Ted Cruz Failed to Report a Second Campaign Loan in 2012

[GMDino]

But remember...Hillary is the lyingest liar of them all.

Teddy is just a conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-failed-to-report-a-second-campaign-loan-in-2012.html?_r=1

Quote: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 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.

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.

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.

[*bfine32*]

When you know Cruz is raising in the polls.


So from skimming the link; it appears he listed the loans but didn't specify what they were for?

Also Cruz has said he listed them on the original disclosure form yet failed to list it on a subsequent filing.

http://twitter.com/kerpen/status/687461435522285568/photo/1

[GMDino]

(01-16-2016, 12:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When you know Cruz is raising in the polls.


So from skimming the link; it appears he listed the loans but didn't specify what they were for?

Also Cruz has said he listed them on the original disclosure form yet failed to list it on a subsequent filing.

http://twitter.com/kerpen/status/687461435522285568/photo/1

He's rising?  Well good for the GOP?

Anyway, he's required to say when he is using for his campaign and didn't.  He shouldn't go to jail for it.  But he should be called out for talking smack on the same people he took a loan from and then "forgot" to mention he used it for his campaign.

[StLucieBengal]

Nothing more than Rubio and his progressive buddies trying to pull Cruz down.

This really is a non story. When Cruz gets Americans killed for not sending protection they desperately requested then I will give them a fair comparison.

[Rotobeast]

If people are serious about the condition of our country, they should stop hammering on the little stuff of qualified candidates.
If they do not, Trump is going to win.
I would even go so far to say that the outgoing Dem candidates should endorse a Rep, to take away from Trump.

I am literally shocked at the support Trump has.

[Vlad]

(01-16-2016, 11:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: But remember...Hillary is the lyingest liar of them all.

Teddy is just a conservative.

Passing off truth as sarcasm. Love it.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2016, 01:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Nothing more than Rubio and his progressive buddies trying to pull Cruz down.  

This really is a non story.   When Cruz gets Americans killed for not sending protection they desperately requested then I will give them a fair comparison.

So he's not one who voted against the increased security that was request well before the attack?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2016, 01:15 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If people are serious about the condition of our country,  they should stop hammering on the little stuff of qualified candidates.
If they do not, Trump is going to win.
I would even go so far to say that the outgoing Dem candidates should endorse a Rep, to take away from Trump.

I am literally shocked at the support Trump has.

I'd take Trump as POTUS for eight years over Cruz as POTUS for one week.

[Rotobeast]

(01-16-2016, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd take Trump as POTUS for eight years over Cruz as POTUS for one week.

That's a bold statement. 
I will admit that I haven't done due diligence in researching Cruz.
Thank you for prompting me to do so.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2016, 02:50 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: That's a bold statement. 
I will admit that I haven't done due diligence in researching Cruz.
Thank you for prompting me to do so.

I didn't think Dubya was a bad person, merely misguided or easily misled.  I don't think McCain is a bad person, he's a real patriot who wanted to do what he though was best for the country.  I think Ted Cruz is an evil person.  I think he's on par, if not worse, than Dick Cheney.  His reputation is horrible even amongst his own colleagues.  The moronic among us, i.e. Lucie and his ilk, see this dislike as proof of Cruz's being a rogue who bucks the system.  I see it, correctly, as further evidence that the man is a human vomit.  Cruz wants to be POTUS for the power, he's ambitious and dangerous.  I'm not one of those people who states they'll move out of the country if "insert name here" is elected but I'd honestly be worried about or nations future if we were so misguided as to elect this piece of walking excrement to the highest office in our nation.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-16-2016, 03:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't think Dubya was a bad person, merely misguided or easily misled.  I don't think McCain is a bad person, he's a real patriot who wanted to do what he though was best for the country.  I think Ted Cruz is an evil person.  I think he's on par, if not worse, than Dick Cheney.  His reputation is horrible even amongst his own colleagues.  The moronic among us, i.e. Lucie and his ilk, see this dislike as proof of Cruz's being a rogue who bucks the system.  I see it, correctly, as further evidence that the man is a human vomit.  Cruz wants to be POTUS for the power, he's ambitious and dangerous.  I'm not one of those people who states they'll move out of the country if "insert name here" is elected but I'd honestly be worried about or nations future if we were so misguided as to elect this piece of walking excrement to the highest office in our nation.

I would be interested in hearing what exactly do you dislike so much of Cruz. I find it fascinating that you would choose trump over him. Although admittedly I am surprised he is as high as he is on the polls.

[Vlad]

God forbid Cruz puts a dog on top of his car.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2016, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: So he's not one who voted against the increased security that was request well before the attack?

Now you're just applying critical thinking to the claims made regarding this sort of thing. You can't do that in a political discussion. We must throw out the window any knowledge of how the branches of government work.

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2016, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: So he's not one who voted against the increased security that was request well before the attack?

Most likely not. Bengazi attack occured in 2012; Cruz became Senator in 2013.

Belsnickel Wrote:Now you're just applying critical thinking to the claims made regarding this sort of thing. You can't do that in a political discussion. We must throw out the window any knowledge of how the branches of government work.

What's that you say?

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2016, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What's that you say?

I was speaking to the fact that Congress holds the purse strings and the blame for the lack of security should not be rested solely on the shoulders of Hillary, not specifically about Cruz. But hey, keep on keeping on.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2016, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: So he's not one who voted against the increased security that was request well before the attack?

(01-20-2016, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely not. Bengazi attack occured in 2012; Cruz became Senator in 2013.

Well that's a relief. Because that is the only way this statement could be true:

(01-16-2016, 01:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This really is a non story.   When Cruz gets Americans killed for not sending protection they desperately requested then I will give them a fair comparison.

Because otherwise no one denied protection according to a few (dozen) hearings on the incident.

[BengalHawk62]

Even Iowa's long time Republican Governor Terry Branstad does not like the Canuck Cruz.   And NOBODY like Branstad here, so this is very telling about Cruz's reputation. 


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/gov-branstad-wants-ted-cruz-beat-in-iowa/



My pappy always said, Never trust a Canuck.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2016, 04:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was speaking to the fact that Congress holds the purse strings and the blame for the lack of security should not be rested solely on the shoulders of Hillary, not specifically about Cruz. But hey, keep on keeping on.

Of course you were. Why would anyone be talking about Cruz in this thread.

But hey good use of "applying critical thinking to the claims made regarding this sort of thing."

Hell, all I used was a calendar.

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2016, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you were. Why would anyone be talking about Cruz in this thread.

But hey good use of "applying critical thinking to the claims made regarding this sort of thing."

Hell, all I used was a calendar.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, little buddy.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-20-2016, 04:09 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Even Iowa's long time Republican Governor Terry Branstad does not like the Canuck Cruz.   And NOBODY like Branstad here, so this is very telling about Cruz's reputation. 


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/gov-branstad-wants-ted-cruz-beat-in-iowa/



My pappy always said, Never trust a Canuck.

Is it because he's against the ridiculousness of putting food in our gas tanks?