Solomon keeps punching on the Ukraine story

Former Ambassador Yovanovitch must wish there was some way to muzzle investigative reporter John Solomon.


Dad29 said...

John Solomon could be spelled "Seth Rich."

Grim said...

Funny you should mention it. He’s been let go, and The Hill is now “reviewing” his reporting under Congressional pressure.

ymarsakar said...

Grim, he may be "let go" and swimming with the fishes soon if he doesn't shut up or learn to talk duck. Red Flagged!

The Deep State knows how this works.

Anonymous said...

Not Deep State. He was involved with Parnas and Giuliani. His stories were not objective reporting, but closely coordinated attempts at setting things up.

Grim said...

There’s definitely at least one conspiracy at work here, and maybe some several. It’s why I continue to wonder at the decision to draw all our attentions to Ukraine.

ymarsakar said...

I am not saying he is Deep State. I am saying the Deep State is world wide, not just an American artifact. This problem is a little bit more serious than those here that scoffed at my talk about Soros being a traitor and or threat to America/humanity.

Soros also doesn't seem to die. He is like a sephrahim very hard to kill. They are using bio genetic research and stem cells from dead children to keep these vampires alive.

If it was me, I would have pushed the button to exterminate the lot of these humans a while ago.

ymarsakar said...

A lot of filthy Americans using American hyperpower to step on the weakling nations on this plane of existence.

it's why you don't see me going rah rah America First all the time as others do.

It's kind of hard to do that when I know as much as I do about why there is no much anti American backlash against America. They have good reason for it. American Republic is dead. They cannot save anybody else, until they save themselves at least.

J Melcher said...

I find it astonishing that so many journalists and congressmen appear to believe that because the Three Letter Agencies agree that RUSSIA interfered with the 2016 election -- whatever "interfere" might mean -- it necessarily follows that UKRAINE did not. Nor could China, Israel, UK, nor might any other nation or company or crime-syndicate or organization possibly also "interfere" in ways comparable to Russia or otherwise.

If you can't keep the rats out of the grainery, how can you argue the mice, sparrows, roaches, mealworms and beggars have all been stymied?

Cassandra said...

Solomon has his own site - here's his latest:

Heh :)

Texan99 said...

Odd how quickly they change gears and discover that a reporter who has government connections must be up to something shifty.

Solomon's strength is his doggedness in pursuing FOIA requests, and his ability to back up what he says with documents. If he has contacts who give him good hints about what public documents to review, more power to them and him. We need more reporters pursuing stories from different angles.

Cassandra said...

What amazes me is the argument that Solomon shouldn't be allowed to investigate and report on Russiagate or Ukrainegate unless his reporting is 100% bullet-proof...

...and yet, the MSM have reported on both topics with far less detail and rigor - merely pronouncing certain lines of inquiry "conspiracy theories" or "already debunked"... to use their favorite catchphrase.... "without evidence" :p

Seems like a dangerous standard when the press announce they will "fact check" *op-eds* (and "correct" them!) after members... and I use the word intentionally... of Congress denounce the reporter.

On the same topic, if you haven't seen it, this is a great video from Sharyl Attkisson on the origins of the term "fake news" (hint: it didn't originate with Trump):

Texan99 said...

I just watched it--very interesting. That's how I remember it, too: "fake news" was swirling around, and people were already beginning to say, "Wait a minute, you mean like that Dan Rathers travesty? And now suddenly you care?"--when Trump leaped into the fray with "YOU ARE FAKE NEWS." It was an immediate hit, because as usual he had his finger on the popular pulse, the loathing of the MSM.

Sounds like today we're back to "quid pro quo," by the way, speaking of fake news. "Bribery" did better in focus testing, but the witnesses wouldn't cooperate. "Quid pro quo" has the advantage that you don't have to explain what the personal benefit supposedly was. So once again, the debate is over whether it's legitimate for a sitting president to investigate the overseas corruption of a past vice-president, given that the latter is running for president at the moment and therefore a corruption scandal would have political significance. And the MSM will spin itself into a frenzy explaining how that's just like felony-level FISA warrant abuse concerning someone who had never even yet held public office.

Well, the IG report on the FISA abuse should be interesting. I hear Horowitz is scheduled to testify before the U.S. senate on Nov. 25.

Cassandra said...

And the MSM will spin itself into a frenzy explaining how that's just like felony-level FISA warrant abuse concerning someone who had never even yet held public office.

I have thought for some time that that's what this Chimpeachment thing is really about - getting out ahead of the revelation that... SPOILER ALERT!!!... the last administration did what they're accusing this administration of doing (asking a foreign government to help dig up dirt on their political opponents to influence an election).

It's a no brainer - if they manage to prove their case (but that's still not enough for impeachment), then they've just treated the nation to weeks of Republicans arguing that it's OK for a sitting administration to use their power to pressure foreign govts to provide opposition research on the opposing party in a US election).

Not that that's actually what the Rethugs are arguing, mind you. But that nuance will be lost on the public.

Have you read Andy McCarthy's book? It's excellent.

Here's another (old) video that has some relevance to what we're watching now -

Kim Strassel talking about her last book (the Intimidation Game). From 2017, but even more relevant now:

I heartily endorse her point at the end about the need for conservatives to watch the present administration so the same tactics don't get used. I get why Trump so often goes after his opponents on Twitter but Strassel does a great job of illustrating why he shouldn't. Given, so far I have seen zero evidence of using public offices/agencies to target political foes (a la the Obama administration and DNC) but the overarching use of "lawfare" as a tactic is relevant to what's going on now.