Loading...

Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?

Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election? - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?
link : Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?

see also


Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?



Transcript.
CHUCK TODD: What I don't understand is, why do you believe that, if an American is committing corruption, we should ask a foreign government to announce an investigation? Is that appropriate? Or do you go to American authorities?

SEN. TED CRUZ: So I believe any president, any Justice Department, has the authority to investigate corruption. In this case, there was serious evidence, on the face, of corruption. The reason Hunter Biden got that position is because his daddy was Vice President of the United States.

CHUCK TODD: So you believe Ukraine meddled?... Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?

SEN. TED CRUZ: I do. And I think there's considerable evidence of that.

CHUCK TODD [with intensity]: You do? You do?
Laughter can be heard in the studio. At this point, I really want to hear the details on how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the election. I've avoided reading up on this story, but now I really want to know because I'm so irritated by Chuck Todd trying to crush it immediately. Todd immediately changes the subject to reasons why Ted Cruz should have a personal animus against Trump:
CHUCK TODD: He launched a birtherism campaign against you. He went after your faith. He threatened to, quote, "spill the beans," about your wife about something...
I wish Cruz had said: Don't change the subject. I just said there is considerable evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election and you very intensely and reflexively tried to block that subject. But Cruz just sarcastically said:
SEN. TED CRUZ: ... I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage. That's very kind of you, go ahead.
And that allowed Todd to avoid the subject he wanted to avoid. Todd's next question is:

CHUCK TODD: Is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative about somebody, in order to help him, politically?

SEN. TED CRUZ: Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said on the phone call. And let me point out --

CHUCK TODD: Yeah and the Bidens. And you, yourself, thought the Biden part was troubling.

SEN. TED CRUZ: Chuck, Chuck, let me point out a game that the media is playing. You know, a question that you've asked a number of people is you've said to senators, sort of aghast, "Do you believe that Ukraine, and not Russia, interfered in the election?" Now, that, that, in a court of law, would be struck as a misleading question. Of course Russia interfered in our election. Nobody looking at the evidence disputes that....
This is important, and this is what has been bothering me. Those who reject the assertion that Ukraine meddled in the election restate the issue as whether Ukraine and not Russia meddled in the election. That's a rhetorical trick that can make lazy or inattentive thinkers believe that they have to deny that Russia meddled in order to consider whether Ukraine meddled.
SEN. TED CRUZ: Look, on the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election. But here's the game the media is playing. Because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did. Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump --
All right. I know this piece of evidence and how it will be minimized, but is this all there is? Todd immediately interrupts (and he's super-excited in a way that undermines confidence in his professionalism):
CHUCK TODD: Do you know why... Do you know why he did that?... What did Donald Trump, what did Donald Trump, as a candidate, say about Ukraine and Crimea during the election that might've inspired the ambassador?

SEN. TED CRUZ: So you're saying they had disagreements with Donald Trump --

CHUCK TODD: No, I’m just saying --

SEN. TED CRUZ: -- and they wanted Hillary Clinton to get elected.

CHUCK TODD: Okay, so they wrote an op-ed --

SEN. TED CRUZ: I’ll tell you a Ukrainian parliamentarian --
Todd interrupts again. He really seems as though he's trying to prevent Cruz from laying out his point. If it's such a bad point, why doesn't he sit back and let Cruz make his own mess.
CHUCK TODD: They wrote an op-ed. That is the difference -- what you're saying is, you’re saying a pickpocket, which essentially is a Hill op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin. You're trying to make -- you’re trying to equal -- make them both seem equal. I don't understand that.
Todd was so excited he couldn't think of the word "equate." He's offering his own colorful analogy — the Ukrainian op-ed was the equivalent of pickpocketing compared to the Madoff-level fraud ascribed to the Russians. Notice that's admitting that the Ukrainians did interfere.* Todd has conceded that the Ukrainians had a preference in the election and tried to influence how Americans thought about the candidates.
SEN. TED CRUZ: Chuck, Chuck, I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference, because, A) they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted, anyway. And B) it's inconvenient for the narrative. You know, it's hysterical. Two years ago, there was article after article after article, in the mainstream media, about Ukrainian interference in the elections. But now, the Democrats have no evidence of a crime, no evidence of violating the law. And so suddenly, Ukrainian interference is treated as the media clutches their pearls. "Oh, my goodness. You can't say that."...
Todd tries to recenter the issue as either/or — Russia or Ukraine:
CHUCK TODD: Okay, so did you get the briefing, from the intel community, that said, the Russian intelligence services are trying to actively use this Ukraine story to frame Ukraine for the Russian -- for the interference in 2016?
Cruz — in what turns out to be his last chance to talk in this interview — switches to the general topic of how there are always a lot of countries trying to interfere in all of our elections:
SEN. TED CRUZ: I have been in multiple briefings. I have been in multiple briefings, year after year after year, about foreign interference in our election. Russia has tried to interfere in our elections. China's tried to interfere in our elections. North Korea's tried to interfere in our elections. Ukraine has tried to interfere in our elections. This is not new. 2016's not the first year they did it. And they're going to keep trying. And so we need to be strong in dealing with it. But the media needs to actually report facts.
And I still don't know if the accusation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election is about anything more than that op-ed. Ted Cruz had a little more time in that last word, but not only did he ascend to a high level of generality about interference in elections, he swapped in a preferred topic and ended with:
SEN. TED CRUZ: This is a kangaroo court in the House. They're going to impeach, not because they have the evidence, but because they hate the president, want to do the election. But it's going to go to the Senate. It's going to go nowhere. I think the American people know this is a waste of time. And this is Democrats putting on a circus.
Okay. Fine. But I'm going to assume the Ukrainian interference was nothing but an op-ed, and I don't see the problem with other countries having preferences in American elections and explaining their reasons in published essays in American newspapers. If there's some U.S. law against that, it violates our right to receive information.

That said, I wish Chuck Todd would act more dignified and quit stepping on his guests and laughing at them. It makes it seem like he's trying to censor the other side. I think Cruz did get out what he wanted to say about Ukrainian "interference," but Todd made it look like there could have been more! If I'm wrong and there is more, please tell me what it is.

__________________

* The Ukrainian "interference" is right out there in plain sight. Does that mean that there's nothing wrong with it? I observe that Trump isn't given the benefit of the same inference. His famous phone call to Zelensky happened with many people listening and he released the transcript, yet his opponents don't infer that absolves him. And Trump — at a news conference, fully out in the open — said "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," and his opponents act call that "collusion."


Thus articles Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?

that is all articles Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election? with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/12/did-chuck-todd-actively-prevent-ted.html

Subscribe to receive free email updates:

0 Response to "Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?"

Post a Comment

Loading...