Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 04, 2019

Articles by John Solomon in the Hill earlier this year accelerated a "smear campaign" against Marie Yovanovitch, then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, in furtherance of a rogue foreign policy spearheaded by Rudolph W. Giuliani on behalf of President Trump, according to the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report released Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As the report notes, the Hill published a story on March 20 stemming from a Solomon interview with Lutsenko. "Top Ukrainian justice official says US ambassador gave him a do not prosecute list," reads the headline. As the New York Times reported last month, Lutsenko attributed the "list" allegation to a bad translation and acknowledged that no such thing existed. He did say that Yovanovitch "had in fact asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts," according to the Times report.

More from the report: "Mr. Solomon's work also included false allegations that Ambassador Yovanovitch had made disparaging statements about President Trump.' Ambassador Yovanovitch called this allegation fictitious' and the State Department issued a statement describing the allegations as a fabrication.' "

The report expands upon public testimony before the House Intelligence committee in November, not to mention previous depositions behind closed doors. Witness after witness attested to the impact of Solomon's reporting, how it shook the political ground in Ukraine and how weak it was on a factual level. George Kent, a top State Department official, said during his deposition, "It was, if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs."

The Intelligence Committee's report fills in some details about Solomon's interactions with the protagonists in the effort to harm Yovanovitch's reputation. Over the two days preceding the airing of the March 20 interview concerning the alleged do-not-prosecute list, Solomon spoke with Parnas "at least six times," according to the impeachment investigation. An April 7 Solomon piece carried allegations that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine stood in the way of issuing visas for Ukrainians who wanted to deliver evidence of wrongdoing by Democrats to the United States. Giuliani later went on Fox News to talk about the alleged fishiness coming from Ukraine.

There was never any real "story" here. There was only an effort by Giuliani to scare up a bogus line of attack against Democrats in preparation for the 2020 presidential election. The record demonstrates that Solomon's work advanced that campaign, his rebuttals notwithstanding.

Garbage in, garbage out.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 05:58 AM | Reply

Yovanovitch should sue the bastard.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-04 08:55 AM | Reply

www.politico.com

We'll see what they ultimately do but The Hill may not even stand by Solomon.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 09:09 AM | Reply

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1

CNN confirms: The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee looked into allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence to support the claims, according to sources familiar with the matter.

GOP-led committee probed possible Ukraine interference in 2016 election and found nothing worth pursuing, sources say

www.cnn.com

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 09:20 AM | Reply

I have seen John Solomon grilled on TV interviews and he solidly stands by his reporting, claiming HE has sources and documents to back up his reporting. That's unheard of since most of the news we get in the 'liberal mainstream' news media is from anonymous sources without any verification.

So I believe Solomon's reports far more than news reports from the liberal media.

#5 | Posted by SJHamilton at 2019-12-04 09:27 AM | Reply

The timing of all of this is very interesting.

So much is being ramped up by Democrats just prior to the IG report.

Either they are building up toward a crescendo if the IG report is a dud for the GOP or they are trying to set narratives and soften the blow if the report is explosive, as some have claimed.

No way the timing of all of this is coincidental.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

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.

One of his key sources, apparently, was former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer. According to the New York Times, Giuliani, whose activities were central to the administration's efforts to get an investigation launched into Trump's political rivals, gave Solomon a cache of information on Biden, his son Hunter and special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

"I really turned my stuff over to John Solomon," Giuliani told the New York Times.

When Fiona Hill, Trump's former top Russia expert, was asked during private testimony how she first learned about Giuliani's "interest" in Ukraine, she mentioned Solomon, whose columns outlined the same conspiracies that Giuliani was actively pushing on Twitter and TV.

Senior State Department official George Kent later testified that what he had described as the "campaign of slander" against former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch began with one of Solomon's articles and ended with Yovanovitch's removal.... Kent testified that Solomon's article "was, if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs." He later said he had "every reason to believe it was not true."

Vindman said all the "key elements were false," noting that Solomon's columns "smelled really rotten" before joking, "His grammar might have been right."

Similar objections have been raised in testimony about two articles Solomon published about Biden in April, which were also referenced in the whistleblower's complaint. Solomon's April columns asserted that then-Vice President Biden forced Ukraine to fire former prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a gas company for which Hunter Biden served on the board. Solomon wrote that Biden withheld aid dollars from Ukraine as leverage to get Shokin removed.

There's no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden, as we've noted before. It's not clear that the long-dormant investigation into Burisma had been reopened, as Solomon claimed, and Western leaders and institutions were united in wanting Shokin removed.

Solomon's columns also alleged misconduct in Ukraine by Democratic donor George Soros and claimed, without much evidence, that Democrats coordinated with Ukrainian officials to interfere in the 2016 election by sharing dirt on Trump and reviving a 2014 investigation into former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who had ties to the country's old, pro-Russia regime.

These claims are unproven, and the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that it was Russia " not Ukraine " that interfered in the 2016 election, with the intent of helping Trump. www.politifact.com

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 09:34 AM | Reply

The timing of all of this is very interesting.

No, the timing is based on the the relevant facts and details of Solomon's role in propagating false narratives and Russia-created lies now proven by sworn testimony and the known record of who did what. As shown above, Solomon injected himself into the Ukraine scheme along with Giuliani, with both of them wrongly smearing the ambassador and pushing stories into the right wing media sphere that were completely false and initially created as cover stories for Putin's direct ordering of Russia's counterintel operations, placing blame away from where it rightly belonged.

The timing is solely based on the fact that Solomon's discredited "reporting" lies as a central cog in the false narrative believed by Trump and forwarded by Rudy and his henchmen who are now indicted in other crimes.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 09:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have seen John Solomon grilled on TV interviews and he solidly stands by his reporting, claiming HE has sources and documents to back up his reporting. That's unheard of since most of the news we get in the 'liberal mainstream' news media is from anonymous sources without any verification.
So I believe Solomon's reports far more than news reports from the liberal media.

There are sources, and then there are sources. Here's what happened to some of Solomon's:

Prosecutor who aided Giuliani's hunt for damaging details on Biden fired in anti-corruption purge

Kostiantyn Kulyk, one of Giuliani's earliest contacts in Ukraine, was given a dismissal notice last week

The former prosecutor later appeared in a report by The Hill's John Solomon, to whom Giuliani fed dubious claims to fuel the debunked narrative that Biden had a prosecutor terminated while he was investigating a Ukrainian firm that employed his son. Kulyk also helped fuel what former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch described as a Giuliani-led smear campaign to get her fired. The prosecutor told Solomon that Yovanovitch blocked him and other officials from getting a visa to travel to the U.S. to share information about his findings.

Giuliani told The Blaze host Glenn Beck last month that he used Solomon to push the claims in the U.S. Senior State Department official George Kent also testified last month that Solomon's reporting, "if not entirely made up in full cloth," was filled with "non-truths and non-sequiturs."

Kulyk was just one Ukrainian prosecutor with whom Giuliani dealt. Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko, who was fired from his position earlier this year and is now under a criminal investigation for corruption, fed Giuliani and Solomon false information about Biden and Yovanovitch. He has since retracted his claims and acknowledged that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden.


www.salon.com

IOW, Solomon's Ukrainian sources were fired for corruption and one of them is under investigation for that corruption.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 09:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I believe Solomon's reports far more than news reports from the liberal media.

In other words, you believe what you want to believe, and literally nothing will change your mind.

Someday psychology journals will have a field day with Trumpers.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

The other fact about Solomon that folks need to keep in mind:

Fox News Legal Guests Represent Both Ukrainian Billionaire and the Journalist at Center of Joe Biden Story

Two conservative lawyers, Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who represent Ukrainian billionaire Dmitry Firtash"a key figure in the ongoing Ukraine phone call and impeachment scandal"are also representing the journalist instrumental in pushing several Ukraine-related stories recently metabolized by President Donald Trump as potential sources of dirt on his political opponent Joe Biden.


lawandcrime.com

This matters because:

Toensing and DiGenova Were Deeply Involved in Giuliani's Extortion Racket

During the impeachment hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, we got a pretty good look at the cast of characters who were working both the regular and irregular channels of diplomacy with Ukraine. But behind the scenes, there was a whole other group that was working with Giuliani. We need an organizational chart for these folks.

Point man: Rudy Giuliani
Connectors: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
Reporter: John Solomon
Lawyers: Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova

All of those players are central to the story told in the New York Times on Monday about how the team worked Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch with ties to the Kremlin and, according to the US Justice Department, Russian organized crime. Since 2014, Firtash has been facing charges of bribery in U.S. federal court.

Giuliani wanted Firtash to help him dig up dirt on the Bidens, so he sent Parnas and Fruman to meet with the oligarch and make an offer: hire Toensing and diGenova, who can help you plead your case directly to Attorney General William Barr in exchange for any dirt you have on the Bidens.

Firtash agreed to the deal and paid the lawyers $1.2 million ($200,000 went to Parnas as a "finder's fee"). Soon thereafter, "confidential documents from Mr. Firtash's case file began to find their way into articles by John Solomon, a conservative reporter whom Mr. Giuliani has acknowledged using to advance his claims about the Bidens." The pro for that quid also materialized, even if it came a bit late.


washingtonmonthly.com

None of this is a coincidence.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In other words, you believe what you want to believe, and literally nothing will change your mind.

#10 | Posted by JOE

Which is exactly what you libs do.

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-04 11:17 AM | Reply

"I have seen John Solomon grilled on TV interviews and he solidly stands by his reporting, claiming HE has sources and documents to back up his reporting. That's unheard of since most of the news we get in the 'liberal mainstream' news media is from anonymous sources without any verification."

Then produce the "proof" or quit lying.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-04 11:52 AM | Reply

Gawd! Is there no BOTTOM to this pit?

#14 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-04 12:08 PM | Reply

Which is exactly what you libs do.

#12 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Yeah, it's not like there's reams of information describing Trump's misconduct or anything.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 12:22 PM | Reply

So I believe Solomon's reports far more than news reports from the liberal media.

#5 | POSTED BY SJHAMILTON

Even The Hill is backing away from Solomon's reporting.

But hey, if you want to be an idiot, that's your prerogative.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 12:23 PM | Reply

No way the timing of all of this is coincidental.
#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 09:31 AM

No, it's not coincidental, but it is not coincidental in the way you think as the posts in this thread have explained. I hope you read them and won't have to ignorantly assert this has something to do with the upcoming IG report. Nope, it's all about the upcoming impeachment vote in the House.

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 12:37 PM | Reply

Correction: I hope you read them and won't have to ignorantly assert again

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 12:45 PM | Reply

Solomon faithfully reported all the things he was told to report. He was on Glenn Beck's show this morning defending himself. In the conservative propaganda networks, he's a hero.

#19 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-12-04 03:50 PM | Reply

Solomon is a Russian agent promulgating propaganda to defend Russians and attack US patriots.

#20 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-04 09:43 PM | Reply

Kulyk was just one Ukrainian prosecutor with whom Giuliani dealt. Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko, who was fired from his position earlier this year and is now under a criminal investigation for corruption, fed Giuliani and Solomon false information about Biden and Yovanovitch. He has since retracted his claims and acknowledged that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden.

www.salon.com
IOW, Solomon's Ukrainian sources were fired for corruption and one of them is under investigation for that corruption.

#9 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-04 09:43 AM | FLAG:

The problem is, the Lutsenko testimony was not retracted. He clarified in an article what he meant when He said he was given a list of people not to prosecute:

"I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.' She said: "No, you got me wrong.' I said: "No, I didn't get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential administration's address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good," Lutsenko gave the details of his meeting with the ambassador. As UNIAN reported, Lutsenko told Hill.TV early in March 2019 that when he first met with U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch in Kyiv, she allegedly gave him a list of people who should not be prosecuted.

Read more on UNIAN: www.unian.info

So the issue of Yovanovitch giving the list remains. Did she hand him a paper? No. Did she give him a list of people who she protested being prosecuted and did not want prosecuted? YES. She did not hand him a list, but she gave him a verbal list. He clearly understood it as a list of people not to prosecute and then charged her that this has happened in the past, and now you are giving me another do not prosecute list.

The headline does not match the article and plays semantic games while backing up the claim Lutsenko was given a list of individuals not to prosecute by Yovanovitch.

#21 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 02:55 AM | Reply

Even The Hill is backing away from Solomon's reporting.
But hey, if you want to be an idiot, that's your prerogative.

#16 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-04 12:23 PM | FLAG:

Proof citation.

#22 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 02:56 AM | Reply

"in furtherance of a rogue foreign policy spearheaded by Rudolph W. Giuliani on behalf of President Trump"

No President should be permitted to have a rogue foreign policy.

In this regard, it's a lot like Iran-Contra; with the White House simply flouting the law to pursue their own agenda.
You Republican sickos sold missiles to the Ayatollah to finance an insurgency in Nicaragua.

But at least on that one, you could pretend it was to keep Communism from spreading to our doorstep.
Getting dirt on Biden doesn't really have the same existential threat level.

If Trump were smart, he would have concocted a ruse where his Ukraine bribery (which really just helps Putin) was going to pay for The Wall. Trumpers would believe that; Trumpers that went to college would be happy to play along.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 03:12 AM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-05 03:12 AM | FLAG:

The problem with the lanugage used around foreign policy is that the President sets the foreign policy, not the ------ retained from eternity past.

#24 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 03:17 AM | Reply

Trump's foreign policy is criminal, and in our Nation of Laws, President Trump is forced to rely on a two-prong approach.

Trump can only do so much in his official capacity as head of state. For example, he can fire the ambassador unwilling to facilitate bribery, and replace her with a yes-man who got the job by giving Trump a million dollar donation.

But there's some things the ambassador really can't do, for example, he cannot openly ask for a quid pro quo of any kind. The rest of Trump's orders have to be sent through back channels, by people such as Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 03:36 AM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-05 03:36 AM | FLAG:

Unfortunately the President is also afforded the right and privilege of assigning liasons between nations which serve at his command. Rudy can readily be one of those (as foolish a decision as that might be).

And, there were mutual concerns with ambassador Yovanovitch. I don't think it is fair to overlook that - nor the fact that there was, according to Lutsenko, a list given by Yovanovitch of peole who could not be prosecuted.

#26 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 03:48 AM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-05 03:36 AM | FLAG:
www.foreignaffairs.com

#27 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 03:56 AM | Reply

"The problem is, the Lutsenko testimony was not retracted."

Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko admits U.S. ambassador didn't give him a do not prosecute list

Lutsenko shared details about his meeting with the U.S. ambassador way back in 2017.

Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/politics/10520715-ukraine-prosecutor-general-lutsenko-admits-u-s-ambassador- didn-t-give-him-a-do-not-prosecute-list.html

Read more on UNIAN: www.unian.info

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 08:14 AM | Reply

"The problem is, the Lutsenko testimony was not retracted."

Mr Lutsenko has since retracted that claim, which was labelled an "outright " fabrication" by the US State Department. He was dismissed from his position in August.

www.news.com.au

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 08:21 AM | Reply

Even The Hill is backing away from Solomon's reporting.
But hey, if you want to be an idiot, that's your prerogative.
#16 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-04 12:23 PM | FLAG:
Proof citation.

The intelligence community whistleblower complaint alleged that the then-prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko accused Yovanovitch of giving him a "do not prosecute" list. Lutsenko later retracted the charge.

thehill.com

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 08:24 AM | Reply

The Hill Promises To Release A Transparent And Public' Review Of John Solomon's Stories

Bob Cusack, the editor-in-chief at the Hill, promised to publicly release a review of former columnist John Solomon's stories about Ukraine on Tuesday, after the House's impeachment investigation report revealed frequent contacts between Solomon and one of Rudy Giuliani's indicted associates.

"The Hill is conducting a meticulous review of opinion columns written by John Solomon on the subject of Ukraine that will be handled by a team of editors and reporters," Cusack tweeted. "All results of the review will be transparent and public."

Cusack released a similar statement in November in response to the impeachment witness testimonies that had pointed to Solomon's columns as a key element in Giuliani's smear campaign against former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

The Hill editor-in-chief said at the time that the outlet was "reviewing, updating, annotating with any denials of witnesses, and when appropriate, correcting any opinion pieces" that were referenced in the investigation, though he did not indicate that the review would be publicized.


talkingpointsmemo.com

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 08:29 AM | Reply

How a D.C. News Site Amplified Dubious Ukraine Claims

Inside the story of how the Hill became part of the Trump whistleblower scandal.

foreignpolicy.com

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 08:37 AM | Reply

The Oligarchs Who Lost Ukraine and Won Washington

How Kremlin-Backed Authoritarians Sought to Profit From Trump's Presidency

A congressional impeachment inquiry seeks to determine whether U.S. President Donald Trump extorted a foreign leader, withholding a coveted White House meeting and U.S. military aid in order to promulgate a Russian-inspired conspiracy theory and smear his chief opponent in the 2020 election. The United States' gravest constitutional crisis since Watergate is not just about preserving the integrity of U.S. democratic institutions from the president's abuse of power, however. It is an episode in a broader geopolitical struggle between the defenders of democracy and the forces of oligarchic authoritarianism, from Kyiv's Maidan to Hong Kong's Mong Kok. In this wider global conflict, Trump and his surrogates have consistently aligned themselves with the forces of oligarchic authoritarianism--in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and other countries, too. Nowhere is this clearer than in Ukraine.

That Ukraine is at the heart of the U.S. impeachment inquiry is no coincidence. The country is ground zero for the struggle between democratic rule of law and authoritarian oligarchy. Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line. To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies.


www.foreignaffairs.com

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 08:47 AM | Reply

I find it very interesting that the Democratic Party would go after a journalist this hard. This is the party that freaks out any time Trump screeches, "Fake news!" as if it's some kind of violation on the 1st Amendment.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 09:20 AM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 08:14 AM | FLAG:
#29 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05

Here is your problem, you only posted the headline and not the information from the actual article - which I directly quoted and cited to show the headline is false:

Se here:

---" The problem is, the Lutsenko testimony was not retracted. He clarified in an article what he meant when He said he was given
---a list of people not to prosecute:
---"I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption
---activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption
---activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.' She said: "No, you
---got me wrong.' I said: "No, I didn't get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential
---administration's address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the
---former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I'm afraid the emotions were not very -----good," Lutsenko gave the details of his meeting with the ambassador. As UNIAN reported, Lutsenko told Hill.TV early in March -----2019 that when he first met with U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch in Kyiv, she allegedly gave him a list of people who should not be ---prosecuted.
---Read more on UNIAN: www.unian.info
---So the issue of Yovanovitch giving the list remains. Did she hand him a paper? No. Did she give him a list of people who she -----protested being prosecuted and did not want prosecuted? YES. She did not hand him a list, but she gave him a verbal list. He ----clearly understood it as a list of people not to prosecute and then charged her that this has happened in the past, and now you ---are giving me another do not prosecute list.
---The headline does not match the article and plays semantic games while backing up the claim Lutsenko was given a list of ---------individuals not to prosecute by Yovanovitch.

---#21 | POSTED BY HEURISTICGRATIS AT 2019-12-05 02:55 AM | FLAG:

Don't ignore the evidence in the story itself that shows Lutsenko re-affirming Yovanovitch gave him a verbal list of individual he was not allowed to prosecute.

#35 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:31 AM | Reply

#31 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 08:29 AM | FLAG:

This is not a citation they are backing away from the reporting. This is a citation they are reviewing the reporting (which, oddly enough, should have been done by a media agency BEFORE publishing anyway.

#36 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:33 AM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 08:21 AM | FLAG:

Notice in your link in this post there is NO CITATION of the retraction - just a claim without evidence.

The Unian is the source for the alleged claim of retraction BUT in that article the headline is contradicted by the quote of Lutsenko. There was no retraction, only a claim of retraction by the media.

Pretty sad.

#37 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:35 AM | Reply

Well, let's see how Solomon's reporting fares next week after the IG's report comes out:

James Comey's next reckoning is imminent " this time for leaking
thehill.com

Chris Wray's FBI continues to cover for Team Comey's Russia shenanigans
thehill.com

Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia
thehill.com

He wrote a lot of articles that made predictions about the report:
thehill.com

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 09:37 AM | Reply

Proof citation.

#22 | POSTED BY HEURISTICGRATIS

Link in post #3.

"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.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 09:39 AM | Reply

"Here is your problem, you only posted the headline and not the information from the actual article - which I directly quoted and cited to show the headline is false:"

I read the article several times.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 09:39 AM | Reply

I find it very interesting that the Democratic Party would go after a journalist this hard. This is the party that freaks out any time Trump screeches, "Fake news!" as if it's some kind of violation on the 1st Amendment.

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Please tell me this is a joke.

You don't see the difference between going after a prolific purveyor or lies and conspiracy theories and calling out a man who says accurate reporting is fake and frequently used violent rhetoric towards press outlets?

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 09:41 AM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 09:39 AM | FLAG:

Well, you apparently missed the part where Lutsenko confirms he received a verbal list, from Yovanovitch, of individuals he was not allowed to prosecute. That is exactly as he took it originally and exactly how he continues to take the exchange - per the article in question.

So... might want to re-read the article, sans the headline.

#39 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-05 09:39 AM | FLAG:

This means they are reviewing the information, if they were backtracking on his articles they would just take them down completely. They might backtrack, but they are not doing so quite yet.

Again, a little bit of false hope (I thought we went through all the hope during the last presidency)

#42 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:43 AM | Reply

Please tell me this is a joke.
You don't see the difference between going after a prolific purveyor or lies and conspiracy theories and calling out a man who says accurate reporting is fake and frequently used violent rhetoric towards press outlets?

#41 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-05 09:41 AM | FLAG: I don't like the party, discount the news, don't show me the read, I support blues.

#43 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:44 AM | Reply

Former Ukraine prosecutor says he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden
Sep. 29, 2019 11:21 AM

KYIV, Ukraine " Ukraine's former top law enforcement official says he repeatedly rebuffed demands by President Trump's personal lawyer to investigate Joe Biden and his son, insisting he had seen no evidence of wrongdoing that he could pursue.

In an interview, Yuri Lutsenko said while he was Ukraine's prosecutor general he told Rudolph W. Giuliani that he would be happy to cooperate if the FBI or other U.S. authorities began their own investigation of the former vice president and his son Hunter but insisted they had not broken any Ukrainian laws to his knowledge.


www.latimes.com

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 09:47 AM | Reply

Rudy Giuliani attempted to profit off of Ukraine efforts, documents show

The negotiations progressed to the point where a series of contracts were drawn up, according to a new report

President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani negotiated a contract, which would have paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars, with a former Ukrainian prosecutor who helped him search for damaging information on former Vice President Joe Biden, documents show.

Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko, who was fired from his post amid allegations of corruption, gave Giuliani false information about Biden, which the former New York City mayor later fed to conservative journalist John Solomon of The Hill. Solomon pushed Giuliani's narrative citing statements from Lutsenko, but the prosecutor later retracted his comments, saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden.

The draft contracts included proposed payments to Trump-allied attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing. A separate draft agreement called for Toensing to be paid $25,000 a month to represent former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.


www.salon.com

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 09:51 AM | Reply

"So... might want to re-read the article, sans the headline."

Might want to read a bit more about Lutsenko:

Diplomat David Holmes testified last week that Lutsenko had been complaining since at least March that then-Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had "destroyed him."

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, testified that Lutsenko and Giuliani were "promoting false narratives" about Yovanovitch, which "undermined the United States' Ukraine policy."

"Lutsenko despised US Amb Yovanovitch. In this first quid pro quo, Giuliani got Yovanovitch fired in return for Lutsenko's agreement to open these investigations," tweeted Michael McFaul, the former United States ambassador to Russia.


www.salon.com

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 10:02 AM | Reply

#44 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 09:47 AM | FLAG:
#45 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 09:51 AM | REPLY | FLAG:
#46 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 10:02 AM | FLAG:

That is all well and good. I have looked into Letsenko and the previous prosecutor. Oddly enough they were not charged with anything in their removal nor punished for anything.

That is strange.

Also, you have yet to show a citation where Lutsenko recants his former statement. You showed news articles alleging it happened without evidence and a news article from Ukraine which shows he DID NOT recant his statment only made it clearer HOW Yovanovitch gave him the list and that he saw it as a list of people he was not to prosecute.

Do try again.

#47 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 10:16 AM | Reply

#46 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 10:02 AM | FLAG:

Even Zelensky was warry of Yovanovitch. He says so in the call - you know the transcript that Vindman claimed was accurate when he was directly questioned about it.

#48 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 10:17 AM | Reply

Sounds like Pres Z was wary of Lutsenko as well:

Ukraine opens case against former prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko

Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) opened criminal proceedings against Yuriy Lutsenko over his possible abuse of power, the government agency said.

It said that Lutsenko and other former lawmakers may have conspired to "provide cover" for illegal gambling businesses in Ukraine. Lutsenko disputes the allegations.

The claims were first raised by David Arakhamia, a member of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky's Servant of the People party. In a Facebook post, Lutsenko said Arakhamia and state investigators "must have a great imagination to accuse me of this."

Lutsenko was fired as Ukraine's top legal official last month.


www.usatoday.com

#49 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 10:21 AM | Reply

#49 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 10:21 AM | FLAG:

Zelensky was warry of EVERYONE - because he ran on removing corruption which was rampant in the Ukrainian government that supported the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign. You'll notice the Obama administration fought FOR Lutsenko and fought against Zelensky.

Zelensky was generally warry of the U.S. as well

Again, you show NOWHERE that Lutsenko retracted his claim. Show his words where he retracts his claim.

Link or stink.

#50 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 10:27 AM | Reply

According to The New York Times, Lutsenko had a personal animus toward Yovanovitch while he was Ukraine's prosecutor general because of her complaints that his office was filled with corrupt employees. She also reportedly told Lutsenko to stop investigating anti-corruption activists who were critical of his work and were supported by the American Embassy. Lutsenko snapped at Yovanovitch, telling her that "no one is going to dictate to me" who should be investigated, according to the Times.

Lutsenko falsely accused Yovanovitch of interfering with the 2016 elections by giving him a "do not prosecute" list and blocking Ukraine from giving evidence of corruption in the election to the U.S. He later admitted that he was the one who requested the list but still communicated the rumors to Trump's inner circle, eventually resulting in Yovanovitch's ouster.


www.huffpost.com

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 10:31 AM | Reply

#51 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-12-05 10:31 AM | FLAG:

Again, where are Lutsenko's words? You will find them in the Unian article you posted before.

What does he say? He says Yovanovitch gave him a list (verbally) of people he was not allowd to presecute.

Again, you know NO quote by Lutsenko recanting his statement. He does not admit he requested the list, he makes clear he reads Yovanovitch as giving him a list of peole he cannot prosecute. He wrote them down and then told her she was giving him a list of people not to prosecute.

Show his words. You can't because his words don't show him recanting his original claim that he was given a list of people he felt he could not prosecute.

Link or stink
Show the words.

We don't agree, but the facts aren't on your side.
Thanks for playing.

Post #35 already has all the information and the first hand information all the other stories you show used for their allegations (without citation or quotation)

#52 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 10:35 AM | Reply

He asked her for a list, and apparently she gave him a list of anti-corruption activists who were critical of him and his office not to prosecute. Oh the horror!

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 10:35 AM | Reply

"Show the words. "

Easy:
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko has admitted that U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch did not give him a do not prosecute list, which he had previously stated.

www.unian.info

Your turn to admit Lutsenko recanted. The facts aren't on your side.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:39 AM | Reply

"apparently she gave him a list of anti-corruption activists who were critical of him and his office not to prosecute"

That was the lie; Lutsenko has since retracted.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:40 AM | Reply

Thanks for joining, we have been talking about the direct quote from Lutsenko in this article for the last few hours. Glad you caught up.

No, Lutsenko is clear he WAS being given a do not prosecute list AS WAS GIVEN IN PAST CIRCUMSTANCES.

Not only does he not recant his statements - he clarifies them to show such do not prosecute lists were given by the U.S. administration before - Which is a HUGE problem.

"Lutsenko recalled Yovanovitch insisted Kasko was an outstanding anti-corruption activist, and "the criminal case discredited those who were fighting against corruption." "I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.' She said: "No, you got me wrong.' I said: "No, I didn't get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential administration's address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good,"

Read more on UNIAN: www.unian.info

Yovanovitch was giving names which could not be prosecuted in response to her displeasure with the Kasko case.

Direct U.S. intervention in Ukranian prosecutions seeking to stop prosecutions to protect U.S. interventions in Ukraine.

#56 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 10:43 AM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-12-05 10:40 AM | FLAG:

False.

He clarified just what he read the situation as. See #56.

#57 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 10:44 AM | Reply

"False."

You couldn't even read the headline, could you?

"He clarified just what he read the situation as"

Recanting his claim about Yovanovitch and a Do Not Prosecute list.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:48 AM | Reply

"He clarified just what he read the situation as. "

And admitted there was NO list given to him.

Is English your native language?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:51 AM | Reply

"apparently she gave him a list of anti-corruption activists who were critical of him and his office not to prosecute"
That was the lie; Lutsenko has since retracted.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I see that when asked for a list, Yanukovych replies, "No. you got me wrong." Lutsenko said, "and now you give me new lists." But she never did give him a list let alone multiple. And so the meeting ended badly:

"I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.' She said: "No, you got me wrong.' I said: "No, I didn't get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential administration's address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good,"

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 10:52 AM | Reply

Please tell me this is a joke.
You don't see the difference between going after a prolific purveyor or lies and conspiracy theories and calling out a man who says accurate reporting is fake and frequently used violent rhetoric towards press outlets?

#41 | POSTED BY JPW

You don't think publishing his phone records doesn't cross a line?

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 11:01 AM | Reply

Lutsenko verbally made a list:

"I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. "

Lutsenko asks the ambassador for a list:

"I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.'

But she did not comply with his request:

"She said: 'No, you got me wrong.'"

So now he repeats his request:

"and now you give new lists"

But, again, the ambassador did not comply, and so the meeting ended badly.

#62 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 11:05 AM | Reply

"You don't think publishing his phone records doesn't cross a line?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't publish his phone records, did they? I thought they published the phone records of two people he talked to, Giuliani and Parnas?

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 11:42 AM | Reply

You don't think publishing his phone records doesn't cross a line?

#61 | Posted by JeffJ

They published Solomon's phone records?

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 12:34 PM | Reply

They published Solomon's phone records?

#64 | POSTED BY JPW

Yes. As well as Nunes, Guilliani and a couple of others.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 05:38 PM | Reply

The Intelligence Committee Democrats' Trump-Ukraine impeachment investigation report, released publicly Tuesday, included records of some phone calls by presidential lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, Nunes, journalist John Solomon, Fox News host Sean Hannity, indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, National Security Council aide and former Nunes staffer Kash Patel, lawyer Victoria Toensing, and unidentified people at the White House and Office of Management and Budget.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 06:02 PM | Reply

Very legal, very cool.

#67 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-05 06:25 PM | Reply

The call metadata supports the claim of a conspiracy to extort Ukraine into supporting a smear of Biden.

Let the sun shine down.

#68 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-05 06:29 PM | Reply

They published Solomon's phone records?
#64 | POSTED BY JPW
Yes. As well as Nunes, Guilliani and a couple of others.

No, they published Rudy and Parnas's phone records:

Schiff: No, We Didn't Subpoena John Solomon's Phone Records

The House Intel committee tells The Daily Beast that they did not subpoena the phone records for Devin Nunes or John Solomon.

The release of the House impeachment report this week has sparked furious denunciations within conservative circles that Democratic leadership used its power to unearth the phone records of journalists and lawmakers they don't like.

But the inference left by those accusations bears little resemblance to what actually transpired.


www.thedailybeast.com

#69 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-06 05:40 AM | Reply

The Intelligence Committee Democrats' Trump-Ukraine impeachment investigation report, released publicly Tuesday, included records of some phone calls by presidential lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, Nunes, journalist John Solomon, Fox News host Sean Hannity, indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, National Security Council aide and former Nunes staffer Kash Patel, lawyer Victoria Toensing, and unidentified people at the White House and Office of Management and Budget.
www.washingtonexaminer.com

From the above article regarding the York article you quote:

"The WSJ editorial was worded carefully enough that it was unclear if the author believed Schiff actually subpoenaed Solomon's phone records or if he or she was arguing that Schiff shouldn't have published the metadata ensnaring Solomon that came from non-Solomon specific subpoenas. Similar Schiff critics have left it vague too, including The Washington Examiner's Byron York and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)."

Here's the truth:

"The report indicates that all of the call records obtained by the committee belonged to Parnas or Giulini. Every call mentioned in the report includes one or both of them. "

#70 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-06 05:47 AM | Reply

#70 Gal,

None of that is an excuse for Schiff to reveal the identities of Solomon, Sekulow or others. None of these people are under any kind of investigation and this is an impeachment inquiry, not a criminal or counter-intelligence investigation.

I don't see any justification for what Schiff did here. In fact, to me it looks like a gross abuse of power.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-07 01:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort