John Solomon Reports: Responding to Lt. Col. Vindman about my Ukraine columns … with the facts

Link to source.

John Solomon provides a useful summary of his reporting on Ukraine.

His record shows that the Bidens’ activities in and involving Ukraine are much shadier than is generally acknowledged, to the point that one can’t really say there is no evidence of criminal behavior by either Biden. In all fairness, there is as much apparent evidence of Biden crimes as there is of Trump high crimes.

The record also shows that various Ukrainians also tried to align themselves with Democratic Party interests (and vice versa) during the 2016 election. But again, in all fairness, whether those efforts amount to interference or meddling in our democracy is open to debate.

I get the impression that there’s vibrant free market in international affairs for buying and selling influence and foreign aid. It is a market the elite have access to and exploit, but which the rest of us hear little about. That may be changing.

21 thoughts on “John Solomon Reports: Responding to Lt. Col. Vindman about my Ukraine columns … with the facts

    1. Your link only suggests that Lt. Col. Vindman gets his news from the children’s magazine Vox. Adults can read Solomon for themselves and judge his statements by the sources he gives to support them.

      If you can find a factual error in the Solomon article I posted, we may have something interesting to discuss. Otherwise, the grown-ups can assume the article is — as stated — a useful summary of his reporting.


  1. “The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as “an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts”. Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering”. Wikipedia

    If that is the case, then that shoots a hole in Solomon’s list of “facts” as far as the firing of Shokin and the investigation of Burisma are concerned.

    I can’t go over all the allegations by Solomon. However, given the smear campaign against Yovanovitch by Giuliani, the attacks by Trump on the witnesses and the timeline of when Ukraine knew about the hold up that was lied about by the administration, I don’t give much credence to Solomon, Trump and all of his supporters on the right.

    That is my opinion.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Almost anyone can edit a Wikipedia article and there is no fact checking except by users. Wikipedia is useful for general knowledge of non-controversial issues, but it is not an authority on anything.

      Solomon’s 28 points are all supported by original citations. Which of them are in error and on what citations do you rely?


      1. @Tabor
        It is a fact that a bunch of criminals with personal axes to grind told Mr. Solomon things that he desperately wanted to hear. His mixing those “facts” with other facts long ago in the public record to build a completely false narrative is totally unpersuasive to all but those eager to spread Russian disinformation. You know, the very disinformation cited by YOUR approved expert, Fiona Hill.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. I did not accuse him of being in error.

            I accused him of repeating unsupported allegations from unreliable witnesses with ulterior motives as if they were meaningful.

            Your demand for evidence is something like this . . . If someone alleges that you routinely beat your spouse does that mean it is true? Do YOU have to prove that they are in error? Could you even do that? It is almost impossible to prove a negative.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Wow, you’re really turning that on its head.

            You are claiming Solomon is wrong, whether by reporting a false statement or falsely reporting one does not matter.

            It is your burden to show the statement is wrong.


          3. @Tabor

            I tried to make the analogy simple enough for you to understand. I obviously failed. But, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative so the burden of proof is on those who allege that something DID occur not on those who say that it did not.

            In this case, Solomon weaves some cherry-picked facts (e.g., Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma) and unproven allegations from shady characters with ulterior motives into a narrative (“The Bidens are crooks”) for which he has zero credible evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Don and John,

        I know. My sources suck and yours are impeccable.

        I guess for a fact v. (alternative?) fact debate, I need to devote days of investigative research. I will pass.

        And if that means I am out, so be it. Trying to decode this Russo-Ukraine mess is like reading a Russian novel with regards to keeping track of all the names.

        I can say this, however. Since the Trump side of the theatrics is led by a man who still insists his inauguration crowd was the biggest ever or that his Ambassador didn’t hang the picture she never got or retweets bogus facts and racist phony videos, its credibility is pretty much zero. Add in our president’s constant insistence that he hardly knew the people he either picked, praised or partied with if they stopped kissing his ass and told the truth.

        Poke holes in that if you wish.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. RE: “If that is the case, then that shoots a hole in Solomon’s list of ‘facts’ as far as the firing of Shokin and the investigation of Burisma are concerned.”

      I’m not sure what you think your Wikipedia quotation shoots a hole in. Solomon reports the same facts. Wikipedia, however, doesn’t reference Solomon’s reporting which includes evidence that Shokin was actively pursuing the Burisma investigation in Ukraine.

      In other words, to believe Wikipedia you have to believe that Shokin was shut down for not doing enough to combat corruption. But if Shokin was shut down for not doing enough to combat corruption, why did he seize the property of Burisma’s owner in Feb., 2016, just before Joe bribed the Ukrainian government to have Shokin fired (March 2016) and long after Hunter joined the company (May 2014)?

      Something doesn’t add up here, but it isn’t anything to do with John Solomon. More to the point, you can’t use Wikipedia to fact-check a story that hasn’t yet been written (because the story is still developing).

      Just to illustrate, it is possible the Obama administration, in cahoots with the UK sought to leverage Western foreign aid to pressure Ukraine into replacing its home-grown oligarchs with our own, or their children (same thing). That, at least, would make sense, given the facts as we know them. It is a story as old as history, even if the present version remains to be told in all its fullness.


  2. An absence of evidence does not mean evidence has not been found. Oh wait, no, that’s what it means. Maybe it’s an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. Um, no, it could be. I know, an absence of evidence means that conjecture is rumor, so let’s assume rumors are true, create some rumors and thus make the truth.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Here, in a nutshell… Solomon’s defense.

    The piece: “There had been a light rain the morning of November 22, but the skies had clear as the President’s motorcade entered Dealey Plaza. It was about 12:30 PM. Shots rang out. The President slumped in the backseat. The limousine sped off. People were pointing to the upper floors of the book depository. In the darkened room on the 6th floor sat Hunter Biden and Joe Biden was on the grassy knoll with rifles.”

    The testimony: “The key elements were false.” “All of them?”

    The defense:
    “Fact 1 — it was Nov 22,
    Fact 2 — it had rained,
    Fact 3 — it was around 12:30 PM,
    Fact 4 — it happened in Dealey Plaza,
    Fact 5 — the President slumped,
    Fact 6 — People pointed as the Limousine sped off.

    See, he lied when he said the key elements were wrong.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well done.

      Of course, you could apply the same logic to the GOP defense(?) in the Impeachment Inquiry.

      That’s all they got; distract, deflect, and lie repeatedly hoping the weak minded cult will continue supporting the deconstruction of the rule of law upon which our Country is based.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s