Donald Trump ABC Interview With George Stephanopoulos…

Candidate Donald Trump begins to frame the argument against John Boehner’s personal attorney, Ted Cruz, by pointing out Cruz’s dishonesty.

The issues Donald Trump brings up around the Goldman Sachs and Citibank unreported loans will eventually lead to the general electorate understanding what lies at the heart of all Cruz’s irreconcilable political policy, votes and flip-flops.

Notice how all of the Cruz advocates are pushing the undisclosed loan terms as “equity loans” against assets; this is a factually false but necessary assertion. Candidate loans for federal election campaigns without collateral (essentially signature loans) are illegal, and forbidden by campaign finance rules and laws.

Secondly, the same advocates are stuck between a rock and a hard place.  If you are to accept the false premise the loans were personal loans secured against assets – the problem remains: how did Ted Cruz repay them?

As of 2015, the base salary for all rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and Senate is $174,000 per year, plus benefits. (link)

A candidate cannot use campaign contributions, collected under the auspices of a campaign fund, to repay his/her personal loans.  So how exactly did Ted Cruz “repay” at least $750k in unsecured loans -to himself- if he didn’t use campaign contributions?

Reminder:  […] 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.

cruz and heidiIf 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.  This is the influence of DARK MONEY.

That’s the BIGGER question in this example.

•  Was this second scenario a method for Wall Street, via Goldman Sachs, to put the well-educated husband of one of their “employees” into office, simply to insure that as a U.S. Senator he was friendly to their interests?

•  Would Wall Street industrial bankers, who finance global corporations, be able to insure this type of candidate would, as an example, advocate for something like Trans-Pacific Trade?  Did they hold sway?

•  Would Wall Street institutional bankers, who benefit from low interest loans via U.S. Treasury, be able to influence such a candidate to avoid auditing the federal reserve?  Was not voting on the issue a matter of influence?

•  Would Wall Street institutional banking agents who benefit from low interest federal borrowing, and higher interest investment loaning, be able to influence policy regarding North American economic development?

•  Would, as an example, a billionaire hedge-fund manager (Robert Mercer), who purchased majority ownership in Breitbart, and who is in a legal fight with the IRS to the tune of $10 BILLION taxes owed, be willing to invest several million, perhaps tens of millions, into a presidential campaign in an effort to win the White House and influence a U.S. Tax Policy that would tilt the IRS scales in his favor – and consequently save him billions?

[ Remember the movie “The Pelican Brief”?  Cruz-life imitates art. ]

Those become the bigger questions to consider when asking yourself why would such a brilliant legal expert, a very smart lawyer like attorney Ted Cruz, with an entire team of smart lawyer and legal advisers, just inadvertently omit such a report to the FEC.

It does not matter that he reported the loans on his Senate Finance disclosures – those reports are only designed for transparency in legislative conflicts of interest. That type of disclosure has nothing to do with Federal Election Commission (FEC) required campaign finance disclosures.

Wouldn’t an equally sharp lawyer/spouse like Heidi S. Cruz, who was -according to Ted- a key decision maker in the loans, and who is also an energy investment banker with Wall Street financial firm, Goldman Sachs, also identify the concern?

Considering the filed annual income, and considering the law regarding campaign finance, how exactly did these “personal loans” get paid back?

This is only the tippy top of that iceberg.

ted and heidi kiss

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2016, media bias, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Ted Cruz, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

233 Responses to Donald Trump ABC Interview With George Stephanopoulos…

  1. ediegrey says:

    George is no match for Donald and he knows it. He gingerly tries to catch Trump to no avail.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Regina says:

    further proof that Trump was right about Iran being a lousy deal:

    Iran sanctions: Middle East stock crash wipes £27bn off markets as Tehran enters oil war

    Stock markets across the Middle East saw more than £27bn wiped off their value as the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran threatened to unleash a fresh wave of oil onto global markets that are already drowning in excess supply.

    All seven stock markets in the Gulf states tumbled as panic gripped traders. London shares are now braced for a second wave of crisis to hit when they open on Monday morning after contagion from China sent the FTSE 100 to its worst start in history last week.

    Dubai’s DFM General Index closed down 4.65pc to 2,684.9, while Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul All Share Index, the largest Arab market, collapsed by 7pc intraday, before recovering to end down 5.44pc at 5,520.41, its lowest level in almost five years.

    —so let’s see that at the pump??—–

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ivehadit says:

      Those responsible for plunging the world into chaos (and darkness) will have a karma with which NO ONE will want to be in the same UNIVERSE much less room.
      What irks me the most is the small business people who depend on stability to make a decent living and who play by the rules get hurt the most.
      Trickle-down chaos.
      Buckle up.

      Liked by 5 people

      • toomanykats says:

        Unfortunately those of us that see the writing on the walls, played by the rules, protected our assets are going to get pulled down by the idiots that haven’t a clue as to the tsunami of economic disaster that is coming. At least 400 of our politicians should be tried for treason or tarred and feathered for what they have done to this country. Just the open borders alone!


    • adoubledot says:

      We should. Spot crude dropped almost 9% Friday.


  3. TheFenian says:

    One of the earlier comments on this thread – from treeper mossback – referenced the Fighting 69th in deviate to this interview. mossback, do you realize how apt that analogy IS ? It’s on the money!

    The fierce Fenians (cough, cough) of the Fighting 69th, among the greatest soldiers in American historyto this very day, have as their Regiment motto that fits the Scotsman Donald J. Trump to a T;

    “Gentle When Stroked, Fierce When Provoked”

    The Senator from Calgary doesn’t stand a chance.

    Liked by 13 people

  4. PatriotKate says:

    Boy, Lamecherry is on a roll about Ted Cruz … detailing how deranged his supporters are acting, including Glenn Beck. Really funny.

    Liked by 8 people

  5. jello333 says:

    It just dawned on me how, not so long ago, you kept saying that it wasn’t YET time to air all Cruz’s dirty laundry. It was just dribble, dribble for awhile there. But now… obviously YET has now arrived. 😉

    Liked by 9 people

  6. R-C says:

    Apologies–“real life” intruded on me & I was called away before I could finish my thoughts.

    Donald Trump absolutely spanked little Georgie Porgie. Every step of the way, he hammered Clinton’s lackey, mercilessly.

    THIS is my candidate! Trump is a man worthy of my respect, and my vote.

    Liked by 9 people

  7. james23 says:

    When do the first post-debate polls start coming out?


  8. feralcatsblog says:

    Ted Cruz and His Natural Born Straw Man

    In my syndicated column in April of 2013, I wrote:

    With a British father, Obama cannot meet the constitutional requirement of having been “natural born,” which is a different and more restrictive category than “native born.” Similarly ineligible, I would add, are Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and, alas, Ted Cruz of Texas, both of whom have parents who were not citizens when they were born.

    That is the parental standard as I have both read and come to understand it: The child of two parents who are citizens at the time of the child’s birth is “natural born.” Whether the parents are born Americans or naturalized Americans doesn’t matter so long as they are American citizens when their baby is born. The “soil” standard is another matter.

    Undoubtedly, the constitution is another matter — as in, whether it even matters in post-Constitutional America — but somehow it doesn’t sit right when constitutional conservatives tell you to shut up because Ted Cruz is a constitutional conservative.

    It also doesn’t sit right when Sen. Cruz declared on the debate stage this week that “the birther theories that Donald has been relying on” would exclude children born to naturalized citizen-parents from the presidency, including Trump whose mother was born in Scotland (and naturalized four years before his birth in Queens, New York).

    Problematic time.

    Neither Donald Trump nor the legal scholars and others weighing in on this discussion have made such an elastic case. As noted above, I have not come across it before myself. So why did Sen. Cruz say such a thing?

    When asked by debate moderator Neil Cavuto to state his piece on the natural born question, Cruz used this straw-man argument to obfuscate the issue. He equated it with a New York Times story about a campaign loan; used demonizing slang — “birther” is as ugly as “tea-bagger” [and maybe even the N-word] — to denigrate a legitimate issue to citizens choosing their next president. Not dissimilar tactics worked last time around (willing media and supine GOP were key), but hey, Obama has always openly despised the Constitution. It is sad to see them in use again — but especially so when we are told it’s “consistent conservatism” in action.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Regina says:

      Neither Donald Trump nor the legal scholars and others weighing in on this discussion have made such an elastic case. As noted above, I have not come across it before myself. So why did Sen. Cruz say such a thing?

      Yes – I perked up at that as well…I’ve Never heard anyone argue that the child of a naturalized immigrant citizen would not qualify as NBC based on the parent’s place of birth.

      Liked by 1 person

      • AghastInFL says:

        No one has, no one would; it’s a ridiculous argument borne in comment threads with no basis in reality.


      • TheFenian says:

        Bringing up Trump’s mother was dumb, dumb, stupid. This is a Harvard trained lawyer ? An expert on the constitution ? I’ve been to neither Harvard or law school and even I knew that was a ludicrous statement by the Canadian born Sebator from Calgary.
        I am the child of 2 American citizens. One was a legal immigrant who became a U.S. citizen before my parents married. I am legally eligible to be President. Or put another way; DUH !

        This is the kind of stupidness you get when when a Canadian with freaky, nonBiblical religious ideas tries to become President. I can’t wait until Trump reports him.

        Liked by 3 people

        • mketch says:

          Perhaps he was trying a slight of hand move. Either way, I cannot see how he is eligible through all the research that is out there. And sealed records? Are we really going to fall for that again?

          Liked by 1 person

        • phil fan says:

          Yep Fenian, one of many Cruz fumbles this past week or so. All are seriously negative for his candidacy = NY values, Canadian birth, eligibility issues, unreported loans, etc. So glad this is out NOW and we are not stuck debating this in the convention or in the General. Once Cruz completes his collapse many of the undecided voters will come to our strong horse, Mr Trump.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Doug says:

            Or he runs third party.. Cruz that is!

            Liked by 1 person

          • TheFenian says:

            Phil – I’ve said on here in the past, till I was blue in the face – Trump is not going after the Senator from Calgary so neither should we. Follow the bosses lead.

            But those days are over. The Canadian attacked. Trump has launched his counter attack. I’m all in. The gloves are off. Let lose the dogs of war. This creep is going down hard. Everything is fair game.


            • phil fan says:

              After watching the great rally of NYers and many Americans after 9/11 to rebuild and resurrect the City I have no doubts Trump is intent on making Cruz pay for every sneer. Yep the truce is ovah, now we settle who is the leader, the natural born American leader fit to resurrect this country. Fortunately we have Donald to help us become strong again. By the grace of God, let’s roll.

              Liked by 1 person

    • Trumpire says:

      ” “birther” is as ugly as “tea-bagger” [and maybe even the N-word] ”

      Yes, they’ve done a good job of turning American citizens into the “crazy” enemy. Both parties and ALL media (even faux conservatives) are for the destruction.

      The Uniparty started years ago to deconstruct the Constitution.
      Birther legislative attempts have been many but they failed – at least eight attempts as I recall. Only Obama managed to succeed in his usurpation. Orin Hatch wanted ‘naturalized’ Arnold Schwarzenegger to be able to run for president.

      The RNC is on board with Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Santorum (not sure about is NBC status) running. It covers their asses over Obama and it permits all those anchor babies to run in the future.

      People say that it’s suicide for Republican politicians to want open borders and it is but they are not stupid. They don’t care. They are in it for themselves, personally. They don’t care about anything else. They’ll just change their label to Democrat and run on giving out freebies or are so well paid now that it doesn’t matter to them. The last option is that they are blackmailed.

      The ignorance about Article II Sec I is staggering and ‘conservatives’ going against the Founding Fathers makes me sick. They are such abettors and are clueless about it.

      Nobody is more happy about Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio than Obama and the Uniparty.

      Liked by 5 people

  9. Voltaire's Crack says:

    Cruz isn’t Robin Hood.

    He’s the Loan Ranger.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. I was a Freeper, too, for a while. The site has been largely taken over by Cruziacs.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. conservativehippie says:

    well how much $ does the wife, heidi, make from Goldman Sachs? just that relationship right there is a conflict of interest, which is exemplified by the existence of the (potentially illegal) loan.

    how can you be married to someone who works for the very entity you rail against publicly, meanwhile benefiting from your spouse’s paycheck. if my spouse worked for an entity i accused of corrupting the nation’s government that would be a conflict or interest and conflict of marriage. unless it was all a charade.

    does heidi make a little extra $ in her paycheck for influencing her husband in the senate? she needs to be investigated.


  12. Nottakingthisanymore says:

    So according to Teddy did not know he was a Canadian Citizen. So what kind of law school program would not have a basic course in immigration law. Is he or is not a good attorney or just didn’t know where he was born. Never had to show a birth certificate to get Drivers License, passport. I would think using a Canadian passport would have been the first hint.

    Just Saying

    Liked by 1 person

  13. k9puppy says:

    For real, Cruz is Bonehead’s personal lawyer?


  14. k9puppy says:

    I am not around children very often, would/could a third grader have the thoughts like in the letter that mom wrote? Most kids I see today have their heads stuck in video games. Just curious if it was a real letter, or a MSM twister.


  15. SharonKinDC says:

    George S finally got rid of the rubber doughnut and ice for the wounds received from his last Trump interview…he needs both again.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s