An inside look

The Hill, one of the more non-partisan news sites, takes a close look at John Solomon’s Ukraine-related columns and it’s own possible failings in dealing with them.

Nice to see a news/opinion site realize it’s own failings and making the corrections to prevent them from happening again.

13 thoughts on “An inside look

  1. The Hill has traditionally been considered a right-of-center publication that was well vetted and accurate.

    I find it very “telling” that I see it disparaged by the current Administration and its supporters as a left-wing rag for reporting facts and presenting reasonably balanced opinions.

    Just sayin…

    Liked by 2 people

  2. After reading the article on Hill. it is hard to to see the hand of Putin and his disinformation specialists in the “cookie” jar, so to speak.

    The constant repetition of lies, innuendoes, misleading statements from the regime, the supporters of the regime and other players is part and parcel of making sure the population is thoroughly confused. So much so, as Trump bragged to Leslie Stahl, the citizens won’t know what or who to believe.

    Toss in the unabashed pardoning of high profile felons past, present and future, we have apparently elected an organized crime favorite to the White House. And his targeting of every critic or political opponent by Trump is very revealing. Especially when Trump not only thinks he is the chief law enforcement officer, but also wants to cross the branches by pressuring the judiciary to do his bidding.

    John Solomon’s years long campaign to tie Ukraine and Hillary to the election influencing in 2016 is particularly telling. When in fact, the Russian ties, through Ukraine in some cases, of Manafort and Giuliani (and his “contacts”) are the real scandals.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Essentially, the Hill is saying that they should not have labeled Mr Solomon as an opinion writer. However, unless one is reporting the current weather or sports scores, ALL journalistic endeavors include elements of opinion.

    In any case, the piece does not refute anything that Mr Solomon has reported and thus far, neither has anyone else.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You must have either failed reading comprehension or are so blindly in support of Trump that no matter what evidence is put before you, it is ignored. I’m hoping it is only the reading comprehension thing. But I am betting on the Trump Blindness Syndrome.

      What they actually said was the needed to clarify if his pieces were reporting or opinion. But because everything he writes supports the false narrative that Trump and his all Trump-ass kissing Band tries to sell to the American people. You have bought the snake oil, hook, line and sinker.

      All most all of Mr. Solomon’s OPINION pieces were badly sourced and not in keeping with the higher journalistic principles the Hill strives for. Most if not all of his “reporting” was rebuked and debunked by much more reliable sources.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “In any case, the piece does not refute anything that Mr Solomon has reported and thus far, neither has anyone else.”

      That’s my takeaway, as well. I have no beef with The Hill’s review, but it is a major stretch to claim that the results discredit Solomon’s work at the outlet in any significant way.


  4. You are a confused and ill-informed man. For literally everything that John Solomon has reported is supported by incontrovertible evidence.

    The fakestream media refuses to investigate Ukraine and tries to discredit or bury the work of others. However, Rudy Giuliani and One America News Network have actually traveled there to interview former and present government officials, diplomats and businessmen.

    In fact, Rudy has spent over a yr gathering evidence of wide-scale corruption, money laundering and fraudulently political operations designed to undermine Mr Trump. He has recorded many of his interviews and has sworn testimony in form of affidavits from a number of Ukrainians with knowledge of the corruption.

    In any case, he has handed his findings to the DOJ and the Senate Judiciary Committee; therefore, you will be learning more soon enough.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The next big nothing burger in Trump world.

      All of Rudy’s “sources” are where the corruption is/was. If you read actual news and not the fluff at places like the Drudge Report, Zero Hedge or any of the fringe sites, you might see past the lies.

      And I refute your “confused and ill-informed man” statement and say that your are guilty of projecting your own faults on to others. Just like your orange tinted King.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. “In its review of 14 columns, The Hill’s news team said serious doubts about the credibility of Solomon’s Ukrainian sources were evident even before his interviews with them. Those include, most notably, two former Ukrainian prosecutors — Yuriy Lutsenko and Victor Shokin — who were the principal sources behind unsupported allegations of corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
      In certain columns, Solomon failed to identify important details about key Ukrainian sources, including the fact that they had been indicted or were under investigation. In other cases, the sources were his own attorneys,” The Hill concluded.”

      The credibility gap is pretty wide, it seems.

      Or more succinctly, “incontrovertible evidence my butt”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Those include, most notably, two former Ukrainian prosecutors — Yuriy Lutsenko and Victor Shokin…”

        What you’re missing is that Solomon properly identified Lutsenko and Shokin as sources. Even The Hill doesn’t accuse Solomon of misrepresenting that.

        The key fact is that no one is accusing Solomon of lying. Even if you want to make a case that Solomon committed lies of omission, that doesn’t effect the statements Solomon made as positive assertions in his work at The Hill. The Hill itself declines to go that far.


        1. I could write lies all day long, just make sure I name sources? That’s a pretty sketchy standard.

          Solomon used his own attorneys as sources but just “forgot” to mention they represented him.

          Trump does better than that whenever he says “that’s what I heard” or “everyone knows”. At last we know he’s full of crap.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. “That’s a pretty sketchy standard.“ Or absurd …

            Any straw in a hurricane of lies and mis-direction is the cult’s only defense…

            I continue to have faith in truth and our legal system to win out, but comments on this forum make it clear why it will be a slog.

            Liked by 2 people

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