Ben Carson Will Have Conservatives Cheering with ‘Terrific’ Plan for Ted Cruz to Go After Hillary

The day after Texas Sen. Ted Cruz pulled out of the 2016 presidential race, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson began lobbying for Cruz’s next gig to be in President Donald Trump’s administration.

During a Wednesday interview on Fox News Radio, Carson proposed a career path that helps Cruz check a number of boxes:

“I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific Attorney General.

Or he could be both. He could be Attorney General first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court.”

For Clinton, the FBI’s investigation into whether she forwarded classified information in a way that put the country at risk during her tenure as Secretary of State is ongoing.

“The urgency is to do it well and promptly. And ‘well’ comes first,” FBI Direct James Comey told local law enforcement agents in Buffalo, N.Y. on Monday, according to the Niagara Gazette.

Hillary Clinton answers questions from reporters March 10, 2015 at the United Nations in New York. Clinton admitted Tuesday that she made a mistake in choosing for convenience not to use an official email account when she was secretary of state. But, in remarks to reporters after attending a United Nations event, she insisted that her email set-up had been properly secure and that she had turned over all professional communications to the State Department. AFP PHOTO/DON EMMERT (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

Image Credit: Don Emmert/Getty

Late last month, the FBI began setting up official interviews with some of Clinton’s closest and longest-serving aides. For an investigation that has taken longer than a year thus far, “promptly” doesn’t seem to be a high priority for the FBI.

But Carson “and some other folks” will make up a committee for Trump to consult in selecting his own pick for vice president, the Republican told the New York Times this week.

Carson himself isn’t up for the role. He told Fox News Radio:

“You saw the reaction of particularly the left-wing media to me. I represent everything that they are against, and there would be so much attention on that, and I think it would just distract from what needs to be done.”

“I wouldn’t advise him to pick me,” Carson said, adding that Trump should select someone “willing and able to take a significant part of the load.”

PALM BEACH, FL - MARCH 11: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and former presidential candidate Ben Carson stand together as Mr. Trump receives his endorsement at the Mar-A-Lago Club on March 11, 2016 in Palm Beach, Florida. Presidential candidates continue to campaign before Florida's March 15th primary day. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Image Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty

Carson, a former presidential candidate himself, endorsed Trump in March after dropping his own bid.

Link

Colorado County GOP Chair: Errors with Ted Cruz’s Delegate Win, Might Need Do-Over

The chairwoman of the Boulder County GOP has admitted that grave errors affected the Colorado Republican caucus, in which

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

won a clean sweep of 34 delegates without opening up the process to voting by everyday citizens.

Breitbart News has obtained an email that Boulder County GOP chairwoman Peg Cage sent to other top Republican officials in Colorado, including to other party chairs, describing the errors in the process that led to “the perception of fraud.” Reached for comment on the email, Cage said that the caucus might have to be done over.

Since Breitbart News’s original report on massive voting problems at the caucus — including names of candidates being left off ballots and at least one woman not being able to vote — insiders have come forward to tell this reporter about other alleged inconsistencies, including a screw-up in the Pueblo and Mesa counties that led to one county having twenty more ballots and another twenty less. Trump supporters even protested the results of the caucus on the steps of the Colorado State Capitol.

“Rather than spend their time working on try to build integrity and correct errors — I know that’s happening they’re working on it right now —today at 1:30 there’s a bill being pushed by [state chairman] Steve House to push from a caucus system to a primary system as if that would change things,” Boulder County chairwoman Peg Cage told Breitbart News.

“The Trump supporters think that the Cruz supporters stole the election. The Cruz supporters were very concerned that they might not get seated in Cleveland” so they have been publicizing that the Trump campaign does not plan to contest the results, Cage said. But those delegates could still be un-seated by the Republican National Committee.

“If it’s that bad, I guess if there’s any question that our delegates won’t be seated, then that would be a case where it might make sense to have a do-over,” Cage said. “I would say it would. It might be the better way to go just to make sure that our delegates, they ought to be able to go forth and get seated.”

“I think they were mostly, from what I saw, clerical errors. To me, it’s inexcusable … The ballots themselves had names missing. People who had signed up.”

“It seemed to happen in all of the districts. So I guess the state has something to do it because it was up to the state who received those forms … There were many people at the state convention itself who they had to say, well this person was this number and it doesn’t appear that way in the book. It just wasn’t clean … It wasn’t clean because of those clerical mistakes,” Cage added.

Cage indicated that she is not a Trump supporter, but rather a Cruz supporter simply concerned with electoral integrity, saying, “As a county chairman I can’t publicly declare. I do have a favorite … Well, I was standing up by the stage when [Cruz] was up there.”

Cage sent an email expressing her concerns to fellow party chairs last Tuesday.

“Changing the process by which we get to counting votes won’t change the perception of fraud,” Cage wrote. “There were problems with the election in Colorado Springs:

  1. Many people who had filed their Intent to Run for National Delegate forms were not put on a ballot.
  2. Clerical errors created the perception of fraud (duplicate and omitted names and numbers)
  3. Despite calls for unity by elected party officials, one candidate was perceived to have been favored
  4. Ballot counting was perceived to have been done in secret, by the Secretary of State (in his orange Cruz shirt) on equipment from the county where he was the County Clerk.”

Cage was referring to Secretary of State Wayne Williams, who showed up to the caucus in an orange Ted Cruz shirt and was photographed with Cruz election lawyer David Sawyer in a Facebook photo:

Williams Sawyer

Cage detailed further problems:

SOLUTION:  We, the elected party officials for our counties, are responsible to call for a complete airing of the problems, including naming each offended party and the candidate they pledged to support and showing all ballots with their additions and omissions.  A flow chart, like Anil’s, for each county should be included to show that procedures were followed correctly to get delegates to the assembly.  We must insist that professional clerical staff be added and trained at the State level to avoid mistakes that cause such contention…

…There were mistakes- people who had filed their Intent to Run forms were not put on the ballot. It happened in every CD and at the state assembly. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t done to favor Cruz, as his Colorado campaign chairman, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), was left off the CD4 ballot. But it happened frequently enough that the perception was that fraud had been committed. That was bad, but leaving numbers off of a simple sequenced number ballot is inexcusable. These were simply clerical errors (I hope – see, there’s room for doubt), but they brought division among our ranks and could have been prevented if the staff had been more professional and double-checked their work.

Cage wrote to the state party chairman Steve House:

Steve, if you see this note, that’s why it’s seen as bad for me to be on your side. You ran on election integrity and promised that you’d create a team of people that could train us at the county level to watch for fraud in our elections, but that hasn’t happened yet. Republican County Clerks should be included in such a team, but there also need to be folks who are not Clerks. Clerks get re-elected if they make voting easy, but as we’ve seen in this discussion, ease of voting doesn’t equate to integrity in voting…You may not agree with my particular solution, and I am certainly open to discussion that leads to the best solution, but we must take the blame and make it stop here. Or lose.

Reached by phone, Colorado GOP spokesman Kyle Kohli said that Trump convention manager Paul Manafort “indicated to our delegates directly” that Trump would not contest Cruz’s delegate share.

“There was never any concern about the delegation being un-seated to begin with,” Kohli said.

Link

Tabloid says it has proof: Ted Cruz’s father is mystery man in Lee Harvey Oswald photo

Lee Harvey Oswald, front left, standing next to man never identified by the Warren Commission, center in white shirt, handing out leaflets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee taken outside the International Trade Mart in New Orleans on Aug.16, 1963. The National Enquirer is now saying that they have determined through photo analysis that the man is Rafael B. Cruz, father of GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Johann Rush/WSDU-TV

 

WASHINGTON

The National Enquirer has published what it says is conclusive evidence that Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael B. Cruz, is the man photographed next to JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald distributing pro-Castro leaflets in 1963 in New Orleans.

The Cruz presidential campaign fired back unequivocally. “This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage,” communications director Alice Stewart told McClatchy. “The story is false; that is not Rafael in the picture.”

The explosive suggestion that Cruz’s father would have had any affiliation with Oswald is not corroborated in any other way. Cuban-born Rafael Cruz is now a fervent anti-communist, but there was a time he supported then-rebel leader Fidel Castro. His son, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, frequently relates his father’s arrest and torture by government officials and subsequent escape to the United States.

The elder Cruz ended up at the University of Texas at Austin and still supported Castro, who led the revolution that overthrew the Batista regime in 1959. Castro formally declared himself Marxist in 1961.

“The U.S. government was duped. The American people were duped. I was duped,” Rafael Cruz wrote in his book, “A Time for Action,” released in January. “When people ask me why I supported Castro in over-throwing the Cuban government, I readily admit that I didn’t realize he was a communist.”

There are photos of Rafael Cruz participating in a pro-Castro rally in 1959 and an article in the student newspaper where he describes his support for Castro. And one report questions the extent of the elder Cruz’s connections to Castro before fleeing Cuba.

The photos of Oswald distributing pro-Castro literature are from August 1963, just a few months before the JFK assassination in Dallas, which the Warren Commission Report on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy said was carried out by Oswald.

The tabloid hired photo experts who compared the elder Cruz’s photos from the late 1950s and early 1960s with the ones released by the Warren Commission. The man in the white shirt next to Oswald was never identified by the commission, and the Enquirer is now saying it was Cruz and blasted on its May 2 cover that “Ted Cruz Father Now Linked to JFK Assassination!”

The Enquirer has a testimonial from Mitch Goldstone, president and CEO of ScanMyPhotos, a California-based digitizing photo service, who told the tabloid, “There’s more similarity than dissimilarity. . . . it looks to be the same person and I can say as much with a high degree of confidence.”

And Carole Lieberman, a University of California – Los Angeles forensic psychiatrist and expert witness based in Beverly Hills, California, compared the photos and told the Enquirer “they seem to match.” Neither Goldstone nor Lieberman returned phone calls from McClatchy.

But Gus Russo, an author and journalist who has written extensively about the JFK assassination and Oswald, is dubious. Russo told McClatchy in an interview that Oswald, who was living in New Orleans in 1963, was not connected to the Cuban community there and would not have had a Cuban supporter helping him. “He was the ultimate loner,” said Russo. Another man seen in the video handing out leaflets had been hired by Oswald to do so at an unemployment office, according to the Warren Commission. Rafael Cruz also lived in New Orleans, but it was later in the 1960s.

As for the photo “evidence,” Russo said, “It’s very subjective. It’s not proof. It’s just an opinion. To charge something this big, you’d better have better proof than that ‘it looks like him.’”

The FBI would not comment about its photo recognition and aging identification techniques but referred McClatchy to a web page about its Investigative and Prosecutive Graphic Unit.

The Enquirer has focused on Ted Cruz during the presidential campaign with sensational stories about his alleged mistresses and supposed connection to the DC Madam. The tabloid, which has endorsed presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, said in a “declaration” published on a page of the story that the paper had been approached by someone it does not identify during the New York primary with the photos. “In this instance, we believe American voters have a right to know the truth about the Cruz family,” it says.

Link

Ann Coulter: Ted Cruz Is Tracy Flick — with a D***

Before we begin, can we stop referring to Wisconsin as “Midwestern nice”? That’s all we’ve heard since

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

beat Donald Trump there: Wisconsinites are just so nice, they couldn’t abide Trump’s rough style.

Does anyone remember the whole taking over the capitol thing? How they nearly recalled a sitting governor a few years ago? Remember the protesters fighting with cops, rounds of arrests in the rotunda, the drum circles and chanting? How about the midnight raids on citizens for supporting the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill”?

Wisconsin is a lot of things, but “nice” is not one of them. “Soviet” is more like it. It was always a bad state for Trump because there are virtually no immigrants in Wisconsin, and peevish Wisconsinites refused to believe the rest of the country about the cultural mores we’re bringing in. (Like slavery! NBC, San Diego, April 9, 2016: “Feds Rescue Trafficking Victim Locked in San Diego Home.”)

Another misconception sweeping the nation is that when state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz, they are merely following THE RULES, and Trump is an idiot for not knowing THE RULES.

That’s what the Colorado GOP did, what the Tennessee and Louisiana parties are trying to do — and what many other states may do, all under the careful tutelage of Tracy Flick Cruz.

I keep asking someone to send me a copy of THE RULES that direct state parties to ignore the voters and pick their own slate of delegates, but no one can cite such a rule. So I read through “The Rules of the Republican Party” myself — and guess what? There’s no rule instructing state parties to ignore the voters!

To the contrary, the rules were recently rewritten so that delegate selection would “reflect the results of statewide presidential preference elections,” according to a statement by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus. (The nerds will tell us, that’s “legislative history,” not THE RULES.)

Apparently, what people mean by THE RULES is that there is no RNC rule specifically prohibiting a state party from giving all the delegates to a single nominee, even if that is demonstrably at odds with the will of the voters.

The state parties are given a lot of discretion, so Cruz harasses and cajoles the local party until it awards all the state’s delegates to him. Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.

Until Cruz won a primary in mean-as-a-snake Wisconsin, he hadn’t won a single primary — i.e., an “election” — outside of his home state, a sister state and a state where Trump didn’t campaign. In fact, until cantankerous Wisconsin, the only primary where Cruz managed to surpass 34 percent of the vote was his home state of Texas — where he got 43.8 percent.

(Contrary to lies you read in The New York Times, Trump has not complained about any of those races. And you know why? Because they were elections, not corrupt backroom maneuvering. Hey – does anyone know if the general election is won by influence-peddling with tiny groups of insiders or is it by winning elections?)

It’s as if Cruz and Trump are playing different sports: Trump keeps belting home runs, while Cruz is berating the umpire until he calls a balk, then prances to home base, telling everyone he hit a grand slam.

True, there’s no rule explicitly disallowing a state party from rigging the delegate selection. There’s also no rule explicitly disallowing a state party from giving all its delegates to Kim Kardashian.

By that logic, THE RULES also say that a majority of Supreme Court justices can discover a right to abortion, gay marriage or free unicorn rides in the Constitution. There’s nothing stopping them, because, as a procedural matter, they get the last word. Those are THE RULES. (And THE RULES “have been known” for centuries!)

But that’s very different from saying, See, here it is in black and white: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There’s no way to appeal a Supreme Court ruling, just as there’s no way to prohibit a state party from doing whatever it wants. But I wouldn’t go around boasting, “It’s THE RULES!” No, you found a procedural loophole.

A blog post attacking Trump-supporter Larry Lindsey claimed it was Lindsey’s own damn fault that he wasn’t allowed to participate in the Colorado convention last weekend. Remember, this comes from a post defending what the state GOP did:

“Early on in the saga, Lindsey wrote, ‘This year, I decided that as important as this election is to the future of our nation, that I needed to be involved in the Colorado Caucus. I attended the Douglas County Assembly, and then the County Caucus and was elected as a delegate.’

“OK, hold up right there. Lindsey would have had to first attend a precinct caucus before a county assembly …”

AHA! We’ve got you, Larry! Please — get a life. Exactly how many assemblies and caucuses was Larry required to attend? Do you need to read more to know what a weaselly nerd Cruz is?

Cruz is Tracy Flick in “Election.” He believes he deserves to win, God chose him to win — and if he starts to lose, well, then he’ll cheat. Victory goes to the pushy.

Paramount Pictures

Paramount Pictures

Dear Lord Jesus, I do not often speak with you and ask for things, but now, I really must insist that you help me win the election tomorrow because I deserve it and Donald Trump doesn’t, as you well know.

Imagine what nightmare a Cruz presidency would be! This is now the second time Cruz has forced me to research something his supporters were lying about — the last time was on Cruz’s alleged eligibility to be president, despite being born in Canada. (He’s not a “natural born citizen,” but I enjoyed reading all those Supreme Court opinions!)

Instead of fun stuff like building a wall, bringing manufacturing home and getting tired of winning so much, we’ll have to keep reading through centuries of British common law and RNC rulebooks until, out of exhaustion, we give in, and let Cruz run for student council president.

Link

Ted Cruz’s Law Firm Backed Obama, Other National Democrat Campaigns

Obama, Democrats received $750,000 in donations since he joined as Partner

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas — As interested observers, most Texans are probably trying to remain objective while watching the back-and-forth of political campaigns in the early stages of spring. Last week, however, the tactics by one of the campaigns for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate crossed the line from tough campaigning, into a realm of a behavior most will discern as unworthy of someone they’d want to have representing Texas.  

In a charge quickly-proven as inaccurate, the accusation appeared in a blog post written by Ben Shapiro of Big Government that Texas’ Lt. Governor & Senate candidate David Dewhurst had held a Washington, D.C. fundraiser at the home of “Obama cronies.”

The truth was, in fact, something quite other than that. An updated story from Shapiro himself later cleared up the confusion and proved the charges false. The “meet & greet” reception was not a fundraiser of any sort – and rather than being hosted by “Obama cronies,” was organized solely by Republicans, including many who worked in President George W. Bush’s Administration.

What caught one’s attention were the obviously over-eager salvos from the Ted Cruz Senate Campaign, based upon clearly inaccurate mis-representations of the November 2011 reception.

In a series of web advertisements, Ted Cruz and his campaign ran with the unsubstantiated rumor, compounding the lie by attempting to link Texas’ Lt. Governor to the Obama Administration based upon a Republican Meet & Greet being held at town home owned by a bi-partisan lobby firm.

The phrase to describe any campaign’s gross misrepresentation of the facts, in Texas terms is, “that dog just won’t hunt.”

What Tea Party members in Texas and across the nation are sick of, is politicians who put their own personal advancement ahead of the welfare of the United States. Not only do actions speak louder than words, they are what is required given the brevity of the country’s current economic situation.

By resorting to false, malicious & too-often self-serving attacks on their opponents, the Ted Cruz camp (and others too) diminishes their own credibility … amongst other leaders, the press, donors, and most importantly the voters of Texas at large. (If you believe what we have been hearing the past month or so, this is the just latest in a pattern of mis-steps by the Cruz Campaign.)

While Ted Cruz has, to date, capitalized on a blossoming legal career to cast himself as a fighter, which undoubtedly is true given his personal story, many are just now learning Cruz is a partner at a high-powered law firm with a history of contributing 100’s of $1,000’s of dollars to Democrats such as the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Congressional Committee’s campaigns.

Ted Cruz was hired as a partner Morgan Lewis & Bockius in 2008, during the presidential election in which Barack Obama became president. Morgan Lewis & Bockius made contributions totaling over $200,000 in support of Obama’s campaigns for President, as well as  $750,000 to Democrats since Cruz became a partner.

Texans want a Senator who will fight the liberal Obama Agenda that‘s destroying our country – and does it based upon a previous record of experience, service & accomplishment, not upon dragging others down in order to build themselves up.

Link

 

6 Things Ted Cruz Wants You to Forget

1. He wants you to forget he was born in Canada. Yes, Cruz is an American citizen because his mother is and was at time of his birth. But he wants his fans to think he is a “natural born” citizen, as is required by the Constitution. But conservatives and “birthers” can’t have it both ways — they can’t keep stirring the pot of whether Barack Obama was born in the U.S. (which he was) and keep insisting that to be eligible to run for president a candidate must be born on U.S. soil.  Being born in Canada, makes Cruz a Canadian citizen, as well, though Cruz claims he’s “renounced” that. But

2. Odds are he used to get his health insurance from a Goldman Sachs “Cadillac plan.” While the junior Senator from Texas is trying to prevent more Americans from getting any sort of health plan at all, some have wondered — how can U.S. senators be against a government-backed health insurance plan when they benefit from one themselves?  Good question in the hypocrisy department, but Cruz may have had even better coverage than his Senate colleagues before he announced his run for president. Cruz’s wife was the head of a regional Goldman Sachs office (yes, THAT Goldman Sachs), and according to a 2009 New York Times report, top executive officers and managing directors there “are eligible to participate in a health care program that costs Goldman more than $40,000 in premiums for each particpant’s family annually.” She is currently on an unpaid leave of absence from the Wall Street giant (so presumably not entitled to the health insurance perk while not receiving  salary) and even though Cruz initially said he would have to jump into the Obamacare pool, ultimately he opted to buy health insurance on the open market.  But that begs the question – if he is elected president, how will he square his opposition to the Affordable Care Act with the fact that he will have to insure his family through it?

3. Cruz clerked for two extreme judicial conservatives. If you have any question about just how conservative Cruz is, look no further than two far-right jurists he clerked for, the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and J. Michael Luttig, formerly a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, well known as an extremely conservative bench (though that has been changing in recent years).

4. He doesn’t like fact-checkers. Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts! As least that’s what Cruz seems to think when it comes to his statements. Reporters who fact-checked assertions Cruz made in his infamous “Green Eggs and Ham” Obamacare super-speech a couple of years ago mad him outraged! Cruz claimed that fact-checking is “a particularly pernicious bit of yellow journalism that has cropped up that lets journalists be editorial writers and pretend they are talking about objective facts.”  So I guess he believes in the Chuck Todd method of reporting?

5. His real name is Rafael. That’s shouldn’t be a biggy. Many people who are named after their fathers go by a nickname. But as someone who seems to have an eye on the White House, surely Cruz knows what happens to candidates who have names that seem a little out of the ordinary to the tea party crowd?

6. His aunt was a counter-revolutionary against Fidel Castro. While Cruz’s father fought alongside Castro before fleeing Cuba, the elder Cruz’s sister fought against the Communist regime. How many people can say they’re related to revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries? His aunt’s role will probably play well with the very politically influential Florida Cuban voting bloc if he really has presidential aspirations. But his pro-Castro dad his been prominent in Cruz’s campaign? And as he surely knows, the all important South Florida Cuban community won’t favor anyone with pro-Castro ties, no matter how far in the past.

Link

The Real Ted Cruz

I studied nearly every word the Texas senator uttered during the immigration showdown. He may be the most spectacular liar ever to run for president.

Ted Cruz is the only true conservative running for president. That’s the message of his campaign: He’s the only senator who stood and fought against amnesty, Obamacare, and Planned Parenthood. His finest hour was the defeat of immigration reform three years ago. Democrats wanted to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Cruz said no. He took on the establishment and won.

It’s a good story, and the immigration fight tells us a lot about Cruz. But the fight didn’t happen the way he says it did. Cruz didn’t marshal the opposition or even take a firm stand. He’s a lawyer, not a leader. He chose his words exquisitely so that down the road—say, in a future campaign for president—he could position himself on either side of the immigration debate. And he delivered, with angelic piety, speeches that he now claims were lies.

Cruz told his version of the story last month at a campaign debate in Las Vegas. The “battle over amnesty,” he said, was “a time for choosing.” In that battle, Cruz stood with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama to secure the border. Sen. Marco Rubio, Cruz’s Republican presidential rival, stood on the other side, colluding with Democrats to push “a massive amnesty plan.” “I have never supported legalization,” Cruz told the debate audience. In fact, he asserted, “I led the fight against [Rubio’s] legalization and amnesty.”

I’ve studied nearly every word Cruz uttered during the immigration showdown. I’ve put it together in a timeline that runs from January 2013, when Cruz was sworn in, to the end of June 2013, when the Senate passed the bill. The timeline, which you can read here, shreds Cruz’s mythical account. But it also paints an unsparing portrait of how Cruz—who has now clawed his way to the front of the Republican presidential pack—thinks and operates. Here’s what really happened and who Cruz really is.

In January 2013, when Cruz entered the Senate, he held the same view he espouses today. The proper way to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country, he said, was to “enforce the laws.” That meant barring them from employment and deporting them. Democrats wanted to offer these people a legal route to stay and earn U.S. citizenship. Cruz opposed that idea. Such a concession, he argued, would reward lawbreakers and punish honest people who were waiting to immigrate legally.

In late January, a bipartisan group of eight senators—four Democrats and four Republicans, including Rubio—issued an immigration reform proposal that included a path to citizenship. Cruz could have ruled that provision out, but he didn’t. For months, he expressed “deep concerns” about it but made no commitment. He cautioned that a path to citizenship would alienate many Republicans. But when reporters asked Cruz the yes-or-no question—“Would you vote against anything that has a path to citizenship?”—he refused to answer.

One plausible reason for Cruz’s reticence was that he wanted changes in immigration policy. He favored tighter borders, better enforcement, and an easier process for law-abiding applicants. He might be able to get those things in a deal. Furthermore, a path to citizenship was popular. In polls, more than 60 percent of Americans endorsed the idea, depending on how the question was phrased. Even self-identified Republicans supported it. So politics and policy told Cruz to keep his options open. But principle—fairness to legal immigrants and respect for the rule of law—stood in the way.

Cruz was in a tough spot. But there was a way out: Undocumented immigrants could be offered something less than citizenship. They could be given a path to “lawful permanent resident” status—a green card—that would let them live and work in the United States. They would be allowed to stay but not to vote.

Many Republicans liked this idea. It also scored well in polls. When Americans were asked to choose between creating a path to citizenship and creating a path to permanent residency, many preferred the latter. By offering green cards instead of deportation, conservatives could mobilize a national majority against citizenship.

Still, Cruz had a problem with the green-card idea. Under the proposed immigration framework, green cards would lead to citizenship. And that, Cruz explained, “worries me,” because “if we pass something that allows those here illegally to achieve citizenship, it means you’re a chump for having stayed in your own country and followed the rules.”

By late April, Cruz had worked out a solution. By permanently barring undocumented immigrants from citizenship, Congress could punish them and respect the priority of legal immigrants. In that context, as an inferior status, green cards were acceptable. At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 22, 2013, Cruz urged his colleagues to pass legislation that foreclosed citizenship but would “ensure that we have workers who are here, out of the shadows, able to work legally.” Two days later, in an interview aired on CBS, he said, “There probably could be a compromise” on undocumented immigrants “if a path to citizenship was taken off the table.”

Ted Cruz
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration on May 9, 2013, in Washington.

Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

In May, Cruz spelled out his compromise. He offered an amendment that would deny citizenship to anyone who had entered the United States illegally. One stated purpose of the bill, Cruz noted, was “to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally, to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen. But what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship, so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.” Legal status without citizenship, Cruz argued, was “reform that a great many people across this country, both Republican and Democrat, would embrace.”

On May 21, the Judiciary Committee rejected Cruz’s amendment. But he didn’t give up. He reintroduced the amendment in the full Senate. In one venue after another—a forum at Princeton University, a speech on the Senate floor, an interview with the Washington Examiner—he made his case that the green-card compromise would grant “legal status” while still imposing “consequences.” Even after the Senate passed the bill without his amendment on June 27, Cruz continued to explain that he had offered to accept green cards, not citizenship, because “there needs to be some consequence for having broken the law.”Citizens”

That’s a short version of what happened in 2013. Cruz moved on to other issues, and the bill never came up for a vote in the House. There’s more to the story, and we’ll get to that. But let’s consider what we can assess so far.

 Three elements of Cruz’s current story about the immigration fight are clearly false. First, it’s not true that he embraced a “time for choosing.” Cruz postponed his immigration decision as long as possible. He refused to answer point-blank questions about whether he could accept a path to citizenship. When he finally came out against it, he did so in the context of offering a path to legal status. Even at the end of May 2013—four months after the immigration reform framework was unveiled, five weeks after the bill’s text was finalized, and a week after the Judiciary Committee passed it—Cruz still refused to say whether he would vote for the bill if it included his amendments.

Second, it’s not true that Cruz “led the fight” against amnesty. On April 21, 2013, three months after the path to citizenship was announced, Politico reported that Cruz still hadn’t “yet decided whether to become the face of the opposition.” The article noted that Cruz had “repeatedly avoided talking to reporters” about the bill and “was instead focused on fighting gun control legislation.” A year later, Politico detailed how House members had organized the opposition. The story said Cruz wasn’t even one of the most active senators. In November, PolitiFact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, re-examined the record and “found no evidence that he [Cruz] should get credit for stopping the bill from reaching a vote in the House. During the summer of 2013, Cruz was one of many voices in the Senate opposed to the bill. It was House Republicans who blocked the bill, and they were already calling for its defeat.”

Third, it’s not quite true that Cruz fought “shoulder to shoulder with Jeff Sessions,” as Cruz puts it. It’s certainly not true that their positions were “identical.” Cruz and Sessions served together on the Judiciary Committee. Both men offered amendments to the bill. Sessions’ amendments proposed to restrict access to green cards. Cruz’s did not. This is important, because Cruz now claims that his alliance with Sessions proves that he never supported legal status for undocumented immigrants.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to the press on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 25, 2013.

Photo by Jason Reed/Reuters

And that leads us to two more difficult questions. One is: Did Cruz support legalization? An ordinary person, after reading the narrative presented here, would probably say yes. But Cruz and his aides insist that he never explicitly embraced legalization. And they’re right.

No matter how carefully you study the timeline of Cruz’s statements, you’ll never catch the Texas senator endorsing—as opposed to conceding—legal status for undocumented immigrants. On May 21, 2013, he told the Judiciary Committee that his amendment would “allow that to happen.” On May 31, when he was asked whether he would “grant” green cards or “move” people from illegal to legal status, he replied: “That would be the effect of the amendment.” On June 11, he attributed legalization, under his amendment, to “the underlying bill.” Again and again, Cruz chose language that implied an offer of legal status but technically avoided responsibility for it.

Today, Cruz touts this record as proof of his innocence. To understand why, you have to watch his interview with Greta Van Susteren on Dec. 18, three days after the Las Vegas debate. Van Susteren reads from a letter issued by Cruz and three other senators on June 4, 2013. The letter faults the Judiciary Committee for rejecting “an amendment (Cruz 3) that would have allowed immigrants here illegally to obtain legal status—to come out of the shadows and work legally—but not to be eligible for citizenship.” Van Susteren, like any normal person, reads this sentence as a tacit endorsement of legalization. But Cruz points out that allow doesn’t necessarily mean support. He insists: “The letter says Rubio’s bill gives them legal status. It doesn’t say my amendment gives them legal status.”

Cruz thinks this distinction vindicates him. He proudly tells Van Susteren: “Greta, truth matters. I have never once supported legalization.” But what’s striking in the interview, in the letter, and throughout Cruz’s statements in 2013 and in 2015 is how carefully he parses words such as supported, legalization, and truth. Cruz doesn’t think like a normal person. He thinks like a lawyer. For him, truth isn’t a matter of plain meaning. It’s a matter of technicalities.

That’s why nobody can prove Cruz endorsed legalization in 2013. Like a crime scene without fingerprints, Cruz’s verbal record is a work of art. On Dec. 15, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, unable to pass judgment on Cruz’s account of the 2013 fight, surrendered to his ingenuity, explaining: “Cruz positioned himself in a way so that he would appear pro-legalization if an immigration overhaul passed—or appear anti-legalization if hard-liner stances became more acceptable.”

But Cruz doesn’t just deny that he supported legalization. He denies that his amendments were serious at all. He now claims that every measure he proposed in 2013—to tighten border security, streamline legal immigration, and close the path to citizenship—was a ploy to sabotage the bill.

To appreciate the audacity of this claim, you have to watch the speeches Cruz delivered three years ago. At a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 21, 2013, Cruz pleaded for “bipartisan agreement and compromise,” declaring, “I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass.” On May 29, he assured Washington Examiner reporter Byron York, “My objective was not to kill immigration reform, but it was to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem.” And on May 31 at Princeton, Cruz told his former professor, Robert George: “I believe if the amendments I introduced were adopted, that the bill would pass. And my effort in introducing them was to find a solution that reflected common ground and that fixed the problem.”

Now Cruz says he was faking it the whole time. He says everyone knew he was just trying to sabotage the bill. But that’s not true. Many conservatives believed him. York, in his write-up of the May 29, 2013, interview, took Cruz at his word. George, in his public conversation with Cruz, also took the senator seriously. And in a Fox News interview on Dec. 16, just after the Las Vegas debate, Bret Baier made clear that he wasn’t in on the joke, either:

Baier: It sounded like you wanted the bill to pass.
Cruz: Of course I wanted the bill to pass—my amendment to pass. What my amendment did—
Baier: You said the bill.
Cruz: —is take citizenship off the table. But it doesn’t mean—it doesn’t mean that I supported the other aspects of the bill, which was a terrible bill. And, Bret, you’ve been around Washington long enough. You know how to defeat bad legislation, which is what that amendment did …

Van Susteren, in her conversation with Cruz two days later, seemed baffled:

Van Susteren: You are now saying that the whole purpose of the amendment back in 2013, that you put on, was a poisoned pill. It was meant and designed to kill the whole bill.
Cruz: And it succeeded. …
Van Susteren: And your strategy, just so we’re clear—your strategy was to put this poisoned-pill amendment—
Cruz: That was actually five amendments that were all designed to defeat this.

These people—York, George, Baier, Van Susteren—aren’t stupid. They work in the thick of conservative politics. What confounds their ability to understand Cruz isn’t ideology or intelligence. It’s artifice. Normal people can’t sustain a façade of earnestness for months. Normal people don’t lecture others about good faith while lying and conspiring. To live a sane life, you have to assume that the people with whom you interact are, to some extent, real. York, George, Baier, and Van Susteren are normal. Cruz is not.

If Cruz was faking it in 2013, consider the extent of his deceit. He didn’t just put on performances for his colleagues in the committee and on the Senate floor. He requested an interview with a conservative publication, ostensibly to clear the record, and lied to its reporter. He went to his alma mater and feigned sincerity to his mentor in front of an audience of students. And he didn’t stop when the Senate passed the bill. In an interview with the Examiner on July 1, 2013, and again in an interview with the Texas Tribune on Aug. 21, 2013, Cruz cited his legalization offer as evidence that he was willing to compromise.

Was the whole thing a ruse? Only Cruz knows. But the rest of us can draw a few conclusions. First, Cruz is a spectacular liar. If he wasn’t lying about his motives in 2013, he’s lying about them now. That’s not speculation; it’s a distillation of the only two logical possibilities. Cruz’s current performance is just as straight-faced as his 2013 performance, which he now dismisses as fraud. If Cruz told the truth to York and George—if his 2013 amendments were for real—then in the past month, he has lied to Baier, Van Susteren, and many other reporters, not to mention the public.

Second, Cruz got through the entire immigration fight without leaving any solid evidence that he was faking it. That’s remarkable. Last month, FactCheck.org asked Brian Phillips, a Cruz campaign spokesman, whether he could “point to any instances in which Cruz tipped his hand” that the 2013 legalization offer “was not a plan he [Cruz] actually proposed, but was a legislative strategy to make a point.” Phillips said he couldn’t. “We were not trying to let on our legislative strategy,” Phillips explained. But Cruz’s 2013 record is so pristine, so perfectly devoid of nods and winks, that it’s impossible to know what his real game was. And that’s what sets Cruz apart. Lots of politicians lie. Cruz did something more impressive. He talked and talked and still managed to leave himself both options: to deny in the future that his amendments were sincere, or to claim that they were.

Press aides on Cruz’s presidential campaign, and at least one person who worked for him in the Senate, say his offer of legalization without citizenship was never serious. But there are two clues they can’t explain. One is Cruz’s insistence that his amendment adhered to conservative principles. Throughout the 2013 debate, Cruz emphasized that by imposing sufficient “consequences” on lawbreakers, his ban on citizenship made green-card legalization acceptable. He was preparing a rationale that could justify a deal.

The second clue is that Cruz also prepared himself politically. Maybe it was assumed in Cruz’s Senate office that his amendments were fake. Maybe Cruz even said so in private, for what that’s worth. But outside the office, Cruz did something that doesn’t fit that story. He poll-tested legalization in his own state.

On June 19, 2013, Cruz gave a long radio interview to Rush Limbaugh. Today, Cruz claims that this interview turned the tide against the immigration bill. That’s false: A week after the interview, the Senate passed the bill, 68 to 32, and—as Cruz repeatedly argued at the time—the bill, as written, was already doomed in the House. But during the call, Cruz said something curious. “We polled Hispanic voters in Texas,” he told Limbaugh. “We asked, ‘Do you support a pathway to citizenship or work permits that do not allow citizenship?’ And a plurality, 46 percent of Hispanic voters in Texas, supported a work permit without citizenship. And only 35 percent supported a pathway to citizenship.”

Cruz brought up the poll to quote the numbers. But what’s far more interesting is the structure of the poll question, who asked it, and where. This wasn’t a public survey. It was conducted by Cruz’s own pollster, a month after the senator’s election and just before the start of the immigration debate. So the question was written to be useful to Cruz. And the question didn’t pit a path to citizenship against the no-legalization, border-security policy Cruz now claims to have stood for. It pitted a path to citizenship against a different option: “Give them work permits to allow them to work here legally but do not make them eligible for U.S. citizenship.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz immigration news conference
Sen. Ted Cruz, flanked by Sens. Mike Lee (left) and David Vitter, speaks about immigration legislation during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on June 20, 2013.

Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Cruz loved the question. Between June 19 and July 1, 2013, he quoted its results at least three times. The point, he argued, was that Hispanics were on his side. But that explanation left three puzzles. One puzzle was: If Cruz wanted to prove that Hispanics were on his side, why did he ask them about work permits instead of border security? Why would Cruz poll-test a policy of letting undocumented immigrants “work here legally”—and brag about the positive results six months later—if he weren’t seriously considering it?

The second puzzle was: Why Texas? If the survey were designed to influence other lawmakers, the logical sample would have been voters nationwide. Instead, the question was asked only in Cruz’s state. And the third puzzle was the timing. In December 2012, Cruz wasn’t facing an election. He was facing a decision about how to handle immigration.

For me, these two clues—the poll and the “consequences” argument—show that Cruz was serious about legalization. First, he checked out the political benefits and risks in his own state. Then he spent at least two months preparing a public rationale for a deal. But if I’m wrong—if Cruz was never open to work permits or green cards—that’s much worse. It would mean that Cruz polled Hispanics to find out whether, by pretending to offer legalization, he could divide and neutralize them.

We can’t know what Cruz really thought. And we don’t need to know. From the record assessed here, we’ve learned enough about him to decipher his words and predict his behavior. He’s a passionate, indefatigable liar. He speaks with the cadence of a preacher but the craft of a lawyer. When the time for choosing comes, he keeps his options open. Don’t let his vehemence fool you. Watch every word he says.

When you study Cruz this way, through the lens of history, his pretense of clarity dissolves. Last August, he ducked questions about undocumented immigrants, saying “we can have a conversation” about that after the border is secured. In November, he issued an immigration plan that said nothing about a path to citizenship or green cards. When reporters asked Cruz whether he would rule out legalization, he changed the subject.

In the Las Vegas debate on Dec. 15, Cruz tried to silence the doubters. “I have never supported legalization,” he proclaimed. Rubio, unsatisfied, pressed him: “Do you rule it out?” The time for choosing had come, and Cruz was ready. He turned to Rubio, raised an index finger for emphasis, and vowed: “I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization.” I do not intend. There’s nothing more Ted Cruz than that.

Link

Ted Cruz ‘Affair’ Rumors Peddled by Marco Rubio’s Allies

The senator accused Donald Trump of planting a National Enquirer sex scandal story. If that’s true, Trump wasn’t the only Cruz opponent trying to traffic in smears.

If you enjoy daydreaming about Ted Cruz’s sex life, then today is your lucky day.

The National Enquirer alleged on March 23 that the senator has had five extramarital affairs. And the descriptions it provided of the women—along with barely-pixelated headshots of them—left little to D.C. insiders’ imaginations as to who the Enquirer had accused of being Cruz paramours.

“A HOOKER, A TEACHER & COWORKERS: 5 romps that will destroy Ted Cruz!” the Enquirer piece boldly claims, in an article that includes a wild “sex-in-closet” allegation.

Cruz fired back on Friday, charging that the piece was baseless and that the Enquirer was taking its marching orders straight from “Donald Trump and his henchmen.”

The truth behind the rumor-mongering, however, is a little more complex. A half-dozen GOP operatives and media figures tell The Daily Beast that Cruz’s opponents have been pushing charges of adultery for at least six months now—and that allies of former GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio were involved in spreading the smears.

For months and months, anti-Cruz operatives have pitched a variety of #CruzSexScandal stories to a host of prominent national publications, according to Republican operatives and media figures. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, Politico, and ABC News—reporters at all those outlets heard some version of the Cruz-is-cheating story. None of them decided to run with rumors. Those publications’ representatives all declined to provide on-the-record comments when The Daily Beast reached out for this article.

Breitbart News, the notoriously Trump-friendly conservative outlet, was also pitched the story of Cruz’s extramarital affairs, according to a source close to the publication. That source said an operative allied with Marco Rubio—but not associated with his official campaign—showed the publication a compilation video of Cruz and a woman other than his wife coming out of the Capitol Grille restaurant and a hotel on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But the outlet opted not to report on the video, which demonstrated no direct evidence of an affair.

“We got it from a Rubio ally,” said the source. “It was too thin, so [Breitbart’s Washington political editor Matt Boyle] decided not to run it. There was no way to verify the claims.”

A Rubio spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

The Cruz campaign team has been aware of the sex-scandal rumors for months. But it took the National Enquirer’s report to force the story into the mainstream media conversation.

Friday afternoon, Trump disavowed any connection to the Enquirer’s story—while giving their credibility a backhanded boost.

“I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it,” he said in a statement.

He then proceeded to praise the publication.

“Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz,” he said.

National Enquirer interior pages, accusing Ted Cruz of five extra-marital affairs.

The Daily Beast

You can’t blame Cruz for seeing Trump’s tiny fingerprints on the story—and it’s fully plausible that the mogul or one of his allies (rather than a Rubio booster) gave the story to the tabloid. After all, the supermarket tabloid is, for all intents and purposes, the Trump Train’s caboose.

TRUMP MUST BE PREZ!” began the Enquirer’s endorsement of the mogul, published earlier this month. “INSIDE: VOTE FOR HIS VICE PRESIDENT!” (One of the options is Sen. Cruz, who the publication had previously dubbed, “Boozin’ Ted.”)

In that same issue, the editors call Marco Rubio “NERDY.” The issue, dated March 14, 2016, also features bombshell exposes on the Illuminati taking control of Hollywood to erect “totalitarian world government,” as well as Dr. Phil’s “REIGN OF TERROR.”

David Pecker—the CEO of American Media, Inc., which publishes the Enquirer—is tight with Trump.

Trump has repeatedly praised Pecker and tweeted several times in 2013 that his pal should be named the new CEO of Time magazine.

The tabloid has provided Trump’s presidential bid with glowing coverage, and has been rewarded with “exclusive” interviews. In January, “America’s most popular presidential candidate” gave a two-part interview on the “most intimate details of [his] amazing life!” Trump is even an occasional National Enquirer contributor.

“Trump is a big friend of Pecker,” an anonymous source told the New York Daily News, claiming that the billionaire reality TV star is “protected” by the Enquirer. “So no John Edwards-type investigations … Some of the staff are furious. Trump’s such fertile ground, and it drives them crazy to not only be staying away from it, but running puff pieces for him.”

A source close to the tabloid also told New York magazine in October that Trump’s campaign was the source for an Enquirer cover story on one of the mogul’s former rivals.

“Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain!” the headline bellowed. (The Trump campaign and Pecker flatly denied this allegation.)

The Enquirer has also savaged other Trump foes, including Rubio, Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and Jeb Bush. It recently reported that Bush, as governor of Florida, was embroiled in “sleazy cheating scandals…[with a] Playboy Bunny turned lawyer,” a rumor Bush publicly denied over a decade ago.

“There have been few presidential candidates in recent history that have generated the kind of discussion that Donald Trump has,” Pecker told The Daily Beast this month. “It’s no surprise that the readership of the Enquirer recently told us that they wanted to read more about Trump than any other 2016 candidate. The coverage of the Enquirer reflects what its 6 million readers want, and expect, from the publication which has shown no hesitation in presenting an unvarnished look at past or current candidates for president.”

But unvarnished isn’t the same thing as true. Cruz and several of the women accused in the Enquirer’s story have denied its lurid claims.

Link

error: Content is protected !!