Posted on 01/17/2016 10:18:35 AM PST by SatinDoll
There's horse****, and then there's outrageous denial of something that nobody ought to take at face value or believe.
Sure, the NY Daily News and Cruz are "no longer friends" after his gratuitous slam at New York in the debate, but that's not the part that ought to make people simply shout LIAR! or even CROOK! every time they see him.
No, it's this story:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) downplayed a report late Wednesday that he had not listed personal loans he and his wife received before donating roughly the same amount to his 2012 Senate campaign, calling the matter an "inadvertent filing question."
"The facts of the underlying matter have been disclosed for many, many years," he told reporters in Dorchester, S.C. "All of the information has been public and transparent for many years, and that's the end of that."
Cruz and his wife Heidi obtained two loans, the New York Times reported Wednesday: one from Goldman Sachs, and another from Citibank that totaled about $750,000. The amount later increased to $1 million before being paid down. Heidi Cruz is a managing director at Goldman Sachs, currently on leave while her husband runs for president.
So Cruz got a loan from his wife's employer while running for the Senate.
That's not illegal, generally. But failure to disclose it is.
As for it being an "inadvertent filing question" I don't believe and you shouldn't either. I'm speaking as a guy who was Treasurer for a man who ran for the US House, so I know exactly what the rules are and how carefully you must comply with them to be within the law.
Oh yes, I said law too, not suggestion.
The FEC allowed us to close the books on the campaign I worked on shortly after the election. I understand that's extremely unusual (it usually takes them quite a while to grant permission to close it out) but then again (1) it was a Libertarian candidate and we didn't go through that much money and (2) everything was done "by the book", on-time.
Maybe that had something to do with it, eh?
But see, my view is this -- if I'm going to take on something like that as a responsibility then I get to (1) know what the law requires and (2) assiduously adhere to it. If I'm not willing to do both (1) and (2), considering that doing this sort of thing is a voluntary venture, then I don't get involved.
Bookkeeping is not that hard; you simply must account for everything that comes in and goes out, categorize it correctly, and the books have to balance.
It's damn hard to have the books balance when you leave $1 million smackers off one side of the sheet, isn't it?
I will not vote for someone who I believe is a crook and there is no damned way that you can be off by a million bucks on reconciling your campaign inflows and outflows and not know it.
Guess that leaves Donald out too. He took those values things personally.
There was no reason to go after his mother. The facts about his mother and her citizenship in 1942 and the birth of Donald in 1946 has been available online for quite a while. Cruz knew but has no manners. You do not diss a mans mother during a presidential debate.
Desperate Donald Dewhurst, tell us about your bankruptcies.
Geez, I was really hoping for a Trump/Cruz ticket.
Guess those bridges are burning.....
Cruz is no conservative, not matter what he says. His actions speak louder than words.
Now trusting Texans are learning horrific things about Cruz.
<><> he failed to tell them he was a dual Canadian citizen and was forced to renounce his Canadian citizenship when the Dallas Morning News exposed him.
<><> The Cruz election fairy tale has become legendary....Cruz/s campaign narrative of portraying himself as a scrappy populist putting everything on the line to overcome a wealthy establishment opponent.
<<> He was whining in the media, telling trusting Texas voters that that he and his faithful little wife were having to liquidate their entire family savings (of slightly more than $1 million) to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary.
NOW TEXANS LEARN Cruz did not liquidate family assets.....he got his hands on over a million dollars from his hefty margin account at G/S and Citibank......and did not disclose this on FEC reports (to keep it a secret from trusting Texans).
Most people would not have over a million dollars that they could easily liquidate to pursue their crass political ambitions.
EXCERPTED FROM CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE The FEC forms were the only way Texas voters could have known about the loans. Obviously, if the Texas electorate discovered candidate Cruz was using his connections to Goldman Sachs and Citibank (CitiGroup), while simultaneously campaigning against the same institutions, his political opponents would have been able to point to a particular ideological hypocrisy in that regard.
However, this is actually the BIGGER issue. Why does the FEC require a federal candidate to disclose a loan taken out to finance their campaign?
<><> The FEC requires candidates to disclose bank loans taken out to finance their bids for office simply because such loans can be used to subvert campaign finance laws.
<><> If a candidate takes out a loan, in any amount, any entity can repay the loan on the candidate/s behalf – and that’s a way to subvert rules on the amount of contributions.
<><> If, as an example, those who control/influence policy objectives within Goldman Sachs wanted to hold influence upon a candidate, they could simply loan him/her money and then allow repayment by their own group. This is also why FEC rules only allow candidates to take out loans, to finance campaigns, that have traditional collateral to back them up.
Think about it this way. A candidate has $500,000 in traditional assets: a house, bank account, investment account etc. That candidate is, by FEC regs, allowed to take out a $500k loan against such assets. This is traditional loan/collateral, equity, considerations.
A candidate CANNOT, however, take out an unsecured signature loan for their campaign. If a candidate could take out an unsecured signature loan, it opens the door wide open to corrupt exploitation by external influence.
The candidate with $500k in assets, or a Manchurian candidate with zero in assets, could be given a $2 million loan – which the loan originator would not expect to get back. In this example, third parties, who are part of the influence equation, could pay back the loan on the candidate/s behalf, avoid FEC/public scrutiny and hold influence over what the elected political official does in office.
====================================================
Was this second scenario a method for Wall Street, via Goldman Sachs, to put the Ivy League educated husband of one of their employees into office, simply to insure that as a U.S. Senator he was friendly to their interests?
Man that’s a stretch to call that a dis.
Since when did “your mother is from Scotland” become an insult?
Did I miss the part where he claimed she smelt of elderberry?
This is Free Republic. Can we stop the “Your candidate is a poo poo head stuff and leave that that to Democrats?
Any reasonable person can see that Cruz didn't diss Trump's mom.
Cruz is brilliant. He knew the Goldman Sachs loan would hurt him if he ever ran for President so he hid it in the most intelligent way possible. OF course since he’s a Republican the Slimes was going to go through all his dirty laundry looking for something, and they got it.
It’s not a nothing burger, but it’s also not deal breaker. It does take the shine off Cruz a little, and exposes his ties to Goldman Sachs, right at the time hes’ launching attacks on Trump’s NEW YORK VALUES...
Name a better way to increase your profit margin and corporate influence than become the president?
That sword has two edges and both are cutting Republican candidates. Hillary and Bernie thank you for the free campaign fodder.
FAilure to properly disclose loans is a legitimate problem. It looks bad for a banker and an attorney to try to say they made a mistake on something very simple. Plus where was their accountant?
“There was no reason to go after his mother. The facts about his mother and her citizenship in 1942 and the birth of Donald in 1946 has been available online for quite a while. Cruz knew but has no manners. You do not diss a mans mother during a presidential debate.”
Some FR Cruz people are posting that Trump was born 4 years before his mother took out citizenship here. Just the opposite. But they refuse to stop posting it when given the facts. http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3384430/posts?page=156#156
Ted just has a problem keeping his ‘convictions’ straight. Cruz was instrumental in sticking us with John Roberts and now he’s weaseling out of it.
[snip]Presidential candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) apparently used to have a very different opinion about Chief Justice John Roberts than he expressed on Thursday.
According to a 2005 Sun-Sentinel report, Cruz once praised Roberts as “one of the best constitutional minds in the country.”
Cruz reportedly made that comment while explaining why, as a domestic policy adviser for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, he brought Roberts to Florida to assist with his team’s legal battle over the controversial post-election recount.
And as the Texas Tribune reported three years ago, when Bush nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court in 2005, Cruz “was an outspoken advocate for his confirmation, calling him ‘brilliant’ and a ‘lawyer’s lawyer.’”
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,” Cruz wrote at the time in the National Review. “But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.”
Cruz, now running a fiercely conservative campaign for president, seemed to have a much different take on Roberts on Thursday when the Supreme Court issued its second major ruling protecting the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare....
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-is-bashing-john-roberts-after-years-of-praising-him-2015-6
Yes Donald can find his own campaign. Good for him! Might be good for everyone. If he wins the Primary and doesn't evolve afterwords he will have my vote.
Picking at this issue helps no one and won't sway anyone who hasn't made Their choice.
‘Cruz is looking more and more like also-ran Rick Perry.’
In more ways than one. The single thing I recall most about Perry’s first run was simply how aggressively vicious his supporters were. Some non-Perry supporters tried to tell them that their rabid pitbull approach wasn’t helping their candidate...to no avaial. The hardcore Perry supporters remained brutally obnoxious to the end. (Certainly not all of Perry’s base fit this description. The main ones did, though. They just circulated the site, looking for someone to attack. It was unbelievable.)
Cruz supporters are looking more like that by the day. It’s as if they’ve completely given up on helping their candidate or expanding his base. Now they just want to find somebody to bash over the head. They are angry, and looking for an outlet. This is not the profile of a winning campaign. It’s a losing campaign whose most die-hard supporters haven’t realized it yet.
Why did Cruz bring Trump’s mother into it at all?
It's a raging inferno. Cruz apparently decided he didn't want any part of Trump. In retrospect, I think this was his intention all along and he had to jump early due to the citizenship thing. I say that because of his taped interview with donors, that he was going to hug right up to the end.
He might be banking on Trump not having enough time to effectively hit back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.