John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: Grambler

It's all kind of beside the point, now that Trump admits to the quid Pro Quo, that he with held the money until an investigation was began.

Also, we all know by now, that the released money was only released a couple of days or so after the announcement of an inquiry by the house intel.

1. Trump did not admit to a quid pro quo for aid, that is a lie.

2. Those that said their was a quid pro quo on aid said it was their assumption, this solomon piece proves they were incredibly incompetent or corrupt in suggesting his reporting and its claims were off, which would further question their assumptions in other areas.

3. The dems have no problem with quid pro quos, as is evidenced by their defense of Biden, who admitted to one and they were fine with.

4. Therefore if trump had a reason to investigate election interference and Biden, using a quid pro quo would have precedent (its what Biden and Obama did) and would not be a reason to impeach.

totally unrelated;

your icon makes me want KFC.

a reply to: Grambler

Here's to hoping Vindman, Ciaramella, and the dem co-conspirators face swift and brutal justice at the hands of our national security state.

a reply to: Jefferton

Know how I know you can't attack the argument? You attacked the source.

a reply to: ketsuko

Looks to me like "the source", Solomon, is stilted and biased. On the other hand, I see a lot of ATSers attacking sources like the Whistle Blower, Vindman, Fiona Hill and other evidence witnesses.

a reply to: Deetermined

Here's a Ukraine article about it dating back to May 2019, you know, TWO MONTHS before Trump's telephone call ever took place!

That has Rudy Giuliani written all over it.

May 9, 2019
Rudy Giuliani plans Ukraine trip to urge investigation into Democrats nypost.com...

Giuliani told The New York Times that he is going to Kiev to meet with Ukraine’s president-elect and urge him to continue a probe into whether Democrats worked with Ukrainian officials to interfere in the election on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

The former mayor also wants the country to find information about Joe Biden’s son Hunter and a Ukrainian oligarch.
“We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,”

Aiming corruption at political enemies.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

Looks to me like "the source", Solomon, is stilted and biased. On the other hand, I see a lot of ATSers attacking sources like the Whistle Blower, Vindman, Fiona Hill and other evidence witnesses.

This post perfectly exemplifies how the reporting of solomon has been treated.

28 points backed by evidence posted by solomon in response to those who just listed calling hil wrong and a liar with no evidence.

And you ignore it all and just say he looks biased.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did you also speak up against things like the three democratic senators aiming corruption at political enemies by asking the ukraine to help give evidence about Trump?

www.foreign.senate.gov... ion.pdf

a reply to: Grambler

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

a reply to: Grambler

Your link leads to a broken 404.

I'm assuming that you're referring to legally channeled requests that Ukraine cooperate with the FBI and perhaps Robert Mueller's investigation?

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.

Again thank you for proving the point, no one can dispute any of the specifics, so just like Hill and vindman and the dems, you say everything he says is wrong with out any evidence whatseoever

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.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

Your link leads to a broken 404.

I'm assuming that you're referring to legally channeled requests that Ukraine cooperate with the FBI and perhaps Robert Mueller's investigation?

Exactly the point.

If there is a credible reason to ask foreign countries to cooperate with us investigations or do their own, its perfectly acceptable.

Solomon outlines why that is exactly the case here

a reply to: Sookiechacha

legally channeled requests

Then you have no problem with Trump's concerns RE: Burisma (that sweeps in the Bidens and others). As the chief law enforcement officer, it doesn't get more legitimate/proper/legal than the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States

It is not uncommon for law enforcement to work with foreign governments in cases of exceptionally grave international crime syndicates (like we see with the Bidens, Clintons, etc)

You lose the argument, officially, since you failed to refute even a single point of substance or make an argument of substance vs. insane conspiracy theory.

Still waiting for "Mueller" to haul Trump/Jr/etc out in handcuffs. And waiting. And waiting... and waiting.... still waiting... and waiting, waiting, waiting, and waiting some more.

Tick tock

a reply to: Grimpachi

The solomon article shows exactly why. It shows what Hunter was doing, and questions of his dad and other governmental actors intervening to possibly help hunter

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

it is all

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Taking a lesson from the dems, I have two sets of standards/sets of rules.

See, a dem making even the slightest mistake would never get my vote or support. Trump on the other hand could do the exact same stuff and I will support/vote for him til the end.

Nothing the left can say, reveal or do will change that. Even if by some miracle you all proved 100% of your case (even though 99% has already been refuted) it still wouldn't change any votes or make GOP lawmakers any less out of a job/on the streets if they cooperate in any with with this farce.

Any action by a Republican short of derailing, stymying or obstructing this farce should be career ending IMO.

He could do a lot worse than shoot someone on 5th avenue and its still not bad enough to justify letting a dem win. Nothing Trump can do (I mean nothing) is worse than a dem holding executive power again (or any power really). That is an evil so great that....................

You're just bitter/scared that the dems lies RE: Russia are now exposed, and that their circa 2013 & beyond corruption in Ukraine is now being exposed. Did you think that cow Nuland and the other 120 pound heads would get away with all their lies/crimes in Ukraine?

Not to mention the uncontested FACT that Ukraine hacked the DNC, not Russia.

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.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Great, don't go point by point.

Even a SINGLE point would be better than your current/typical argument or the typical argument pushed by a leftist.

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