Tag Archives: John Solomon

HUGE: Trump Calls on Putin to Release Info on Hunter Biden’s Dealings with Oligarchs

John Solomon
March 29th, 2022

Former President Donald Trump is calling on Russian leader Vladimir Putin to release any information he possesses on Hunter Biden’s dealings with oligarchs in Eastern Europe. 

In an interview with the Just the News television show on Real America’s Voice airing Tuesday, the former president cited a 2020 Senate report that disclosed Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina, then the wife of Moscow’s mayor, provided $3.5 million a decade ago to a company co-founded by President Joe Biden’s son and unanswered questions about why the money was given.

“She gave him $3.5 million so now I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it,” Trump said in a wide-ranging interview at his Mar O Lago resort in Florida. “I think we should know that answer.”

A grand jury in Delaware has been investigating Hunter Bjden’s business dealings for possible tax violations, foreign lobbying issues and money laundering. Hunter Biden has acknowledge the probe but denied wrongdoing. 

Trump said he also would like to know more about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Ukrainian oligarch Nikolai Zlochevsky, the owner of the Burisma Holdings gas company that hired the Biden scion in 2014 to its board and paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. 

At the time, the State Department considered Burisma to be a corrupt company that made bribes to Ukrainian officials and viewed Hunter Biden’s relationship as having created the appearance of a conflict of interest because his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, oversaw U.S.-Ukraine policy. 

A memo obtained by Just the News in January of this year also revealed that senior State officials were warned that Hunter Biden’s dealing in the country had undercut U.S. anticorruption policies.

“Now, you won’t get the answer from Ukraine,” Trump lamented, referring to his 2020 impeachment over seeking Ukraine’s help investigating the Biden’s business dealing . 

Trump said he tried to raise the issue of Hunter Biden’s dealings with oligarchs during the 2020 election but was shut down by then-Fox News anchor Chris Wallace.

“How is it that the mayor of Moscow, his wife gave the Biden family three and a half million dollars? I think Putin now would be willing to probably give that answer,” Trump said. “I’m sure he knows.”

While encouraging Putin to reveal any information he has on the Biden family business dealings, Trump also made clear he treated Putin more severely than Democrats by blocking his NordSteam 2 natural gas pipeline to Europe, imposing sanctions on Moscow, upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal and bulking up NATO’s sagging finances.

“I’m the best thing that ever happened to NATO, because I made them pay. So NATO has plenty of money now,” he said. “And by the way, that’s another, I’m the one who brought up Nord Stream 2 … . I’m the one that blocked it. I terminated it. They weren’t gonna have it. He (Biden) then opened it.

“And then they say, ‘He’s so nice to Russia.’ I’m the one that put the biggest sanctions on Russia,” he said. 

You can watch Trump’s comments on Hunter Biden in the player above.

To see the full interview in which Trump lays out his vision for America if he runs in 2024, tune in Tuesday at 6 p.m. ET to Real America’s Voice on Dish Network channel 219, Pluto network channel 140, or on the Roku, Samsung, Real America’s Voice or Just the News apps. 

John Solomon Reveals Who He Thinks John Durham Will Go After Next

Martin Walsh
February 8, 2022

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.


Just The News founder John Solomon believes that Special Counsel John Durham is preparing to go after the FBI.

During an interview on Fox News, Solomon and host Maria Bartiromo spoke about the special counsel’s investigation into the Trump-Russia witch hunt and what Durham’s next move might be.

Russian-born analyst Igor Danchenko — key source for the unverified Steele dossier that alleged ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia — was arrested by federal agents last year as part of the Durham investigation.

Solomon explained that he believes Durham is dealing with “two buckets.”

In one “bucket,” there are the last two indictments against officials who were connected to Hillary Clinton and their plan to feed the FBI false information about Trump-Russia conspiracies.

Solomon said the other “bucket” focuses on the FBI and whether agents knowingly mislead the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on members of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Solomon also disputes former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok’s statement on MSNBC that the FBI never investigated the Trump campaign in 2016, as Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe makes another indictment.

STRZOK: Whether intentionally or not, when you look at the balance of those pages, they have subtle dog whistles to these pro-Trump conspiracy theories, statements like the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign relied on certain things. Well, there was never an FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. Unless you listen to some kind of far-extreme-right commentators or of folks in Congress who assert there was, but that’s nonsense.

BARTIROMO: Of course, John, there was no pushback from Rachel Maddow. To say there was no investigation of the Trump campaign. Your reaction? Mind-boggling.

SOLOMON: Listen, Pete Strzok’s opening electronic communication which starts the Crossfire Hurricane investigation states they are looking at whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating conspiring with Russia. When they put the first FISA in, in October, the Trump campaign is mentioned a dozen times in the first FISA, and as I mentioned in the last segment, the allegation is a well-developed conspiracy between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia to hijack the election.

Of course, it was about the campaign. Peter Strzok’s own words said it was about the campaign. He was lying the other night. There’s no other way to say it politely.

BARTIROMO: Of course, they continue to renew FISA warrants against the Trump campaign, and they based those warrants to wiretap people like Carter Page, based on that dossier which they knew was false and made up. So I ask you now, what do you think the indictments will look like in the future? Do you think that John Durham is going to indict people at high levels, big fish, within the FBI?

SOLOMON: There’s no doubt there is activity inside the grand jury right now aimed at looking at top-level officials of the FBI, and it’s based on this evidence. We all look at the fact that Denchenko was interviewed by the FBI on January 17, and disowned a lot of the things that were said to him. A lot of people said that should have been the point where the FBI stopped.

But Durham developed really significant evidence that red flags, the stop-now warning signs go all the way back to August when Bruce Orr, in 2016 came to the FBI and said Christopher Steele is dumping a dossier. He hates Trump. He’s hired by Hillary Clinton and most of his information is raw and uncorroborated.

A month after the CIA sends a warning to the FBI, this is something John Ratcliffe declassified, saying Hillary Clinton is trying to play a dirty trick on Donald Trump to tie him to Russia to get out of her e-mail thing. All through the fall, they keep a spreadsheet of what’s right and wrong of the Steele dossier. It’s all wrong. Can’t corroborate, they can’t collaborate the information. The FBI never should have started the investigation and I think that’s where John Durham’s investigation is focused right now.

Donald Trump on Durham Probe: ‘I Hear There’s a Lot Coming’

Martin Walsh
February 4, 2022

Donald Trump revealed this week that he has heard “there’s a lot coming” from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

“I hear there’s a lot coming,” Trump told former top aide Kash Patel on The Epoch Times’ “Kash’s Corner.”

“We’re gonna see what happens. But what he’s doing is one of the most important jobs being done right now in America,” Trump added.

The 45th president said he would like to see Durham’s investigation move faster.

“I wish it were faster,” Trump said. “It is really the crime of the century and changed everything, including the election.”

Investigative reporter John Solomon has a theory about who special counsel John Durham will go after next — the FBI.

During an interview on Fox News, Solomon and host Maria Bartiromo spoke about Durham’s investigation and what might be next.

Russian-born analyst Igor Danchenko — key source for the Steele dossier that alleged ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia — was arrested by federal agents last week as part of the Durham investigation.

Solomon explained that he believes Durham is dealing with “two buckets.”

In one “bucket,” there are the last two indictments against officials who were connected to Hillary Clinton and their plan to feed the FBI false information about Trump-Russia conspiracies.

Solomon said the other “bucket” focuses on the FBI and whether agents knowingly mislead the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on members of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Solomon also disputes former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok’s statement on MSNBC last week that the FBI never investigated the Trump campaign in 2016, as Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe makes another indictment.

Below is a transcript of Solomon’s comments on Fox News:

PETER STRZOK: Whether intentionally or not, when you look at the balance of those pages, they have subtle dog whistles to these pro-Trump conspiracy theories, statements like “the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign relied on certain things.”

Well, there was never an FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. Unless you listen to some kind of far-extreme-right commentators or of folks in Congress who assert there was, but that’s nonsense.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Of course, John, there was no pushback from Rachel Maddow. To say there was no investigation of the Trump campaign. Your reaction? Mind-boggling.

JOHN SOLOMON: Listen, Pete Strzok’s opening electronic communication which starts the Crossfire Hurricane investigation states they are looking at whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating conspiring with Russia. When they put the first FISA in, in October, the Trump campaign is mentioned a dozen times in the first FISA, and as I mentioned in the last segment, the allegation is a well-developed conspiracy between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia to hijack the election.

Of course, it was about the campaign. Peter Strzok’s own words said it was about the campaign. He was lying the other night. There’s no other way to say it politely.

BARTIROMO: Of course, they continue to renew FISA warrants against the Trump campaign and they based those warrants to wiretap people like Carter Page, based on that dossier which they knew was false and made up. So I ask you now, what do you think the indictments will look like in the future?

Do you think that John Durham is going to indict people at high levels, big fish, within the FBI?

JOHN SOLOMON: There’s no doubt there is activity inside the grand jury right now aimed at looking at top-level officials of the FBI, and it’s based on this evidence. We all look at the fact that Denchenko was interviewed by the FBI on January 17, and disowned a lot of the things that were said to him.

A lot of people said that should have been the point where the FBI stopped.

But Durham developed really significant evidence that red flags, the stop-now warning signs go all the way back to August when Bruce Orr, in 2016 came to the FBI and said Christopher Steele is dumping a dossier. He hates Trump. He’s hired by Hillary Clinton and most of his information is raw and uncorroborated.

A month after the CIA sends a warning to the FBI, this is something John Ratcliffe declassified, saying Hillary Clinton is trying to play a dirty trick on Donald Trump to tie him to Russia to get out of her e-mail thing. All through the fall, they keep a spreadsheet of what’s right and wrong of the Steele dossier. It’s all wrong. Can’t corroborate, they can’t collaborate the information. The FBI never should have started the investigation and I think that’s where John Durham’s investigation is focused right now.

Durham Zeroes in on Clinton Campaign, Could Call Some Aides to Testify, Court Memo Reveals

By John Solomon

Hillary Clinton’s team long fought to keep its ties to Christopher Steele’s dossier from public view, but Special Counsel John Durham is now making clear he has a strong interest in her campaign’s behavior during the Russia collusion probe. He is even suggesting some of her aides could be summoned as trial witnesses.

Durham’s earth-shaking revelation came inside a routine court filing this month in the case of Igor Y. Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was a primary source in 2016 for Steele’s now-infamous dossier. Danchenko has been charged with repeatedly lying to the FBI during the Russia collusion probe and has pleaded innocent.

File DanchenkoIndictment.pdf

Durham’s motion asked the presiding judge to determine whether Danchenko’s lawyers —Danny Onorato and Stuart Sears of the Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears law firm — pose a conflict of interest because the firm also represents the Hillary for America campaign as well as several former campaign officials in “matters before the special counsel.”

“The Clinton Campaign financed the opposition research reports, colloquially known as the ‘Dossier,’ that are central to the Indictment against the defendant,” the Durham team stated in the motion. “Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the government respectfully requests that the Court inquire into the potential conflict issues set forth herein.”

File DurhamMotionDanchenkoClintonConflicts.pdf

Prosecutors said they want to know what the Clinton campaign knew about the accuracy of the Steele dossier’s now-discredited allegations of Trump-Russia collusion and whether any campaign “representatives directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s activities assisting Steele.

“The interests of the Clinton Campaign and the defendant could potentially diverge in connection with any plea discussions, pre-trial proceedings, hearings, trial, and sentencing proceedings,” the prosecutors told the court, often referring to the Steele dossier as “Company Reports.”

“For example, the Clinton Campaign and the defendant each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI,” the Durham filing stated. “Moreover, it is possible that one of these parties might also seek to advance claims that they were harmed or defrauded by the other’s actions, statements, or representations.”

For the first time, Durham also raised the possibility aides to Hillary Clinton could testify at Danchenko’s trial.

“In the event that one or more former representatives of the Clinton Campaign (who are represented by defense counsel’s firm) are called to testify at any trial or other court proceeding, the defendant and any such witness would be represented by the same law firm, resulting in a potential conflict,” Durham’s team argued.

And for one of the first times, Durham’s team declares to a court what it believes was the political motive for the Clinton campaign to pay its law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire the Fusion GPS investigative firm to hire the retired MI6 agent Steele to write anti-Trump Russia reports known as the dossier.

“The Clinton Campaign, through Law Firm-1 and U.S. Investigative Firm-1, commissioned and financed the Company Reports in an attempt to gather and disseminate derogatory information about Donald Trump,” the filing stated.

In all, the latest Durham court filing identifies five areas where the prosecutor’s case may pose a conflict, including:

  • the Clinton campaign’s “knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information” in the dossier created by Steele with help from Danchenko;
  • the Clinton campaign’s “awareness or lack of awareness of the defendant’s collection methods and sub-sources”;
  • “meetings or communications” between the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Steele “regarding or involving” Danchenko;
  • “the defendant’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton Campaign’s role in and activities surrounding the” Steele dossier;
  • And “the extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s activities.

“On each of these issues, the interests of the Clinton Campaign and the defendant may diverge,” the court filing explained.

The memo gives the most detailed explanation to date of Durham’s interest in the Clinton campaign and its potential exposure in his criminal investigation, surprising even some veteran Russiagate investigators.

“He is moving forward methodically against the largest organized criminal enterprise to ever take down a presidential election,” said Kash Patel, the former chief investigative counsel for the House Intelligence Committee. Patel worked with Rep. Devin Nunes, the committee’s chairman, to expose the bogus Russia collusion narrative as a political dirty trick that fed opposition research to the FBI to cause Trump to be investigated on false pretenses.

Patel, a former federal prosecutor and adviser to Trump, told the John Solomon Reports podcast that the memo is “an unbelievable twist” in the Russia case. He said the fact that the law firm representing the Clinton campaign is the same one representing Danchenko was certain to raise questions.

“You have to ask yourself why,” he said. “Why would the Clinton campaign lawyers go and represent the Steele dossier’s No. 1 source, who has been charged federally with five counts of lying to the FBI in a 39-page indictment that cites Clinton campaign former staffers?

“There is no such thing as coincidences in these types of investigations.”

Fired NY Prosecutor Was Given Biden-Ukraine Allegations in 2018 but didn’t Follow Up, Emails Show

John Solomon
June 23rd, 2020

Could the impeachment scandal have been prevented if the now-fired U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman had followed up on Ukrainian allegations about Joe Biden and his family in 2018?

That’s the tantalizing question raised by emails from fall 2018 between an American lawyer and the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan that were obtained by Just the News.

The memos show that well before Ukrainian prosecutors reached out to Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, in 2019 to talk about the Bidens and alleged 2016 election interference they first approached Berman’s office in New York in October 2018 via another American lawyer.

The memos show Little Rock, Ark., lawyer Bud Cummins, a former U.S. attorney himself, reached out at least five times in October 2018 to Berman seeking to arrange a meeting with then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.

Lutsenko, who emerged as a key figure in the impeachment scandal, wanted to confidentially share with federal prosecutors in New York evidence he claimed to possess that raised concerns about the Bidens’ behavior as well as alleged wrongdoing in the Paul Manafort corruption case.

“Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko is offering to come to U.S. meet with high-level law enforcement to share the fruits of investigations within Ukraine which have produced evidence of two basic alleged crimes,” Cummins wrote Berman on Oct. 4, 2018, one day after the two had talked on the phone about the allegations.

The allegations included that Joe Biden had “exercised influence to protect Burisma Holdings” after his son Hunter and his son’s business partner Devon Archer had joined the Ukrainian gas company’s board of directors and “substantial sums of money were paid to them,” Cummins wrote.

At the time Hunter Biden and Archer joined Burisma in 2014, the company was under criminal investigation in both England and Ukraine for alleged corruption. The British case was dropped in 2015, and the Ukraine cases were eventually settled in the final days of the Obama administration.

Joe Biden boasted during a 2018 public appearance that he forced the firing on Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, back in 2016by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine. At the time, Shokin was leading the investigation into Burisma. Biden denies the investigation factored into his decision.

Biden’s and Archer’s firm received more than $3 million in payments from Burisma between 2014 and 2016, bank records obtained by the FBI show.

Records recently released by the State Department also show Hunter Biden and Archer had contacts in 2015 and 2016 with senior State officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken.

In addition, Burisma’s U.S. representatives were lobbying the State Department in Washington and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking to make the corruption allegations go away, the State memos released under FOIA show.

“The allegation by Prosecutor General Lutsenko et al is that the US ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch, Biden and Kerry made conclusions about who were the good guys and the bad guys in local government. They believe Biden and Kerry were influenced by payments to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to influence certain decisions, particularly those benefitting Burisma,” Cummins wrote, relaying the allegations from the Ukrainian officials.

In addition, Cummins told Berman that Lutsenko had evidence that a ledger found in Ukraine in 2016 alleging to show payments to Manafort from a Russian-backed political party in Ukraine was doctored and the U.S. knew the evidence was corrupted. The emergence of the ledger caused Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign chairman in August 2016, and eventually led to his conviction on money laundering and tax charges.

“The second allegation above is that the Embassy and FBI willfully pressured Ukrainian officials to falsify evidence to be leaked to the media about Manafort to affect the outcome of the 2016 election,” Cummins wrote Berman.

Cummins said in an interview he had one phone call and four email contacts with Berman in October 2018 about the Ukrainian matter, but the prosecutor’s office never took Lutsenko up on his offer to come to Washington and lay out his evidence.

“I never heard from them again,” Cummins said of Berman’s office. “It was an opportunity for the Justice Department to address these concerns privately, and who knows how history would have turned out had the SDNY simply followed up.”

Berman, instead, would eventually indict two associates of Giuliani on campaign finance and other charges after they tried to help the former New York City mayor and Trump lawyer publicize the Ukraine prosecutors’ concerns. (One of the indicted associates, Lev Parnas, worked as a translator and interview facilitator for this reporter on a handful of Ukraine interviews in 2019, but prosecutors do not allege he did anything wrong in that work.)

James Margolin, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, declined comment Monday when asked about the Cummins overture in 2018.

Cummins said he was not representing Lutsenko as his client, but rather a Ukrainian-American citizen who was trying to help the prosecutor general get information into U.S. authorities’ hands.

Cummins’ email states that Lutsenko wanted to meet with Berman because the U.S. attorney’s office in New York had successfully prosecuted Archer on unrelated charges earlier in 2018. Archer’s conviction, however, was overturned by a judge, and Berman’s office never retried the case.

Cummins’ efforts to help arrange the meeting were confirmed by one of Lutsenko’s deputies, Konstantin Kulyk, who said last year that Ukrainian authorities repeatedly tried to convey evidence about possible wrongdoing by Americans to the U.S. Justice Department but were thwarted.

Lutsenko said in an interview last year that when Cummins’ efforts failed to get an audience with the Justice Department he reached out to Giuliani, hoping to find a different channel to get information investigated.

It was those contacts that eventually spurred the entire impeachment inquiry, which ended in January in the Senate’s acquittal of Trump.

Democrats have tried to portray Giuliani’s activities as an effort to dig up dirt on Trump’s 2020 rival, and to get Ukrainian officials to launch a probe of Biden.

But Cummins’ emails make clear Ukrainian authorities weren’t interested in investigating the Bidens on Ukrainian law violations. Rather, they wanted to confidentially provide evidence of possible violations of U.S. law so American authorities could investigate. And they had no interest initially in involving the Trump White House. Rather, they simply wanted to share evidence with U.S. authorities at the prosecutor-to-prosecutor level.

Cummins’ emails to Berman make clear that Lutsenko did not trust the U.S. embassy in Kiev or the FBI to review the materials, fearing they were too political.

“Lutsenko faces political hurdles in getting a visa to come here. It is believed that the embassy in Kiev has blocked his obtaining a visa in the past. He believes it is because the US ambassador knows the nature of his investigation and wants to obstruct him from coming and sharing it,” Cummins wrote Berman on Oct. 4, 2018.

Five days later, Cummins wrote that Lutsenko was prepared to deliver serious evidence, including copies of two ledgers in the Manafort case that Ukrainian prosecutors believed were faked

“Presumably he will be prepared to discuss eyewitness testimony he believes will corroborate both this story and also the separate bribery allegations,” Cummins wrote.

When Berman stopped responding, Cummins offered to have Lutsenko meet with a lower-ranking federal prosecutor simply to transfer the evidence. “Perhaps you can provide at least one trusted prosecutor and trusted agent to meet with a couple of the actual investigators and just let them take down the information like they would if any citizen walked in the door with some information to share,” Cummins wrote on Oct. 18, 2018.

There was never any further response, Cummins said.

Ukrainian officials have said they did not believe the Bidens broke Ukrainian law but may have engaged in conflicts of interest prohibited by U.S. law. The concerns about the Bidens engaging in conflicts of interest were confirmed by U.S. officials as well.

During impeachment testimony last fall, both Yovanovitch and her top deputy in the Kiev embassy, George Kent, testified that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma while his father oversaw U.S.-Ukraine policy created the “appearance of a conflict of interest.” Kent said he even tried to raise his concerns with Biden’s VP office but was rebuffed.

All federal officials are required by federal ethics laws to avoid taking actions that create the appearance of a conflict of interest.