Let’s Talk About Ted Cruz’s Goldman Sachs and Citibank Loans (Update: Cruz responds)
Cause for concern or nothingburger?
It must be old campaign oppo dump day in America. Earlier today, an old, deceptively edited campaign ad from Marco Rubio’s Senate run floated to the surface of the internet.
This evening, the New York Times thinks they have a hot scoop with a story about Ted Cruz’s Goldman Sachs loans. The New York Times is about four years late to the “exclusive” party though. Cruz’s Goldman Sachs loans are old news.
According to their 2012 personal filings, the Cruz’s took loans from both Goldman Sachs and Citibank. His wife, Heidi Cruz, works for Goldman Sachs, but is currently on leave. These loans were not, however, disclosed in the FEC filings for Cruz’s campaign, Ted Cruz for Senate Committee.
First, the NYT story:
Ted Cruz Didn’t Disclose Loan From Goldman Sachs for His First Senate Campaign
As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.
Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — 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 Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.
A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find 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 the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which 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. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. 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. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything.
“These transactions have been reported in one way or another on his many public financial disclosures and the Senate campaign’s F.E.C. filings,” she said.
Open Secrets reported in 2013:
Additionally, in 2011, Cruz reported having borrowed between $100,000 and $250,000 from Goldman Sachs for a margin loan. In his 2012 report, the size of that loan had increased to between $250,000 and $500,000. In 2011, Cruz’s total networth was, on average, $1.7 million.
Also from 2013, Roll Call noted the reporting issue:
As of the end of 2012, Cruz listed a “Loan to Ted Cruz For Senate” as an asset valued at $500,001 to $1 million. However, because of the 2002 changes to campaign finance law, the committee is limited to making loan repayments to the candidate (1) from funds received before an election, or (2) $250,000 from funds received after an election. Because of earlier loan repayments, as of the end of 2012, the committee could only legally repay the candidate $298,000. This includes $48,000 for his outstanding primary election loans, and $250,000 for his outstanding runoff election loans. In the first quarter of 2013, the Ted Cruz for Senate committee repaid Cruz the $298,000 maximum permitted on the loans. However, the committee is still carrying $545,000 on its books as a debt owed to Cruz. This includes $395,000 in loans for the primary and $150,000 in loans for the runoff election. Perhaps Cruz and his committee are hoping the law will change, or it will be struck down, or that his spouse may craft a new angle. Heidi Cruz is an investment banker and vice president with Goldman Sachs and previously worked at JPMorgan. Cruz does list on his personal financial disclosure report as liabilities two loans received in 2012. One was a margin loan of $250,001 to $500,000 from Goldman Sachs. The other was a line of credit of $250,001 to $500,000 obtained from Citibank.
Rosie Gray, BuzzFeed Politics reporter currently (at the time this was penned and published) at a Ted Cruz event was able to obtain comment from Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s Presidential campaign spokeswoman.
Cruz spox Catherine Frazier: camp just became aware of issue with Goldman loan, is asking FEC to advise on what they might need to do
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) January 14, 2016
Says loan itself was borrowed against his own assets and it has been paid off — Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) January 14, 2016
i asked if Cruz got any special terms on the loan – “absolutely not”
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) January 14, 2016
“This was a loan taken out against his own assets so that he could get through his race,” Frazier says. — Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) January 14, 2016
Cruz told reporters just now failure to disclose Goldman loan was “an inadvertent filing question”
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) January 14, 2016
Cruz: facts of how he financed campaign “clear and transparent and a technical and inadvertent filing error does not change that at all” — Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) January 14, 2016
That Cruz noted the loans on his personal disclosures in 2012 suggests there was no nefarious attempt to hide them. Far more likely that as Frazier claims, this was a simple reporting error. No special loan terms were granted, so it’s not as though Cruz was given special concessions because of his wife’s job. Further, as the NYT reports, the loans have been paid down.
While the NYT story is technically accurate, it’s not a super secret exposed! piece by any stretch. It might appear so for those unaware of Cruz’s long-standing Wall Street connections, but that’s about it.
And really, the only way this becomes a problem for Cruz is that it clashes with his self-portrait of independent outsider, beholden to no interest. There’s also the possibility this story forces a conversation about the similarities between Cruz and Clinton financial backers.
Lastly, with reports surfacing on the discrepancy as early 2013, we have to wonder why those filings were never amended to reflect the loans. That aside? Meh.
Regurgitated News Story as Smoking Gun Attack Rating: Like Rubio’s Luxury Speed Boat, Only Less Boaty
UPDATE: Cruz responds. Link in tweet.
.@DanaBashCNN asks @tedcruz about those bank loans … https://t.co/5jYJKWjVFA Here’s his response https://t.co/K3axgDcdn0
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) January 14, 2016
Text version here:
Here’s what @tedcruz told reporters tonight in Dorchester, S.C., about the @nytimes report on his undisclosed loan: pic.twitter.com/AWtgIYJQp4 — Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) January 14, 2016
[We’ve also reached out to Ms. Frazier for comment and will update should she respond.]
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Let’s stop dissing the Republican candidates in headlines that make them look bad look in google.
Ever since I learned that Heidi Cruz, spouse of Ted, was a former member of the CFR, was/is an “investment banker” with Goldman Sachs and other firms, and is still involved in CFR efforts, I’ve lost a lot of enthusiasm for Ted.
Who is deserving of trust?
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/never-before-seen-footage-ted-cruz-speaks-about-his-wifes-connection-to-the-council-on-foreign-relations/
I watched that video of Cruz. He was asked about his wife and her involvement with CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and whether he would be influenced by CFR. He babbled on for a good 3 uninterrupted minutes and never answered the question. He just kept talking about others “attacking” his wife. That’s a non-answer if I ever heard one.
You must have mistaken this for infowars or Stormfront. Paranoia about CFR is out of place here.
Don’t forget, too, that Heidi Cruz was also a CFR-sponsored document called “Building a North American Community”.
The document, in which Ms. Cruz wrote her support, is called for the North American-equivalent of the EU, that is, U.S. borders are GONE.
Has Mr. Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, ever disassociated himself from what his wife was promoting?
Correction: … Heidi Cruz was a co-author of a CFR-sponsored document…
While the NYT story is technically accurate, it’s not a super secret exposed! piece by any stretch. It might appear so for those unaware of Cruz’s long-standing Wall Street connections, but that’s about it. And really, the only way this becomes a problem for Cruz is that it clashes with his self-portrait of independent outsider, beholden to no interest. There’s also the possibility this story forces a conversation about the similarities between Cruz and Clinton financial backers. That aside? Meh.
Meh. But KK repeats it, like Donald with the birther stuff, just to stir the pot? And journalism advances a notch. Oh wait, it’s just a blog.
JerryB: Just watch KK go to town, flagging the joys of supporting the GOPe candidate of choice once KK and the rest of the GOPe’s operatives have iced the candidacies of Cruz and Trump.
It is their mission in life, to clear the way for JEB or in case of real need, Marco.
This is a story that is being widely reported in news outlets and social media. KK did a fairly good job of explaining why the hype is overplayed. As a Cruz supporter I have no problem with this blogpost.
Update: Cruz responds. Now the article is complete, thanks.
This is a typical case of raising a nothing burger flag up the flagpole to see if anyone wants to salute.
How does this make Ted Cruz “beholden” to anyone, or clash with “his self-portrait of an independent outsider”?! He GOT A LOAN. With NO SPECIAL TERMS. And – unlike many of us – he was able to PAY IT OFF, because he is an honorable man, one who makes public that he takes out loans, and then repays them. Because the good people of Texas ELECTED HIM.
Also, in the NYT article (as Mark Levin read on his show tonight), they note that Cruz’s spokesperson noted that the FEC “filings” were made. So, apparently this IS A NOTHINGBURGER. Because he may have not filed the CORRECT filings, but he filed and made public the loans.
So……… A-swing-and-a-miss!!! But that won’t stop the wagging tongues and blathering propaganda-talking-heads from yammering about this for a week or more. They’ve been DYING to go after Heidi Cruz.
There’s your REAL “war on women.” Successful Harvard-Business grad, works her way up to being a powerful woman…..and the left MUST take her down!
Yeah. War. On. Women. Indeed.
Because the Senate financial disclosures that he did make later, after he was elected, reported only the bare fact of the source of the loan, and the interest rate, it did indeed look like there were SPECIAL TERMS (low interest rate) to the New York Times, when they started writing the story.
The disclosure did not reveal that there was collateral.
(and that he took out the loan, instead of selling what was in his and/or his wife’s brokerage accounts, in order to avoid paying capital gains taxes, and because he expected or hoped to get the money back, and certainly did not know what fraction the campaign would be able to pay back.)
It also looked like he had lied to the New York Times in 2012, because he had said he had liquidated personal assets – and it looked like he hadn’t liquidated assets in the amount that would cover what he lent to his own campaign, drawing the New York Times to the virtually inescapable conclusion that the loans he reported in 2013, had been made in 2012 specifically for the purpose of aiding his campaign.
And those kinds of loans are supposed to be included in his campaign financial reports.
So it sort of looked like they had caught him in a big lie, and that the lie was to hide some kind of special treatment, because, remember, the 2013 financial disclosure said nothing about collateral.
Could Cruz have gotten the same loan on the same terms from a local bank? If not, then yes he could be beholden/grateful to them for making the loan or for the interest rate and terms he received.
Anyone with a brokerage account can get a similar loan so long as the account assets exceed the value of the loan. You can have a sub-300 credit rating and still get such a loan. You are only borrowing from yourself.
With a margin loan, you borrow from the marginal value of the assets in your account. Your assets are then liquefied to pay the loan. It can take a long time to liquefy assets at value, the margin loan is a way to get the cash now while the assets are sold.
This story is illustrative of how corrupt the media is.
The guy borrowed against his assets.
Like everyone who had a Fannie Mae mortgage was in the pocket of Franklin Raines?
To the left, you aren’t a women in the protected class sense unless you perform a ritual crushing sacrifice before the coven of at least one and preferably 2 or more testicles.
*woman….well, that was a particularly obnoxious typo that I can’t fix.
One aspect of this race is that some of the GOP candidates are not at all hesitant to strike back at the idiocy promoted by the msm drones.
I really don’t care that KK has a favorite person she wants to see take the GOP nomination, it’s just that her supposed candidacy neutrality stinks on ice; that can’t support her skating across that pond of yuck.
Okay, I get that LI wants to try to ensure its future viability by highlighting young writers who-ostensibly-will attract a younger audience. But, really? Are they all so…marginal?
You could say that the reason he borrowed against the value of the stocks (technically increasing his margin) instead of just simply selling his stocks, was that in that way he would not have to pay capital gains taxes.
If the margin was called, he might not either, because then there might not then be a capital gain any more!!
Ted Cruz technically made a loan, not a contribution, to his campaign, but federal campaign finance rules say (since 2002) that a loan by a candidate to his campaign cannot be re-paid by a campaign from funds collected after the date of the election, with the exception of the first $250,000.
(Presumably because then money being raised for a campaign is then really going into his own pocket. Up to $250,000 is not considered big enough or unusual enough to matter. It may be not unusual to raise money to pay campaign debts.)
Some of the up to $1 million he loaned his campaign was probably re-paid from whatever was left on Election Day,
(normally, that would have been used to pay other people)
and some was repaid from additional money raised later, but Ted Cruz was out maybe $545,000.
The size of the outstanding loan from the Goldman and Sachs brokerage account was smaller, because he had also had a plain line of credit from Citibank and had sold some stocks too.
Now the law requires that when somebody borrows money that is used, in turn, to help his campaign, the amount and source of the loans must be disclosed. Obviously, it could be a sweetheart deal, where there is no intention of getting it back, and thus an illegal campaign contribution. It is not legal even for a family member to do this, except for a spouse. But Cruz says there was nothing special about these loans – he just didn’t realize he should file a report about them.
The Ted Cruz for Senate committee still carries the $545,000 on its books as a loan, and not a contribution.
The New York Times says maybe they are hoping the law will be changed, or a court will strike it down, or they’ll figure out a way to get the money back legally.
It appears to me that if a campaign borrows money for the campaign then the loan says “For the campaign of XXXXXXXXXX”. If the candidate borrows money using his stock as collateral then it is a personal loan and has nothing technically to do with the campaign. He could have done what Rubio did and buy a fishing boat with it. But if he then uses it in his campaign he would have to list the money he was putting into his campaign and not the original loan.
No, actually he probably does have to list it, although this is kind of like a borderline case. The people making the loan did not do it with the intention of helping him with his campaign, but it was loan made in the normal course of business, with no special handling – or so we are told.
Suppose somebody puts some campaign expenses on his personal credot card. Now, that’s supposed to be listed as a personal contribution, or a loan (the cadidate’s choice) to his own campaign, but would anyone rational think he should report the bank loan as a loan made to him that he took out for the purpose of helping his campaign?
Now if somebody at Goldman and Sachs altered or waived some policy, even just approving the loan faster, then maybe there could be some problem. But he had the money anyway, and there was no or nominal risk to Goldman and Sachs. A margin loan on stocks is a pretty safe loan to make, absent an enormous and fast stock market crash. They should always be able to sell him out or get more margin.
If Hillary Clinton gets indicted, then I’ll concern myself with things like Cruz and Goldman Sacks.
What’s good for that corrupt, incompetent old democrat goose, is good for the GOPp (GOP Patriots) gander.
Immaterial — Cruz is not a natural-born citizen. Anyone who has to point to a statute to prove he’s been a citizen since birth is naturalized, not natural-born. Congress has constitutional authority over naturalization, not natural law. No naturalized citizen is eligible to hold the presidency.
I seem to have accidental clicked the thumb down and I never meant to. Your unbiased clarity of thought is refreshing. I am so tired of people who know better just gumming up people’s minds by finding ambiguity where there is none, in service of their own agenda.
The Founding Fathers were not fools, they wanted the office of president protected from anyone with even a hint of dual loyalties. Even after the revolution was won, there were contemporaries in the Founding generation who still were loyal to the English monarchy.
The Founders had fought and suffered too long and the grief from losses was still too fresh to risk some one with divided loyalties throwing it all away.
I forgive your accidental downvote, betty. And, bless you for not being a faux conservative who spits on the Constitution like most herein are.
I can only read the tea leaves of what the scholars are writing, but the WaPo article made sense, as does the recent anncoulter.com article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=sm_fb
Prof. Jacobson had this in the Morning Insurrection, referring to his 2013 “treatise” on the subject. As I read it (again, briefly) it says “natural born” is not (and cannot be made) clear. But other articles seem to make it clear and precise.
This links to an LI comment in a March 2015 post on the subject. And from that comment, quoting Vattel’s definition in Law of Nations
http://tinyurl.com/ha9h9bs
This seems pertinent as to why the anchor baby thing could be changed with a statute, but also why qualification for president cannot. Cruz had said he didn’t think the anchor baby thing could be changed by statute.
And this link goes back to a comment on, and the original work by Prof. Jacobson.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/ted-and-marco-eligibility-i-cant-put-this-off-any-longer/comment-page-2/#comment-465889
The intent seems clear to me (as it does with anchor babies), but maybe Obama already “broke the law” and that set precedent, though it was not litigated. But are the standards on what gets into court different for conservatives than King Obama? You betcha!
“Prof. Jacobson had this in the Morning Insurrection, referring to his 2013 “treatise” on the subject. As I read it (again, briefly) it says “natural born” is not (and cannot be made) clear. But other articles seem to make it clear and precise.”
Yet Perfesser Jake somehow concludes that “natural born citizen” means “born a citizen.” Because I cannot make a credible argument of the Perfesser being stupid, I am left to conclude he is corrupt. He must know that the rules of constitutional construction preclude his interpretation, and that “The Law of Nations” has been cited in regard to natural-born citizenship in at least four SCOTUS decisions.
The only question is: Why has the Perfesser abandoned his legal principles to subvert the Constitution on this matter?
I find it interesting that people have to look far out into the weeds off the side of the road when it comes to Trump or Cruz while ignoring the massive car wrecks in the middle of the road — Hillary or any other Democrat. Then the Republicans pick up the ball and talk about it so it gets lots of air time.
Did it matter if the Captain of the Titanic had an unshined spot on his shoe?
I think our reaction should be to tell the NYT (or whomever) to pack sand and attack them for dishonesty and errors and bias. They NEVER asked any questions about Obama and they are swerving as much as possible to avoid reporting on Hillary.
We take the bait and go on the defensive and the left laughs. Look at the process not the substance when working against a leftest. They never discuss substance about a Dem. They attack or distract. They turn squirrels loose and we chase them.
…and disclosure in the FEC filings would not have changed one thing.
We need Document Control: the vampire Deemocrat reporters are looking for fresh blood anywhere they can find it. Their roadkill candidate has bled out thousands of illegally handled documents – documents not filed with the State Dept.
It’s not a huge problem, more of a technical violation – but it’s not nothing, either, because it is a violation and focuses attention on the remaining $545K he cannot be repaid from campaign funds.
More of a problem for Cruz in seeking to expand his appeal beyond his fanatical base is his history as a connected career bureaucrat with several establishment appointments in the Bush 2000 campaign, the Bush first term, and in Texas before reinventing himself as an “outsider” to run for Senate, and his several major policy flip-flops for pure political gain.
– –
The Birther crap is nonsense of course.
Like the Trumpkins, Cruzniks are cultish and unwilling to hear negative facts about their hero. This is the real problem for both, having built a base on the irrational anger fed by the talk radio establishment starving for ratings, in broadening their appeal in the Party and for the general. Cruz has an edge in the former since he is at least a Republican.
Refresh my memory. When did the NYT do an in-depth look at Shrillary’s financial dealings?
1992. But at that time the Clintons did not release any income tax returns eaqrlier than 1984, so they didn’t find out aboutthe cattle futures then.
They only reported it on March 19, 1994:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/18/us/top-arkansas-lawyer-helped-hillary-clinton-turn-big-profit.html
One follow-up story was on March 31, 1994:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/30/us/hillary-clinton-turned-1000-into-99540-white-house-says.html?pagewanted=all
Of course, this was a thinly disguised $100,000 bribe to Bill Clinton, and what adds to that imporession is that her profit was just about exactly $100,000. If Hillary Clinton had chosen to speculate in December, 1979, she would have bought silver!
What caused the Clintons to make these records available to the New York Times in 1994, I don’t know. Maybe they were afraid it would come out some other way, or something was already public. Or they were afraid the New York Times would make some worse accudsation.
Here is what the earlier story says:
It came from an inexperienced candidate. Sometimes even the smartest guy in the room makes obvious mistakes. It doesn’t matter. This last week was very bad for the Cruz campaign. He clearly has lost his “surge.” People have doubts about his eligibility which raises the risk they take with their vote.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/mark_levin_declares_war_on_donald_trump.html
Oh, I’d say last week was a very, very bad week for the cowardly sleaze-ball who attacked Cruz from the Left.
Nobody has any doubts about T-rump now.
You are just brain dead dumb. Polls have all flipped back to Trump in Iowa (save for the very dishonest Des Moines Register). Trump’s national support has hardened at higher levels now and it is reflected in all the state polls. Did you see his rally in Pensacola last night? Filled to capacity with many turned away.
Only an idiot would point to a blogger as proof that Terd is doing better than Trump. It’s like these silly posts about how Rubio is poised to make a comeback. After his Gang of Hate nonsense, that is not going to happen.
The article I cited has nothing to do with how well Cruz is doing. You must not have read it.
It was about how a major conservative opinion leader had finally (apparently) made up his mind that T-rump is a false flag candidate, based in large part on lying, sleaze-ball attacks on Cruz from the LEFT, but also on T-rump’s very shitty history in politics.
You seem to be counting unhatched chickens, you poor moron. But carry on. I love to laugh at you…!!!
Levin is just one voice. He isn’t Rush. When you’ve lost Levin. You’ve only lost Levin.
“That? It’s nothing. It’s only a flesh wound.”
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=that%3f+it%27s+nothing.+it%27s+only+a+flesh+wound&view=detail&mid=BEF06E2E31130B717CD5BEF06E2E31130B717CD5&FORM=VIRE5
You’re absolutely delusional now. Laugh all you want. It just shows how divorced from reality you are. Like many of the bloggers. They are trying to deny what their own eyes are seeing. Trump has this hypnotic effect on you guys and it makes you spout nonsense. 12,000 people at a Pensacola primary rally? Oh those people won’t vote. 7,000 people waiting in the cold in Lowell, Mass to see Trump? They’re just there because they want to see the sideshow. 21,000 people in Dallas? Oh they had nothing better to do.
Even Joe Scarborough said this was bigger than anything he’s ever seen for a primary in his hometown (Pensacola) including Reagan.
Philly Guy, you are correct in your assessment of The Register as “dishonest”. However, The Register Poll has been one of the most accurate in recent years. They were the only poll to get it right in the Joni Ernst/Bruce Braley race.
Note that Iowa’s caucus system makes it very difficult to predict who will make the effort to get to the caucus sites. Polling to predict outcome of a simple vote is nowhere near as complicated as predicting the outcome of a caucus.
What risk?
That Cruz’s vice presidential could become president?
You see what Trump is doing is pretending this would be of advantage to the Democrats, like maybe the Democratic Party candidate could get elected unopposed, and also that Cruz has a way to resolve this, which he’s not taking, which in turn makes it look like Donald Trump has a point!
Except that Cruz can’t resolve any ambiguity that there might be, (and if you’re looking for a consensus of legal experts, he’s got that already, and he can’t improve on that by asking one federal judge) and it’s a stretch anyway to say there’s a problem, and there’s almost no way to challenge his eligibility anyway, and it wouldn’t help the Democrats.
Oh Sammy that is just dumb. You know it too. If voters think there is a possibility that Cruz might be hiding something this important, they won’t vote for him. It won’t erode his core support, but fringe voters who think this is important won’t risk their vote. And it has already shown up in the recent Iowa polls. People are not sheep, they will make up their own minds.
I mean Cruz was a Canadian citizen when he ran for the Senate (which he conveniently forgot to disclose). It doesn’t disqualify him but it certainly pisses some people off.
So what exactly is it you think he could do to “clear it up”?
It seems like a simple error in reporting, but it now puts on display his Goldman Sachs connections which is a negative for his “outsider” position.
He said he had “a brokerage account that had a standard margin loan like any brokerage account had”. I had a brokerage account for a long time, but later had to set up a margin account to be able to short stocks, or buy on margin. That may be “standard” if your wife works at GS, but most people don’t have margin accounts, afaik.
Eh, YEAH, they DO if they buy or sell on margin.
Geeebus…
eh yeah, but that is not standard for most investors. Can you read? He said “like any brokerage account had”. NOPE, not true.
Geebus … shorting and buying on margin is not (and should not be) standard investment activity.
Now you’re simply lying by implication, AND you know it.
‘That may be “standard” if your wife works at GS, but most people don’t have margin accounts’
Your implication was that Cruz had a margin account BECAUSE his wife worked at GS. That was simply not true.
And support your “most people” bullshit with something besides your personal anecdote.
good gawd your are dense and dishonest and a foul mouthed hater.
you infer whatever you want, my implication is it is probably standard for someone working at GS to use a margin account, but it is most certainly not “like any brokerage account had”.
Any brokerage account does not have a “standard margin loan” as Ted says. You have to set up a margin account separate from a normal trading account, so they can collect your assets when you short a worthless dotcom stock at 15 and it goes to 150.
You support your own damn bullshit that most people with a brokerage account DO trade on margin. In any case, Ted said all brokerage accounts have “margin loans” standard, which is wrong. He is downplaying it.
“You support your own damn bullshit that most people with a brokerage account DO trade on margin.”
I said no such thing. But people…as YOU said…who trade in shorts and longs GENERALLY DO HAVE TO HAVE MARGIN ACCOUNTS.
As you admitted you had to have.
And, my, how hot you get when called on your lies!
sure, make it all about me … it was Cruz that said “any standard brokerage account has “margin loans'”
You can’t deny that is false, so you make several comments spewing your hate, trashing the messenger. I guess you do manage to drive away some thoughtful commentary with all your hate.
Anything but praise for Perry and now Cruz brings out drooling rabid dog Rags … bark bark bark. Expect it constantly at LI.
No, honey. I just pointed out that what you implicitly LIED about was simply a false smear of Cruz.
Him having a margin account had nothing to do with his wife’s employment.
It had to do with the kind of trading he was doing. As you ADMITTED.
Calm yourself. Or go away, because you can’t hack it here.
yes, you lie when you make such accusations, no matter how you twist it. And you are not worth responding to your every lie you make up to cover over Cruz’s “misstatement”.
It is simply not true what Cruz said … not matter how much venom you spew at me. I get it … your guy must be protected, so you must impeach the witness. It is not working. You lose. I lied about nothing … you lie about me … it’s what you do. go away … shooo …
‘That may be “standard” if your wife works at GS, but most people don’t have margin accounts, afaik.’
You attempted a smear with an implicit lie. I won’t let you.
Cruz…like you…DID have a margin account. And it IS standard for such accounts to require a provision to pay margins as they come due.
I can punk you all day, if you insist, because you are WRONG, you know it, and that’s why you’ve attacked me for showing your lies.
Up to you…
“Cruz…like you…DID have a margin account. And it IS standard for such accounts to require a provision to pay margins as they come due.”
Sure so what? I never said otherwise. You are punking your own straw men, not me. And yeah, you do it all day.
Cruz said “any brokerage account”, but most (afaik) are cash accounts, where normal people just buy stocks, then one day sell. The Cruz family were “players”, which is not bad, but not run of the mill stock holders.
So now you make me curious what you are covering for with all this venom. GS is known for their high powered guys floating between GS, the WH, the world bank. And his wife was on the CFR, so they have been swimming in those waters. Of course those connections of his wife are relevant.
When I was actively trading we used to joke about the WH being a branch office of GS, as it seems policy and rates were being set to help them.
So you inspired me to look more closely at who is pushing Cruz … thanks. It is not necessarily a bad thing … Bush, GS, CFR all those connections. But it is worth a look, considering his outsider stance. He says he fought the UN in the world court for our sovereignty … so that sounds good. devil is in the details.
I see! Busted in your attempted smear, NOW you’re expanding it!
Good example!
Good luck arguing with him, Midwest Rhino. For years he swore to me that “the legal system works!” A couple of days ago he finally admitted that it doesn’t. Maybe in a couple of years he’ll admit you were right, too.
Better put up links to BOTH those misrepresentations you just made.
For years I’ve been saying that the criminal legal system should NEVER be called the “justice” system. It DOES work much of the time, as I’ve pointed out and have shown.
But I work as a lawyer, so I know too well the law’s human limitations.
So, go ahead and put up the links. We’ll wait.
*sigh*
Cruz owes loyalty to the mega donors just like all other candidates except Trump. This is going to remind people that Cruz is just like all the other GOPe candidates in this regard.
Next week Trump will start hitting Cruz on his weak stances on immigration and his slick willy politician flip flops.
Cruz peaked too soon it would appear. Death by a 1000 cuts.
You LOVES you the idea that ONLY oligarchs can run for POTUS, on the now completely disproven idea that “they can’t be bought”.
Yet Duh Donald HAS sold out, and for a pitiful few votes from BIG CORN in Iowa. Being Mr. Establishment, it’s just a type of what we can expect in the future.
That’s all you got corn and Levin. You got nothing. LOL.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/01/trump-moves-to-center-i-support-amnesty.html
No, Baghdad Bob, I have demonstrated behavior and history from Duh Donald, and his own words.
You may have noted that Doug Ross seems to be on to T-rump, too.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/01/trump-evangelicals-new-hope.html#more
“That? It’s nothing!”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/14/scarborough-cruz-goldman-sachs-controversy-feeds-narrative-hes-a-phony-hypocrite/
And then:
Scarborough on Trump Pensacola Rally: ‘I Never Saw Anything Like That in My Hometown Before’ —- ‘I Don’t Get It’
Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough, weighed in on Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s rally in Pensacola, FL, a city of which was in the district that he represented in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Scarborough indicated that it was unprecedented for Pensacola to draw such attendance for a presidential campaign event.
“I was at George W. Bush’s campaign rally in 2004 at the final stages of that unbelievable presidential race in early November,” Scarborough said. “I saw Reagan come to Pensacola twice in 1980. I saw the crowds. I never saw anything like that in my hometown before. It’s absolutely staggering, here we are — in early January. I’ll be honest with you — I guess seeing it in your own hometown, I don’t get it as far as the size of these crowds go. It’s like nothing I saw with Reagan. It’s like nothing I saw with Bush. It’s nothing I saw with any political candidate what I saw come out of Pensacola last night.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/14/scarborough-on-trump-pensacola-rally-i-never-saw-anything-like-that-in-my-hometown-before-i-dont-get-it/
Yeah it is really bad week for Trump with lising Levin and Rags. LOL.
Trump out doing Reagan. High praise indeed.
bsNBC Joe…???
Impressive! But T-rump (aka Hooting Monkey) ALSO thinks he’s “bigger than Reagan”.
But a narcissist would, huh?
Gravis Poll for Iowa out today:
Trump 34%, Cruz 28%. Trump up +6% in Iowa.
Trump will beat Cruz in Iowa by 10% points or more. Turn out will be Yuuuuge.
You heard it here first.
One caveat to the Gravis poll results is that the poll concluded on 1/11/16 BEFORE it was public knowledge that Trump had lost Levin and Rags.
;-))
12,000 at Pennsacola last night. Watched the speech on OAN network. His speeches keep getting better and better. They turned another 5,000 away because arena was filled to over capacity.
Trump doesn’t ask “Whose your daddy?” Instead he asks “Whose gonna pay for the wall?” to which the yuuuge crowds shout “Mexico!” with smiles and great enthusiasm.
Trump is right. There is a movement going on.
And a majority voted in a lying narcissistic asshole who made impossible promises to be POTUS twice.
So, you could be a prophet, Baghdad Bob.
Joshua Green at Bloomberg writes: “In the latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll,
15 percent of respondents say they are ‘bothered’” that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was born in Canada.
If 15% of GOP voters are bothered by Cruz’s questionable presidential eligibility then 30% of independents will be bothered by it.
Serious problem for Cruz.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/14/2775244/
NBC/WSJ poll out today, Trump 33%, Cruz 20%. Trump more than doubles his lead over Cruz in same poll from last month.
Yep it has been a very bad week for Trump. Just ask Rags.
Cruz is beginning to learn that Donald Trump isn’t David Dewhurst.
Can we get a separate, dedicated thread specifically for Rags and Gary to debate?
😉