objectively. You like Trump would rather believe the Washington Examiner than your intelligence agencies and other experts close to the scene. -----
Ted Cruz stated on December 8, 2019 in a TV interview: "Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election.
[...]
Cruz’s evidence
When contacted for supporting evidence, Cruz’s office pointed to two social media posts shared by Ukrainian officials in 2016 as evidence of interference.
In one, Arsen Avakov, Ukraine’s Minister of Internal Affairs, shared a tweet calling Trump a "clown."
Cruz’s office also pointed to two news articles on Ukraine and the 2016 election — one from Politico and one from the Financial Times. Cruz shared both pieces in a series of tweets he posted defending his statement from "Meet the Press."
The Politico article, from January 2017 .. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 , is cited frequently by Republicans promoting the theory that Ukraine interfered in the election. It explores efforts by some Ukranians to discredit Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman, by promoting work he did on behalf of the previous, Russia-aligned government in Ukraine.
"The article did not state that the Ukrainian government conspired with the Clinton campaign or the DNC," said Melissa Cooke, a booking manager for Politico, in an email to PolitiFact. "It also emphasized that the acts of Ukrainian officials to raise questions about Trump were not comparable to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and reported that the then-Ukrainian government was trying to make amends with then-President-elect Trump."
The Financial Times article .. https://www.ft.com/content/c98078d0-6ae7-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f .. cited by Cruz was about the Ukranian lawmaker who revealed more than $12 million in secret payments to Manafort from the pro-Russia party in Ukraine. The lawmaker told the outlet that he wanted to show the world that Trump was a "pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world.’"
Financial Times editor Edward Luce .. https://youtu.be/oNf_MT-qNDw?t=239 .. said their coverage did not support Kennedy’s claim about election interference.
Intelligence officials say no evidence
Multiple intelligence officials have said there is no evidence to support the theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
During the U.S. House impeachment hearings, Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is responsible for Ukraine policy on the National Security Council, said there was no "factual basis" to support claims that Ukrainian officials worked with Democratic operatives to damage Trump while promoting Clinton.
"I am, frankly, unaware of any authoritative basis for Ukranian interference in 2016 elections, based on my knowledge," he said.
At the same hearing, Fiona Hill, the Trump White House’s former top Russia advisor, pushed back at assertions from the Republicans’ lead counsel that Ukraine government officials discussed Trump’s then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his ties to Russia with a Democratic National Committee employee.
"American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow’s own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials," reads the article .. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/ukraine-russia-interference.html .
Our Ruling
During a television interview, Cruz said that "Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election."
Cruz’s claim is based on the existence of two social media posts and one op-ed from 2016 written by different Ukrainian officials criticizing Trump. He also highlighted reports about efforts by some Ukranians to discredit Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman.
However, multiple intelligence officials said there is no evidence Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump, GOP claims on Ukraine corruption
By HOPE YEN and CALVIN WOODWARDNovember 22, 2019
1 of 3 - Former White House national security aide Fiona Hill, and David Holmes, right, a U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his GOP allies pressed a defense Thursday that he acted appropriately in withholding military aid to Ukraine out of concern over the country’s corruption and claimed the House impeachment hearings .. https://apnews.com/Trumpimpeachmentinquiry .. amounted to a rogue process.
CALIFORNIA REP. DEVIN NUNES, the top Republican on the committee: “President Trump had good reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign.”
THE FACTS: That’s not credible. The theory that Ukrainians interfered in the U.S. election and that Democrats cooperated in that effort is unsubstantiated.
Trump himself was told by his officials that the theory was “completely debunked” long before the president pressed Ukraine to investigate it anyway, according to Tom Bossert, Trump’s first homeland security adviser.
Broadly, the theory contends that a hack of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 was a setup designed to cast blame on Russia but actually was cooked up by or with the help of Ukrainians. But the evidence points conclusively to Russia, not Ukraine.
Based on evidence that includes a security firm’s findings that Russian agents had broken into the Democrats’ network and stolen emails, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 members of Russia’s military intelligence agency and concluded that their operation sought to help Trump’s candidacy, not Hillary Clinton’s, as the conspiracy theorists and Trump have it. ___
NUNES: Trump also has good reason to be wary “of widespread corruption in that country.”
THE FACTS: He’s pointing to an oft-made defense by Trump and GOP allies that he withheld military aid to Ukraine because of concerns about corruption. But the hearings have produced bountiful testimony that Trump was singularly focused on making Democrats the target of Ukrainian investigations.
The committee is reviewing whether Trump pressed Ukraine for a political “favor” to investigate Democrats in exchange for the aid, as a whistleblower alleges and others have testified.
In his first phone call with Ukraine’s new leader, in April, the White House said at the time that Trump discussed his interest in having Ukraine rein in widespread corruption. But in the recently released rough transcript of the call, he did not mention corruption at all.
Trump had $391 million in congressionally approved U.S. assistance withheld from Ukraine from July to September.
Witnesses testified that Trump did not articulate concerns about corruption in Ukraine other than expressing interest into investigations that would benefit him politically.
In his July 25 call, Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as they discussed military aid, “I would like for you to do us a favor, though” and investigate Joe Biden, his son and Democrats going back to the 2016 U.S. election, citing in part the discredited conspiracy theory involving Ukraine in that election.
Trump ultimately released the aid, on Sept. 11, after Congress became aware of what he had done. A few days earlier, congressional committees had begun looking into the matter, aware that a whistleblower had a complaint in motion. ___
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, Democratic committee chairman: “I think the American people can be forgiven if they have the same impression, listening to some of the statements of my colleagues during this hearing, that Russia didn’t intervene in our election. It was all the Ukrainians.”
FIONA HILL, former special adviser to Trump on National Security Council: “Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”
REP. ELISE STEFANIK, Republican of New York: “Not a single Republican member of this committee has said that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 elections. ... To have our Democratic colleagues say these untruthful statements just reeks of political desperation.”
THE FACTS: Stefanik may be right that Republicans on the committee did not explicitly deny that Russia attacked the U.S. election. Yet Schiff and Hill may also be right in saying that Republicans left that impression at the hearings.
Some Republicans on the committee repeatedly gave credence to the conspiracy theory that connects Ukraine, not Russia, to the 2016 interference and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee To buy into this theory is to minimize Russian culpability at the very least, if not to discount it entirely.
Trump himself lent credence to the notion in his phone call with Ukraine’s president, pressing for an investigation into a theory that senior advisers had told him much earlier was groundless. “The server, they say Ukraine has it,” he said on the call.
A 2018 report by the then-Republican majority of the House Intelligence Committee agreed with U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election, but disagreed with parts of the agencies’ assessment that said Russia did so to help Trump. ___
TRUMP: “Keep fighting tough, Republicans, you are dealing with human scum who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party’s rights away from us.” — tweet Thursday.
THE FACTS: He’s off base. The House is conducting a hearing, not a trial, so no constitutional rights are being violated here. Trump would be afforded rights more akin to those in a criminal trial in later stages of the impeachment process if it proceeds.
The process also is unfolding as outlined in the Constitution, which gives the House the sole power to impeach and the Senate the sole power to remove a president from office.
Trump currently hasn’t been charged with anything and so has no constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer in this proceeding.
The hearings led by the House Intelligence Committee resemble the investigative phase of criminal cases, generally conducted in private and without the participation of the person under investigation.
In future House Judiciary Committee hearings that presumably would result in the drafting of impeachment articles, Trump would be invited to attend and his lawyers could question witnesses and object to testimony and evidence, similar to the process in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
If there is a Senate trial, Trump’s legal team would defend the president against impeachment articles approved by the House in an environment that would look like a typical trial in some respects.
___
Associated Press writers Eric Tucker and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
"Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton."
You seem a little short on details. Pleas eexplain what Ukraine did.
These are the typical lies one gets from a cowardly lying dirtbag source... and Putin.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
