Some on here will be familiar with the "work" of John Solomon. Dubbed an "investigative journalist he was responsible for 14 columns of "opinion" (he wasn't allowed to write for the main media because of perceived bias and inexact journalistic standards) for The Hill on issues in the Ukraine. Many were breathlessly posted on here.
Solomon left The Hill to be one of Hannity's lackeys on Fox News. But not before he became part of the story that his articles were being co-ordinated with Rudy Guiliani, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, and the husband and wife legal team of Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova (Solomon's lawyers). The articles sought to implicate Joe Biden and his son in Ukranian scandal and smear the US Ambassador to the Ukraine leading to her removal.
The Hill conducted a review of Solomon's articles and his time there.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/48...mns-on-ukraine
It concluded:
Solomon failed to identify important details about his sources including that they were under investigation or indictment;
In some instances the sources were his own lawyers (Toensing and Di Genova);
There were unanswered question about Solomon's relationships with Rudy Giuliani and his associate Lev Parnas;
Disclosures will be added to all the articles written by Solomon pointing these issues out with a criticism of itself that this should have been made at the time of publication;
The Hill failed by letting Solomon to engage in work that looked like investigative journalism despite being labelled as opinion particularly as those that used Solomon's work to amplify his "opinion" ignored and
Solomon’s appearances on Fox News where he was identified as an investigative journalist blurred the distinction between news and opinion in the minds of some readers."
Still Trump was acquitted so why does this matter a jot?
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
I only post about rule of law issues in this particular forum, but there you go again with your labels, typical Alinsky tactics.
Reply With Quote
.
