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: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Enough to shame Vindman and the rest of the witnesses that said he was wrong about everything

Did you not read the transcript?

Vindman said it was a joke and apologized. Then he said Solomon had "key elements wrong".

Just because Solomon got his undies in a knot doesn't mean people actually said everything he wrote was wrong. It might be irrelevant but not necessarily wrong.




posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Somehow you imagine that the IMF involvement


What corruption?


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...



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
So it seems this is going ina direction I didn’t expect

The claim is now I guess Vindman wasn’t saying all of Solomon’s reporting is wrong


Ok fine, I don’t see why this matters at all

So fine Vindman agreed with the first 14 points or so that are backed by evidence

This includes proof hunter worked for Burisma, joe offered a quid pro quo to force his prosecutor fired, the claims shokin wasn’t working in the case on Zlochevsky is wrong as showing confiscated Zlochevsky property in February 2016

Around this same time Burisma lawyers contacted state dept and mentioned hunter Biden worked for the Company and asked obamas state dept to help with the investigation

One month later Biden issues his quid pro quo

The day shokin gets fired Burisma lawyers reach out to the interim prosecutor. They tel him they know the previous prosecutors office (shokin) was smeared by US officials, and actually was investigating Burisma

They offer to facilitate a meet up with state dept and the new prosecutors to work finishing the investigation

The new prosecutors let Zlochevsky off with only fines

That’s part one; all backed by evidence

The defense “well Vindman didn’t comment on that” seems .... strange

But fine, the points clearly point to more than enough reasons to investigate Burisma and the Biden’s, I’m glad vindman and the rest don’t dispute any of these points

Next we can get to proof of Ukrainians election interference, and state dept officials telling Ukrainian prosecutors to drop investigations into Obama allied people

I guess Vindman doesn’t dispute any of this, so great, let’s start the investigations
edit on 22-11-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
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.


Sure, I know you guys like to try to claim that “everything is opinion” when pressed on the facts, but, that’s just not true in your reaction to my statement.

Vindman WAS listening to the call between Trump and Zelensky.

It does not matter if 100% of every word of testimony was hearsay (and it wasn’t) that is not prohibited in Congressional hearings. IT doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong. IT DOESN’T MATTER EITHER WAY.

Trump hasn’t destroyed anything in any narrative. The people around him are destroying him though. That’s what I’m finding more and more despicable by the day.

Nancy Pelosi has COMPLETELY invalidated the impeachment procedings by claiming that they have to pursue impeachment because THEY CANNOT TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Game over. We’re done. It doesn’t matter if Trump shot 20 people in the middle of Fifth Avenue live on the Six OClock News. This Impeachment is dead as soon as she published that stupid f-ing nonsense.

I’m glad the Senate will acquit Trump. The Democrats sure simply too stupid to be taken seriously.

(That doesn’t mean I’m not going to correct facts and logic, but GD.)



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Ok fine, I don’t see why this matters at all

Because it was the point of the OP. The claim was they were attacking him. All Vindman said was he had some things wrong.


The defense “well Vindman didn’t comment on that” seems .... strange

But it is the truth.


But fine, the points clearly point to more than enough reasons to investigate Burisma and the Biden’s, I’m glad bud man and the rest don’t dispute any of these points

Next we can get to proof of Ukrainians election interference, and state dept officials telling Ukrainian prosecutors to drop investigations into Obama allies people

I guess Vindman doesn’t dispute any of this, so great, let’s start the investigations

OK, make the call and start the ball rolling.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It’s fine I get it

Vindman said all substantive claims Solomon made about corruption were wrong

Solomon accurately quoted him

Even if you don’t think so, to pretend that the evidence Solomon provides that has been ignored this whole time is now not worth looking at proves you aren’t serious about seein the truth

Which is absolutely your right

Some people find it very comforting to ignore facts that don’t fit into their narrative so I totally get it



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good reply, thanks.


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 Lutsenkos claim, calling it a “fabrication.” I reported their reaction here.





On this part, there seems to be confusion as to if there was an actual physical list handed over. Our Ambassador to Ukraine gave a verbal list of NGO groups and Individuals not to be prosecuted by Ukraine, not an actual physical list. There has been no walk back of that there was relayed a list of people and groups not to prosecute or investigate, just that a physical list was given.


Yovanovitch and the Embassy only denied a physical list was given to
Lutsenko. Everybody plays with the meaning of words. Lutsenko has not walked back that she relayed a list to him. Even the NYT or the Post added a clairification on their site. I would have to find the links for all of this and I'm already drinking tonight. Maybe another day.


It's pretty obvious there were a decent amount of people who didn't like Trump in Ukraine and in our Embassy there. Ukraine has been a political basket case since their Revolution. Besides the normal turmoil and Russia vs US tug of war, many third party and NGO's swooped in like vultures to pick all the good bits off of Ukraine.

Honestly, the best course of action for Ukraine IMO is to try to navigate a path of Independence from both Russia and the US, but neither side will let that happen. Ukraine is merely a pawn in the Grand Game. A dangerous chess piece that could set off a good Amt of pieces being lost by both sides should they play carelessly.

I agree that ”facts" and "proofs" are now things that are now seemingly subjective in today's Age. Truth will come out in all of this hopefully that we all can agree on.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Nice for a change.









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



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Grambleeeer! How are you gonna know if someone is taking
pot shots at you with a redneck neighbor like that! LMAO

Also for those remarks on your vid I have just the thing.



Another video! lol





posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Truth and logic, to me, are two of the few things worth fighting for, precisely because we are all faced with a nearly monolithic opposing force ... the combined socio-cultural-economic-political menace we call TPTB.

There has been a decades long coordinated effort to create a basic distrust in the American people, for our government, for our traditions, and for each other. And it’s working incredibly well. Most of us are either polarized or anesthetized at this point.

The ONLY way we have to “fight back” is to take control our our perceptions and thoughts and resist the constant bombardment of the false dichotomy of “two parties” or “two sides” or any other iteration of the basic divide-and-conquer motif.

That’s it. The only battleground we have a chance on is each of us in our own mind.

Sorry for the philosophy. Thanks for the conversation.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Solomon accurately quoted him

Actually he cherry picked.


Even if you don’t think so, to pretend that the evidence Solomon provides that has been ignored this whole time is now not worth looking at proves you aren’t serious about seein the truth

Which is absolutely your right

I said nothing about what he presented being worth looking at or not. I pointed out that it wasn't up to us to get an investigation going.


Some people find it very comforting to ignore facts that don’t fit into their narrative so I totally get it

I guess some do but that isn't me. Pointing out the flaw in the OP and thinking this probably isn't going anywhere has nothing to do with some personal narrative that needs protecting.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I guess some do but that isn't me. Pointing out the flaw in the OP and thinking this probably isn't going anywhere has nothing to do with some personal narrative that needs protecting.

We can tell by the equal time you spend trying to discredit leftist posts.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: daskakik

I guess some do but that isn't me. Pointing out the flaw in the OP and thinking this probably isn't going anywhere has nothing to do with some personal narrative that needs protecting.

We can tell by the equal time you spend trying to discredit leftist posts.


Imagine trump says “everything cnn says about me is a lie”

Then cnn posts actual evidence backed up by sources of things trump has done

Do you think that poster would respond

“Actually cnn cherry picked saying trump said everything they said was wrong, he actually said everything they said about corruption was factually incorrect. Therefore the premise of cnn’s article is flawed and I will not look at their evidence “


This thread has been up for hours and this is the best they could come up with

Further proving the point no one has been able to dispute Solomon’s reporting, they just smear, ignore and deflect
edit on 22-11-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
We can tell by the equal time you spend trying to discredit leftist posts.

I didn't know I had to be an equal opportunity poster?

Still doesn't mean I have a need to protect whatever narrative someone else here imagined for me.

I have no trouble entertaining the thought that everyone is looking out for #1 and extending their hand to have those palms greased.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Sorry, had posted a link to RATS and that is a no-no.

Anyway, it was a post where someone said, if this was about Trump and I said that the story is so flawed that one would have to say it was BS either way.

ETA: Also, it is the best I can come up with because it is there in black and white for you to read and I even quoted the parts that show Solomon cherry picked and only showed you what best suited his argument.

Gryphon66 did even better in showing how Solomon's article is a strawman.
edit on 22-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

What is the relevance of this?

I didn’t say you would never call a story about trump bs

I said you wouldn’t ignore actual provable evidence against him because you felt cnn responded to trump saying everything they said was wrong, when in reality he said everything they said about his corruption was factually incorrect



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Who said I was ignoring anything, other than you?

I'm saying you don't have the power to do anything with what Solomon brought up. I'm not saying it is wrong or ignoring it.

The relevance of the above stemmed in part from The Gut's mentioning leftist posts, which you were responding to. Making it seem like you agreed.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is irrelevant since the transcript was provided. What does some unelected employee's opinion matter when the transcript is available? We know what Trump did and said, so why anybody could think someone's mere opinion could add any statement of value is beyond me. I thought Vindman's statement was supporting terrorism and threatening the country. Should he be arrested now? After all, opinion is fact isn't it?

One is an element of substance, objective and substantial. The other is someone's opinion about their boss's orders/policies. It is neither true or false, it is simply an opinion and nothing more. Subjective. Untestable. After all, your opinion is your own and can be whatever you like.

In this case, Trump was acting in his capacity as the nation's chief law enforcement officer to coordinate with the President of a sovereign nation for law enforcement assistance. This is very common, appropriate and is precisely what the Chief Executive's job is: to execute the laws. Biden, Obama and anyone else is not above reproach and above the law. Otherwise, one could indefinitely shield themselves from prosecution by remaining a perpetual candidate (pantsuit anyone?)

It seems the left wants to do everything but talk about the underlying facts of substance that prompted the investigatory assistance discussion in the first place: Burisma, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden's demonstrated & admitted Quid pro Quo of "fire my son's investigators for billions in aid"

Literally every last thing Trump is accused of here is what Biden and Obama did
You all are desperate to make this about any and every other thing than the actual substance of the case.

And Vindman didn't blow any whistle, he leaked sensitive information to yet another unelected and uncleared bureaucrat (Ciaramello) and did a complete runaround of his chain of command and conspired with a lawyer who professed "the coup has begun." Yes, legally, they are hung. Further, you realize Schiff is nowhere in Vindman OR Ciaramello's chain of command right? So bypassing his entire chain of command and leaking his mere opinion to yet another intermediary who then worked with Schiff and a self-styled coup-facilitating lawyer.

I truly hope people hang for these crimes.

edit on 11/22/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Isn't about the article, it is about dems deflecting from the substance of the argument and focusing on irrelevant nonsense such as feelings/opinions/thoughts of subordinates and using projected accusations of their own guilt to muddy the waters because that is all you all know how to do. Deflect, hide, distract, distort, project.



posted on Nov, 22 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Isn't about the article...

No, the OP is about the article.

SO today solomon as released a 28 point refutation of Vindmans claim all of his reporting was wrong, and backed every one up with independent source material that you yourself can read.

Please check out his claims for yourself.

And about one thing quoted by Solomon, which was shown to be cherry picked, about the hearings that drew his panties up into a knot.

Witnesses in the impeachment hearings did the same, including Vindman.


ETA:

because that is all you all know how to do

I'm not a democrat so... there goes that theory.
edit on 22-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join