It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

page: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Think about what you just said. Regardless of what you think Trump did, Biden has already proven that it's been done before. Shouldn't that put him under investigation as a potential candidate for president if this offense is impeachable? Or is it only impeachable if Trump does it?




posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
This, from here

But as far as I recall, the key elements that Mr. Solomon put in that story that were again proffered by Lutsenko, a completely self-serving individual to save his own skin, and to advance the interest of the President, more than likely actually with the backing of the President of Ukraine, and extremely harmful to Ukraine's own interests, all those elements, as far as I recall, were false.

seems to be questioning Solomon's source and not his reporting.

We done here?


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



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

I don't typically follow opinion writers. G may know.

But just to be clear you're standing up for the veracity of all the Solomon material on his statement that he has it all documented.

Do I have that right ? I'm dense you know.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The beginning of solomons article shows exactly what vindman said he is responding to. Everything he wrote was wrong, except grammar.

Solomons entire article backs up all of his claims, even those he heard from lutsenko, with evidence, such as george kents testimony admitting state dept officials did pressure lutsenko to drop certain investigations.

I am not sure what your post achieves in attempting to disprove solomons reporting.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Of course Vindman is going to say that Lutsenko is a self serving liar. Why? Because Vindman is a self serving liar along with Fiona Hill, who also called Solomon's reporting, "Russian propaganda". Lutsenko also claims that Maria Yavonovich gave him a list of people from the U.S. not to investigate or prosecute. Several people have already torn Yavonovich apart with her testimony. Vindman is no different. Vindman made it very clear to me in his opening statements that he's more concerned with Ukrainians alienating themselves from Democrats than he is about any corruption going on between the two.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again with this opinion writer nonsense

You also claimed writers who are not titled opinion writers, such as those at politico, are on fact opinion writers.

When you seek to not look at evidence that is actually provided, including things like sworn testimony from dem witnesses, because its "opinion" i find that very suspect.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




Biden has already proven that it's been done before.


See, this is the result of believing Solomon's skewed opinion pieces as truth.

Biden wasn't working with congressionally approved appropriations. He was working with $1 billion in loan guarantees from the International Monetary Fund.

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.

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



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

I don't typically follow opinion writers. G may know.

But just to be clear you're standing up for the veracity of all the Solomon material on his statement that he has it all documented.

Do I have that right ? I'm dense you know.


From my personal standpoint, I have never seen any of Solomon's past reporting debunked. Quite the opposite. When I do comparative research, I always find other people writing and confirming through their interviews the exact same angle that Solomon reported. (Case in point, Solomon mentions some of these people also interviewing and telling the exact same story to ABC.)

As Grambler has already mentioned, Solomon has provided back up documentation to confirm what he's saying right there inside the article.

Yes, you are dense. LOL!



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ohhh ook so Biden was looking out for all us then eh?


lol



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The beginning of solomons article shows exactly what vindman said he is responding to. Everything he wrote was wrong, except grammar.

And he left out:

MR. NOBLE: If you want to put the article in front of him so he can review it, then do that. But he just said he doesn't rememben.
MR. ZELDIN: WeIl, the last answer seems to indicate that everything other than -- everything substantive was false, I just
wanted to clarify.
LT. COL. VINDMAN: I've been a little light-hearted about 8 hours into this, so I apologize. Is this a recond?
Not yet. Okay. But anyway, I apologize, Congressman. I joke around a little bit, so I apologize.



Solomons entire article backs up all of his claims, even those he heard from lutsenko, with evidence, such as george kents testimony admitting state dept officials did pressure lutsenko to drop certain investigations.

I am not sure what your post achieves in attempting to disprove solomons reporting.

My post doesn't do anything other than point out that one person got one version of a story and someone else said the "key elements" were wrong, according to the info they got. There were no specifics and nobody knows what "key elements" is even referring to.

You can't go one way or the other with the info at hand.
edit on 22-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
As to wild amount of money that Hunter Biden made, $50,000 a month, serving on Burisma's board, here's some board member salaries here in the good ole USA


Hewlett-Packard
> Average Compensation: $941,802
> 2-Year Stock Change: -54.23%
> Net Earnings FY 2011: $7.07 billion
> Net Earnings FY 2010: $8.76 billion

Amazon.com
> Average Compensation: $898,993
> 2-Year Stock Change: +71.03%
> Net Earnings FY 2011: $631 million
> Net Earnings FY 2010: $1.15 billion

Fidelity National Information Services
> Average Compensation: $849,691
> 2-Year Stock Change: +13.52%
> Net Earnings FY 2011: $469.6 million
> Net Earnings FY 2010: $404.5 million

Oracle
Average Compensation: $725,589
> 2-Year Stock Change: +16.08%
> Net Earnings FY 2011: $8.55 billion
> Net Earnings FY 2010: $6.14 billion

247wallst.com...

Seems like Hunter Biden's compensation was in line with American board of director's salaries.



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



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Id like to see proof that the billion dollars biden threatened to withhold was not approved by congress.

I dont believe that.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Of course, but that has little to do with the challenge set forth in the OP. Prove Solomon wrong. What for? He is just repeating what someone else told him and that source has an agenda as well.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

First off I am pretty sure you just posted from vindmans other testimony, not the one this week.

Secondly its totally irrelevant. Vindman testified Solomon was wrong, solomon is proving he was not wrong.

Is your point something to the affect well actually vindman never said solomon was wrong?

Ok great, tehn the dems are misrepresenting and we can all agree solomon is correct and there should be an investigation into ukrainians election interference and the bidens.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Id like to see proof that the billion dollars biden threatened to withhold was not approved by congress.

I dont believe that.


Part of it was approved by Congress, I'm sure. But Biden was dealing with IMF money. I'm sure the US did contribute to the fund, which is why the VP was part of the envoy.

But the money Trump was dealing was appropriated, 100%, by Congress, and signed into law by the President, already.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Deetermined

Of course, but that has little to do with the challenge set forth in the OP. Prove Solomon wrong. What for? He is just repeating what someone else told him and that source has an agenda as well.


Did you even read the article?

This is not at all what solomon is doing.

he says he interviewed lustenko who told him things such as US state dept pressured him to drop investigations.

He then backs that up with 1. George Kent (dem witness) testimony admitting thats true, 2. officail letter form george kent to ukrainain prosecutors showing that is true, 3. claims another state dept envoy told him this was true.

That is not just the word of someone who disagrees, or opinion, or hearsay; he actually links the testimony and documents of george kent.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
First off I am pretty sure you just posted from vindmans other testimony, not the one this week.

It is from the one in Solomon's article and has what he quoted.


Secondly its totally irrelevant. Vindman testified Solomon was wrong, solomon is proving he was not wrong.

Is your point something to the affect well actually vindman never said solomon was wrong?

Vindman said "key elements" were wrong. And got as specific as saying what Lutsenko proffered. So everything else is irrelevant.


Ok great, tehn the dems are misrepresenting and we can all agree solomon is correct and there should be an investigation into ukrainians election interference and the bidens.

Is he correct? I don't know.



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



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hahahahahaha!!!!

Oh man this is great. so as ling as only some of the aid is approved by congress, its ok for the executive to go against their wishes and withhold the aid.

Whew thats a good one.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What skills does this guy have to garner such high pay?

What expertise?



lulz

cheer on moar.




top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join