“Sean Hannity talks about John Solomon, and then that gets picked up on Rush (Limbaugh) and (Mark) Levin,” explains Columbia University media historian Nicole Hemmer. “That gives it an authority when (conservative audiences are) hearing it from multiple sources every day.” Citing Solomon’s earlier work at the Associated Press, Hannity was able to present Solomon as “nonpartisan,” and an “investigative reporter.”

Solomon, of course, did little investigating. As Media Matters (MMFA) reported in October, this ecosystem model was fully exploited by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who essentially planted misinformation in service to his orange master.

Giuliani … pursued an “investigation” in Ukraine that he claimed showed both Ukrainian collusion with Democrats in 2016 and evidence that then-Vice President Joe Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine to benefit his son. In March, Giuliani sent the results of his investigation to the State Department to be investigated and to conservative columnist John Solomon.

MMFA notes that, beginning in March, Solomon began publishing stories clearly fed to him by Giuliani—45 in a span of six months—which led to a stunning 72 appearances on Fox News—51 of them alongside Sean Hannity, who is easily the network’s loudest CT shrieker. Giuliani did his part to advance the scheme, even praising Solomon’s “reporting” as worthy of a Pulitzer Prize.

Meanwhile, as NBC News notes, the State Department was aware of Giuliani’s misinformation campaign—then-Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, who testified publicly on Wednesday, called the Solomon articles “poppycock.”

Solomon’s manipulative reporting didn’t just start with the massive partnership with Giuliani. Staffers at The Hill began to voice concern about Solomon and his “investigations” just months after he joined the outlet in late 2017, according to reporting from the Washington Post in January 2018. By May, Solomon was re-classified as an “opinion” contributor, which gave him AND The Hill additional legal cover to publish misinformation, much like Fox News hides Hannity—who responded to Yovanovitch’s testimony by mocking her on his radio show—and his ceaseless nonsense under that same umbrella.

The Hill, remarkably, reported on Yovanovitch’s indictment of Solomon and his “reporting,” without a trace of irony, much less remorse. The outlet did note that Solomon, in a statement, stands by all of his work for his former employer.

All of this brings us back to Friday, and Rep. Speier’s rebuke of Wong and The Hill as a whole. After Speier suggested the reporter run and tell the leadership of the site about their exchange, Wong pushed back at the congresswoman.

“The reporters themselves have made that clear to our leadership as well,” he told her. “There are a lot of dedicated reporters at The Hill who do not share John Solomon’s views.”

Bob Cusack, editor-in-chief of The Hill, has yet to comment on the allegations that his publication spread misinformation, possibly willfully, that undeniably contributed to the destruction of Yovanovitch’s career and the current political crisis that has consumed the nation.

A perusal of his Twitter feed shows he typically tweets pleasant farewells to staffers moving on from the outlet, as well as shares a variety of content from the site. No such good tidings or content promotion can be found for Solomon, who, again, departed the site in September after almost two years on staff. Seems a little scrubby, eh?

One of Cusack’s tweets, however, has not aged well at all.

x Possible SNL skit:



Mueller: Rudy, what do you think of the report?

Giuliani: 10th paragraph should be moved up. You're burying the lede Bob.

Mueller: OK.

Giuliani: How about adding "witch" somewhere in the title? And "impacts" as a verb? "Affects" much better.

Mueller: Hmmm. https://t.co/EpgxyVmTdT — Bob Cusack (@BobCusack) January 11, 2019

Some folks on Twitter are challenging people to rethink their impressions of the website.

x based on how often the hill's disinformation was cited during yesterday's impeachment hearing i'd like you all to think twice about still following them and constantly retweeting them (i dropped them about a year ago because the site is shit) — Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 16, 2019

Meanwhile, The Hill’s front page, as of this writing, features another “opinion” column, equating resistance to the Trump administration with “unhinged behavior.”