Views: 326

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ted Cruz has smartened up, but, his supporters are still in the dark.

Think or say what you want about Sen. Cruz, with all the hoopla about the fight between him and Trump, all the nasty statements by both of them, HE, unlike many of the so called Republicans like our "Honest and "Great" governor John Kasich," (NOT) Sen. Ted Cruz KEPT HIS WORD. He realizes that this is our last chance to save America. He knows that if hilldabeast is elected, we are a doomed nation. 

To bad people like Geo. Bush and many others put politics and money before AMERICA!!!

That's more Christian like. He only hurt himself by withdrawing and acting like a spoiled brat instead of looking at his possible future endeavors. 

whe n did cruz act like a spoiled brat?

he when he saw he would not win got out of the way and held to his principles and never said what he didnt believe or attack trump with false statements.

unlike trump who after cruz dropped out kept attacking him and his family.

and we can only guess he is supporting trump due to threats from the GOP to primary him and make it nearly  impossible to run for office again

trump is the only spoiled brat in this election

Did he meet with Trump and give him a big hug and shake his hand and say... "I congratulate you and you can count on me to help any way I can"? Or did he turn from endorsing him as he promised to do to anyone of them that won?

he never said he would endorse him, just that he would support the GOP nominee.he never said or did different. other than saying trump is a pathological liar [which he is] he never said a word about trump 

and that is the act of a principled man not a spoiled brat.

while on the other hand trump is a spoiled child that attacks anyone who says something he doesnt like or disagrees with him

cruz is a statesman , trump is a spoiled brat

A principled man???????????   The man who tried to hide one million dollars from Goldman Sachs.  GOOD GRIEF

your research is floundering again, did walt cronkite tell you that.

and how is it hiding when its in his discloser forms..look it up I did

Caught in a lie..........................AGAIN?

Ted Cruz’s undisclosed $1M loan from Goldman Sachs

Heidi and Ted Cruz, March 23, 2015, Lynchburg, VA. (Photo Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

Heidi and Ted Cruz, March 23, 2015, Lynchburg, VA. (Photo Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

Senator Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of the Wall Street investment bankGoldman Sachs, on a temporary “leave” because of Ted’s presidential campaign.

Heidi Cruz is also a former investment banker for J.P. Morgan and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for which she served as a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which relates to theNorth American Union. (See “Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?“)

Although Heidi Cruz presently is on leave, she was fully working for Goldman Sachs in 2012 when Ted obtained a low-interest $1 million loan from her employer for his senatorial campaign. To top it off, Ted Cruz did not disclose the loan as he is required by law.

The New York Times reports on Jan. 13, 2016, that campaign finance reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 GOP primary, Ted Cruz put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Cruz described it in an interview.

But a review of personal financial disclosures that Cruz filed later with the Senate does not show a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained a low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled $750,000 and eventually increased to $1 million before being paid down later that year. Both loans had floating interest rates around 3%, generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time.

Neither loan appears in reports filed by Cruz’s senate campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders.

A spokeswoman for Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race, but insisted that the failure to reportthe loan was “inadvertent” and that there had been no attempt to hide anything. Frazier did not address whether the Citibank loan was used also for Cruz’s Senate race.

Former election commission lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law Kenneth Gross, however, disagrees.

Gross said that listing a bank loan in an annual Senate ethics report — which deals only with personal finances — would not satisfy the requirement that it be promptly disclosed to election officials during a campaign: “They’re two different reporting regimes. The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the originalsource of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loandocument to the Federal Election Commission.”

Specifically, in failing to report the two bank loans to the FEC, Cruz violated:

  • 52 USC 30104 (b)(2) (6), which requires the committee of a federal candidate to disclose on a report filed “loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”; and
  • 52 USC 30104(b)(4)(d), which requires the reporting of “repayment of loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”.

ZeroHedge points out that someone will have to file an official complaint against Cruz, and the FEC could impose fines. But if evidence emerges that his failure to disclose the loans was ‘knowing and willful,’ he could be criminally prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to campaign finance experts.

Aside from Ted Cruz’s dishonesty in not reporting the loans to the FEC, there is also the matter of his hypocrisy.

In 2012 when he ran for the Senate as a darling of the Tea Party, and in his current presidential campaign, Ted Cruz presents himself as a populist for the “little man,” against Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. Recently, when asked about the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular, he replied:

“Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.”

As financial analyst Martin Armstrong puts it:

The dishonesty here is that Cruz has pretended to stand against the bankers…. I am sorry. But Cruz is bought and paid for and would be in the pocket of the New York Banks no different than Hillary, Bush, or the rest of them who take money from this crowd. You do not forget to report a loan from Goldman Sachs when your wife is a managing director. Come on. How stupid do we have to be to entertain this excuse?

I thought you didnt read news reports especially the NYT's.

 but you did leave out a lot, like he borrowed money against his own assets that he paid back in full. as well as that it was on most of his forms and was left off of one so I dont consider that hiding it.

now on the other hand trump is hiding quite a lot by not disclosing his returns like the money he owes to george soros as well as goldman sachs

http://therightscoop.com/beholden-to-no-one-trump-owes-650-million-...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/05/trump-names-former-goldman-partne...

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/20/much-money-donald-trum...

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/22/every-bank-wall-stre...

http://truthinmedia.com/trump-funding-george-soros-to-build-chicago...

I could go on there are dozens of examples,

you should really stop this cause its making you sound like a liberal hypocrite

First of all dumbass, this didn't come from the NYT.  It's from Dr. Eowyn’s post first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds.

Second:  I didn't need to provide ANYTHING else, the only question at the time was that you didn't believe he had never tried to conceal the one million from Goldman Sachs.  It wasn't even on me to provide ANYTHING ELSE.

THIRD:  As usual, like all LIBERAL TROLLS, you lie, and you twist, and make a fool of yourself, when EVERYbody here can read the thread and see for themselves what a fool you continually make of yourself.  Go back to school little girl, you're not old enough to sit at the adult's table yet.

Oh...and FOURTH:  I also NEVER NEVER NEVER said I didn't read news from places like the NYT, I just never BELIEVE them.  Wise people try to read everything they can get their hands on if for no other reason to see what the enemy is saying too.

It's too late to tell you to quit while you're ahead............because you've NEVER been ahead

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker
 

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service