Oopsie!! Cruz Failed to Report ANOTHER Big Bank Loan in 2012!

[Buick Electra]

This time it's a loan from CITIBANK. Gee, Cruz forgets to do a lot of things. No wonder his nose looked a little longer last night.

Posted for fair use.

Ted Cruz Failed to Report a Second Campaign Loan in 2012
By MIKE McINTIREJAN. 15, 2016

The Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, already facing scrutiny for not disclosing a Goldman Sachs loan he used for his 2012 Senate campaign, also failed to disclose a second loan, from Citibank, for the same race, according to a letter he sent Thursday to federal election officials.

The one-page letter said that the “underlying source” of money for a series of personal loans Mr. Cruz made to his Senate campaign in Texas included both bank loans, which totaled as much as $1 million. Both loans were “inadvertently omitted” [political-speak which means "LIED"] from the required filings, the letter said. Previously, Mr. Cruz had acknowledged only using the loan from Goldman for his campaign.

The latest disclosure casts further doubt on his oft-stated story of having liquidated his entire family savings of slightly more than $1 million to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary. The tale has become part of a campaign narrative of a populist, scrappy Mr. Cruz putting everything on the line to overcome a wealthy establishment opponent.

His letter to the Federal Election Commission came after The New York Times reported that at least some of the “personal funds” Mr. Cruz and his wife, Heidi, put into his campaign actually came from a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. The loan, for up to $500,000, was secured by holdings in a brokerage account at Goldman Sachs. The Cruz campaign called the failure to disclose the loan an honest mistake and said it would contact the election commission for guidance on how to amend its filings. [Two 'honest mistakes," the second one coming to light only days after the first one was dug up. That was pretty quick "Remembering" on his part!]

The Citibank loan, also for as much as $500,000, was a line of credit, and it is not clear from Mr. Cruz’s letter what collateral, if any, was used to obtain it. Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign has declined to answer questions from The Times about the Citibank loan.

Kent Cooper, a former election commission official, said the letter from the Cruz campaign was still “lacking critical information” that candidates must report, including the exact amount of the loans and whether there were any co-signers. Federal law required that those details, and more, were to be reported during the primary and general election campaigns.

“This failure to disclose to the public,” Mr. Cooper said, “meant voters in Texas did not have the required information.”

The Times report about the Goldman Sachs loan surfaced in the Republican presidential debate Thursday night, when Mr. Cruz was asked how he could have overlooked disclosing it. Mr. Cruz suggested that the issue was overblown, dismissing it as a “paperwork error” and saying he had disclosed the loans in another public filing. [Makes me wonder how many "paperwork errors" there might be in his administration if elected. "Oops! We meant to only increase the H1b visas by 1000, not 100,000. Must have been a "paperwork error" ]

That filing is the annual personal disclosure, where members of Congress list their assets and income. On those reports, he listed the bank loans — without indicating that they were used for his campaign.

It is the other type of report, which campaigns must file with the Federal Election Commission, that is at issue. On those reports, Mr. Cruz failed to disclose any bank loans he obtained to finance his Senate race. So, while it is true that Mr. Cruz listed the loans in his Senate reports, he has never disclosed in any report that they were used for his campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/u...gn-loan-in-2012.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

[Doomer Doug]

SHADES OF TURBO TIMMY AND THE IRS, BATMAN!!!! So that is one clerical error, and now one "inadvertent" mistake. <G>

 

[Plain Jane]

If the candidate has a secured loan, it can be paid off by another entity. That's why reporting the loans to the FEC is important. Teddy has gotten away with something here. While analysis does not yet show who has paid off the loans, the timing, the connections that both Ted and Heidi Cruz have indicate they are beholden to the very financial system that is taking us down.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-inadvertently-omitted-by-candidate-ted-cruz/

Media Reports A Second Wall Street Banking Loan “Inadvertently Omitted” By Candidate Ted Cruz….
Posted on January 15, 2016 by sundance

The New York Times outlines another loan for Senate Candidate Ted Cruz that was “Inadvertently Omitted” in 2012 by the campaign team of Heidi and Ted Cruz. But, no-one seems to ask the key question “why”?

There are two issues behind the Wall Street loans which Ted Cruz omitted from his campaign finance disclosures to the FEC, neither of which have anything to do with a candidate taking out an equity line of credit.

♦ The first key issue is a matter of political integrity. In 2012 Senate candidate Ted Cruz was campaigning against big banks, bank bailouts specifically, and taxpayer funded bailouts in general.
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, the second issue, is actually the BIGGER issue.
Why does the FEC require a federal candidate to disclose a loan taken out to finance their campaign?

Within the answer is where you will find the GREATER concern.
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 overwhat the elected political official does in office.

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?

• 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?

• 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 is in a legal fight with the IRS to the tune of $10 BILLION taxes owed, be willing to investseveral 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?

Those become the bigger questions to consider when asking yourself why would such a brilliant legal expert, a very smart lawyer like Ted Cruz, just inadvertently omit such a filing to the FEC.

Wouldn’t an equally sharp 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 Goldman Sachs, also identify the concern?

I’ll leave those answers up to you….
(Via New York Times) The Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, already facing scrutiny for not disclosing a Goldman Sachs loan he used for his 2012 Senate campaign, also failed to disclose a second loan, from Citibank, for the same race, according to a letter he sent Thursday to federal election officials.

The one-page letter said that the “underlying source” of money for a series of personal loans Mr. Cruz made to his Senate campaign in Texas included both bank loans, which totaled as much as $1 million. Both loans were “inadvertently omitted” from the required filings, the letter said. Previously, Mr. Cruz has only acknowledged using the loan from Goldman for his campaign.

The latest disclosure casts further doubt on his oft-stated story of having liquidated his entire family savings of slightly more than $1 million to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary. The tale has become part of a campaign narrative of a populist, scrappy Mr. Cruz putting everything on the line to overcome a wealthy establishment opponent. (read more)

 

[Now-Later]

I can now mark Cruz off my list along with Rubio
They are just too devious

 

[dogmanan]

Yep same o same o, this is why I like Trump, so far no skelitons have come out of his closet, if their was any in his closet [they] and the msm would have braught them out by now.

The 345.00 people running are country are so beyond bad, it makes me sick.

 

[Jerry799]

It was my understanding the Cruz reported the loan on one set of filings but it was inadvertently omitted on a second filing. It was a secured line loan based on his collateral with Goldman. If he were trying to hide the loan, why did he report it on the other required filing? That makes no sense.

 

[Buick Electra]

It was my understanding the Cruz reported the loan on one set of filings but it was inadvertently omitted on a second filing. It was a secured line loan based on his collateral with Goldman. If he were trying to hide the loan, why did he report it on the other required filing? That makes no sense.

It is the other type of report, which campaigns must file with the Federal Election Commission, that is at issue. On those reports, Mr. Cruz failed to disclose any bank loans he obtained to finance his Senate race. So, while it is true that Mr. Cruz listed the loans in his Senate reports, he has never disclosed in any report that they were used for his campaign.

This makes the SECOND PRIVATE owner of our FED that has loaned Cruz money. Cruz did NOT vote for the Senate Bill to Audit the FED. Now WHY doesn't Cruz want the FED audited? The answer should be obvious to everybody.

The public doesn't see the senate reports, but the public is privy to every candidate's campaign contribution report, and THIS is the report Cruz did not want the public to see, for it would have shown he truly is a big bank, establishment candidate who is trying to wrap himself in sheep's clothing with an American flag draped over him.

 

[Hfcomms]

Heh Crook-Uz!


There's horsecrap, 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.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231034

 

[Giskard]

Uh. C'mon now. Y'all sound like the media piling on and not being honest with the reporting. If you don't like it when they do it to someone you like, you should be honest here as well.

Cruz did report, and did so publicly. Because in filling out all the forms he missed one, does NOT mean, he did not publicly disclose. Stop being childish. Think of it this way. You say you released a story to the media, it goes to CBS, Fox, NBC, ABC... What you guys are doing is joining the media pile on by saying, "Ha! Gotcha! Finally! You did not release the story to CNN!" really? A disclosure is a disclosure.

 

[MountainBiker]

Just the fact that his wife is an exec at Goldman Sachs is reason enough to not trust him.

 

[Giskard]

Just the fact that his wife is an exec at Goldman Sachs is reason enough to not trust him.

Really? At a local branch? Do you put your money in a local branch to keep the banks in business?

 

[Be Well]

This makes the SECOND PRIVATE owner of our FED that has loaned Cruz money. Cruz did NOT vote for the Senate Bill to Audit the FED. Now WHY doesn't Cruz want the FED audited? The answer should be obvious to everybody.

The public doesn't see the senate reports, but the public is privy to every candidate's campaign contribution report, and THIS is the report Cruz did not want the public to see, for it would have shown he truly is a big bank, establishment candidate who is trying to wrap himself in sheep's clothing with an American flag draped over him.

People are taken in by Cruz's nice talk about traditional conservative issues and values. I used to like Cruz a lot. Then when he announced running for president, I didn't like the fact that he knows he is not a NBC or if anyone thinks NBC just means "regular citizen", at least they should realize that this could potentially be a yuge issue. And his wife's connection with Goldman Sachs as employee, and the NAU stuff, plus his previous recent support for amnesty/we can't deport them all/path to citizenship, and increase in HB-1 visas...and now this... no freaking way.

Just another big talking politician, and the fact that he worked for Boehner as personal attorney in 1998-1999 - in fact, his only non-government job - keeps popping back into my mind.

 

[Be Well]

HFcomms:

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.

Inadvertant my a**.

 

[Giskard]

Yer not gonna find a Teflon candidate. Does anyone ever even ask where, for instance, Trump banks? No? They just like his loud NY mouth. Do you know? Does anyone here care? Probably not because he's an armchair quarterback and everyone apparently likes that. It's easy sitting on the sofa. He boasted once he OWNS the Bank of America in San Francisco. Does he? If he doesn't he's a liar, if he does, is that better than Goldman Sachs? Un-freaking-believable...

 

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

I can now mark Cruz off my list along with Rubio
They are just too devious

Mr. Cruz is turning into Bill Clinton right before our eyes.
Like with Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton, the deeds were minor, but the coverup(s) major.
There are good reasons for the disclosure laws.
Mr. Cruz should have addressed these issues much earlier.
If he is nominated, the Democrats and their media servants will turn him into a bank robber.
SS

 

[NoName]

Uh. C'mon now. Y'all sound like the media piling on and not being honest with the reporting. If you don't like it when they do it to someone you like, you should be honest here as well.

Cruz did report, and did so publicly. Because in filling out all the forms he missed one, does NOT mean, he did not publicly disclose. Stop being childish. Think of it this way. You say you released a story to the media, it goes to CBS, Fox, NBC, ABC... What you guys are doing is joining the media pile on by saying, "Ha! Gotcha! Finally! You did not release the story to CNN!" really? A disclosure is a disclosure.

I was willing to take a "wait and see" with the neglect of "just one" failure to file..but this is the SECOND..and this one wasn't included in either report! Naw, he's either dirty or stupid..more likely both as he believes folks will overlook this..and he is wrong. Trump has his many faults, but 'lest we know what we're getting with him and more and more it's looking like a better choice.

 

[Giskard]

I see. Meantime you Trump folks have no issue with him taking the little guy's homes with Imminent Domain. See, I have a problem with that. Anyone who will take away someone's homes or businesses for a dollar cannot be trusted and has serious character flaws that for me are insurmountable. He's a selfish ass and a cad. If he can step on the little guy in his neighborhood, you want to give him the whole country? Yeah, there's a great idea.

 

[Buick Electra]

The underlined words have hyperlinks.

Saturday, January 16, 2016
The Dark Years of Rafael Ted Cruz

As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter,

Most people are now aware that Canadian Dual Citizen Rafael Ted Cruz's life in Canada and his life in the Green Eggs and Ham US Senate, but few people know about Rafael Cruz's Dark Years, the period from the US economic crash in 2008 to the year 2012 when he reappeared in the US Senate.

It literally is a period of selling out against the Tea Party and absolute criminal misconduct, and here is the story.

In 2008 Rafael Cruz had quit the job of Solicitor General of Texas, a job he had given to him by the Bush family for serving George W. Bush. He next made a move to be Attorney General or Texas, but the sitting AG ran for re election, which caused Cruz to run for the woods, and in that, he ended up again in a prime location due to Bush family connections at the Big Law of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Cruz's client was Pfizer, yes the massive conglomerate, and Pfizer had been price gouging sick people at hospitals in pharmaceuticals. So in other words, when push came to shove, Rafael Cruz chose not poor Americans, but the billion dollar pharm industry......along with the Chicoms in stealing tire patents from a United States Citizen.

Then came the reality of Ted Cruz running for Senate, and this is where the criminal fraud took place, as he had already sold out Conservatives in America.

Rafael Ted Cruz has a fiction he tells about selling all he had to run for Senate, after his wife told him he should go for it. The problem is in this, that Heidi Cruz does not remember it that way, in her version which was the correct one, is that she wanted Cruz to find another way first instead of bankrupting them.

So Ted Cruz has lied about this story in typical Cuban 3rd world fashion. The problem is that Rafael Cruz in bringing up this fiction as his telling campaign story from ashes to riches, took out two loans:


The first from Goldman Sachs at which his wife worked, which was a low interest sweetheart loan.


The second from Citibank, which was another sweetheart deal.



This is apparently Cruz Values and not New York Values which Cruz attacks and smears, because if we expand this, we now know that Rafael Ted Cruz was getting money from one of the scoundrel debt traders which made a fortune off of TARP bailouts, which made the loan to Cruz even possible.

Part two in this, is the fact that Citibank has been buying up US industry, particularly American oil, as their owner is Saudi Muslim terror oil.

So when Ted Cruz took out a loan, he took money from swindlers and enemies of America, and these are the crooked dealers who Ted Cruz answers to.

The criminal part in this, is Rafael Ted Cruz did not inform the Federal Elections Commission, that he had taken out these loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank in sweetheart deals, and in public stated he was self funded. That is deception and fraud, and that is something called a felony in the criminal courts.

Now you know the Dark Years of Rafael Ted Cruz, the Dual Citizen, who happens to be glowingly vouched for Big Koch and Big Frac, mic heads, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Homo Hannity and Mark Levin in having such unimpeachable character.

Yes Rafael Ted Cruz, using the Bush family to get power jobs, and then representing Pfizer against sick people, and Chicoms stealing from Americans, while committing felonies in money laundering for his 2012 Senate campaign to represent Big Billionaire in Congress and in the 2016 Presidential Race of the GOP to lose another election to Big Lib in Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Rafael Ted Cruz does not belong in the US Senate or the US White House. Rafael Ted Cruz belongs before a federal court in sentenced to fines and jail time, for his crimes. When push comes to shove, Ted Cruz choose the nation rapists and foreigners every time, whether it is handing out gifts to Mexican invaders or Chicom patent thieves. That is the reality of Rafael Ted Cruz, and whatever "Conservatives" are out there claiming support for Ted Cruz, they need to change their identity to Soros Supporter or Obama Voter, as that is what Ted Cruz represents, all that is anti American and all that is anti Constitutional.


Nuff said




agtG

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-dark-years-of-rafael-ted-cruz.html

 

[dogmanan]

I see. Meantime you Trump folks have no issue with him taking the little guy's homes with Imminent Domain. See, I have a problem with that. Anyone who will take away someone's homes or businesses for a dollar cannot be trusted and has serious character flaws that for me are insurmountable. He's a selfish ass and a cad. If he can step on the little guy in his neighborhood, you want to give him the whole country? Yeah, there's a great idea.

Please give a link and article where this has happened by trump , if not then be quiet.

 

[Giskard]

Please give a link and article where this has happened by trump , if not then be quiet.

Oh my gosh. You're a big boy. Google is your friend.

 

[Giskard]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425212/donald-trump-eminent-domain-wonderful

Here. Watch Trump say it himself. Now YOU can shut up.

 

[dogmanan]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425212/donald-trump-eminent-domain-wonderful

Here. Watch Trump say it himself. Now YOU can shut up.

Interesting.

 

[Giskard]

Interesting.

Yeah, he get's me frosty because in this interview he's talking about putting highways and factories in, giving tons of money to the homeowner, etc. Now in Trumps case, it was a freaking Parking Garage!

 

[Dozdoats]

Because in filling out all the forms he missed one

Oh yeah, DW and I miss listing half a million dollars on forms practically every day here.

 

[Giskard]

Because in filling out all the forms he missed one

Oh yeah, DW and I miss listing half a million dollars on forms practically every day here.

He did not miss listing half a million dollars on forms. What is the disconnect?

He listed it! It was disclosed! He missed a form, not the disclosure. Go have some coffee.

 

[Bubble Head]

Yer not gonna find a Teflon candidate. Does anyone ever even ask where, for instance, Trump banks? No? They just like his loud NY mouth. Do you know? Does anyone here care? Probably not because he's an armchair quarterback and everyone apparently likes that. It's easy sitting on the sofa. He boasted once he OWNS the Bank of America in San Francisco. Does he? If he doesn't he's a liar, if he does, is that better than Goldman Sachs? Un-freaking-believable...

Trump never said he owns the Bank of America in SF. What he did and said was he outmaneuvered the ChiComs for the building the bank operates out of. In other words he bought the building the ChiComs thought they had in their pockets. I doubt seriously if Trump deals with one bank but many banks and investors. He is into multimillion dollar Real Estate investments. If I could offer you a 25% loan to value prime real estate investment with a amortized 15 year 3% return would you take it? That is way better than a bank return and could set up a retirement account for someone. Trump just does that kind of stuff on much larger projects. Yes their will always be a risk factor and I personally think Trump has worked very hard his whole life to amass the money and Real Estate Empire he has and would like to pass it on to his children. Under the current commie/socialist FUSA not a chance for the future. He decided to change that. He is a Capitalist plain and simple and is fighting to stay that way.

 

[Giskard]

Trump never said he owns the Bank of America in SF. What he did and said was he outmaneuvered the ChiComs for the building the bank operates out of. In other words he bought the building the ChiComs thought they had in their pockets. I doubt seriously if Trump deals with one bank but many banks and investors. He is into multimillion dollar Real Estate investments. If I could offer you a 25% loan to value prime real estate investment with a amortized 15 year 3% return would you take it? That is way better than a bank return and could set up a retirement account for someone. Trump just does that kind of stuff on much larger projects. Yes their will always be a risk factor and I personally think Trump has worked very hard his whole life to amass the money and Real Estate Empire he has and would like to pass it on to his children. Under the current commie/socialist FUSA not a chance for the future. He decided to change that. He is a Capitalist plain and simple and is fighting to stay that way.

But you still don't care where HIS money is held? What bank? What other interests and investments? Interesting.

 

[Kris Gandillon]

He did not miss listing half a million dollars on forms. What is the disconnect?

He listed it! It was disclosed! He missed a form, not the disclosure. Go have some coffee.

It was NOT "disclosed".

It is the other type of report, which campaigns must file with the Federal Election Commission, that is at issue. On those reports, Mr. Cruz failed to disclose any bank loans he obtained to finance his Senate race. So, while it is true that Mr. Cruz listed the loans in his Senate reports, he has never disclosed in any report that they were used for his campaign.

 

[Giskard]

It was NOT "disclosed".

Oy!

Okay, according to Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Cruz first disclosed the loans on his congressional financial disclosure forms in July 2012, a few months before the election. Those filings show that he took out a “margin loan” of between $100,001 and $250,000 from Goldman Sachs earlier in 2012. Mr. Cruz had a brokerage account with Goldman Sachs and he told reporters Wednesday that he took out a margin loan from that account.

Mr. Cruz’s July 2012 financial report to the Senate also shows that he took a “line of credit” from Citigroup of between $250,001 and $500,000.

The loan from Goldman was later increased to between $250,001 and $500,000, according to subsequent financial disclosure reports for 2012 that Mr. Cruz made after being elected to the Senate.

The senator’s financial statements for 2012 show that he paid off both the loans from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup by the end of that year.​

Also, this was a loan against his own retirement account he did not wish to dissolve. It wasn't even anyone else's money. It was a secured loan against his own assets. How horrible!!

 

[Kris Gandillon]

he has never disclosed in any report that they were used for his campaign.

The bolded words are the key words, Giskard.

 

[Giskard]

he has never disclosed in any report that they were used for his campaign.

The bolded words are the key words, Giskard.

I thought what everyone liked about Trump was he uses his own money and is beholding to no one. Cruz gets a loan against his own secured assets and you have a problem with it. At least he did't squash someone's home to make his money from a parking garage.

 

[Kris Gandillon]

In elections you have 3 main sources of funds: personal funds that you have accumulated and that are yours, funds received through campaign contributions from the public and corporations, and funds obtained through loans from banks or private individuals.

It comes down to transparency, who owns you, who are you beholden to?

THAT is why they have the disclosures in the first place.

Cruz was disingenuous when he made a big deal out of it being his personal funds he was using and by NOT disclosing that it was really a LOAN that allowed him to continue his campaign, he dug the hole even deeper.

 

[Giskard]

He borrowed against his own retirement account. Cannot help if you see that as being evil, and Trump's exercise of Eminent Domain laws as virtuous. Different values I guess. *shrugs*

 

[Kris Gandillon]

Personal funds are an ASSET while a loan is a LIABILITY. Do you not see the difference?

He could have liquidated those ASSETS which is what Trump is willing to do.

Instead he chose to create for himself a LIABILITY (beholden to someone else) by taking out a loan. And then not disclosing in his election filings that he was operating on borrowed funds rather than personal assets.

 

[dogmanan]

I thought what everyone liked about Trump was he uses his own money and is beholding to no one. Cruz gets a loan against his own secured assets and you have a problem with it. At least he did't squash someone's home to make his money from a parking garage.

He can get all the loans he wants , I don't care, but where I do care is the law says he has to disclose it and he did not that is where the problem lies.

 

[Buick Electra]

He borrowed against his own retirement account. Cannot help if you see that as being evil, and Trump's exercise of Eminent Domain laws as virtuous. Different values I guess. *shrugs*

Were you born obtuse or just purposely being that way?

The criminal part in this, is Rafael Ted Cruz did not inform the Federal Elections Commission, that he had taken out these loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank in sweetheart deals, and in public stated he was self funded. That is deception and fraud, and that is something called a felony in the criminal courts.

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-dark-years-of-rafael-ted-cruz.html

 

[Giskard]

Go back to the articles folks. It's your choice of course. If you are looking for someone who will get it right all the time he will be a guy with nail holes in his wrists and a scar in his side. Filling out forms and getting them all... dunno. Have you ever purchased a home or filled out the 1040 long form and all its ancillary forms? As the information was indeed publicly released (again, read Wallstreet Journal) I don't see it as him trying to Hide something. I see it as his team screwing up on a form. Big deal.

 

[Jerry799]

He borrowed against his own retirement account. Cannot help if you see that as being evil, and Trump's exercise of Eminent Domain laws as virtuous. Different values I guess. *shrugs*

^^^^AGREED^^^^

 

[dogmanan]

Go back to the articles folks. It's your choice of course. If you are looking for someone who will get it right all the time he will be a guy with nail holes in his wrists and a scar in his side. Filling out forms and getting them all... dunno. Have you ever purchased a home or filled out the 1040 long form and all its ancillary forms? As the information was indeed publicly released (again, read Wallstreet Journal) I don't see it as him trying to Hide something. I see it as his team screwing up on a form. Big deal.

You can not screw up on forms like that PERIOD it is against the law PERIOD, that is the point and the crime.

And it is very big deal if you want to be pres.

 

[Giskard]

Fine. Hand your vote over to the literal homewrecker. I can't.