didn’t regard Solomon articles written for his new website as cited above and in the reference article here, but instead Solomon’s articles written in March and April of 2018 at The Hill.

That’s not opinion, that’s outright misdirection.

I’m going to stop there because I think I can give a fair and accurate read of my thoughts about this “rebuttal.”

I can see why some posters here approve of Solomon. His stuff is literally chocked full of fallacious arguments and half-truths, but he’s tricky and you might not notice it if you weren’t looking for it critically. I hesitate to say that a lot of folks here do that too.

As I referenced above, you can see that this whole article is a very carefully constructed Strawman Argument: Vindman only challenged two claims made in articles by Solomon published at The Hill in March or April 2019 (Vindman couldn’t remember exactly and I haven’t looked it up) but Solomon Gish gallops making multiple statements (that are not quotes) that he provides references to (usually his own articles) BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT VINDMAN WAS GIVING TESTIMONY TO.

Vindman was talking about two points in an article at The Hill from early 2019, not articles written by Solomon in November 13, 2019 that he claims as backup for his statements.

I think sometimes we play fast and lose with what “fact based” means at ATS. Some folks take it to mean “provided a link to a source for” but we all know that is no longer the case. The internet is chocked full of opinion, innuendo, pranks and outright disinformation. Saying that “Solomon backed up his stuff with links” is not a valid argument.

As I just showed, he “backed up” his refutations of claims that Vindman didn’t make.

That’s all the time I have for this now. Sorry for the length. I hope that suits that I’m not just shooting from the hip or blurting empty rhetoric when I critique Solomon’s writing.