Posted on 01/31/2021 7:59:22 PM PST by bimboeruption
Senator Cruz is an example of a Republican who will never win a national election and especially moving forward after the 2020 election. Democrats BRAZENLY used EVERY TRICK in their bag to steal victory in November 2020. And they did it without a hint of shame.
In this week’s video, Senator Ted Cruz accused President Donald Trump of spouting “overheated rhetoric” about the election and failing to present evidence of voter fraud.
Starting at the 16:52 mark of the January 25th, 2021 episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz states the following:
Senator Ted Cruz: “President Trump’s rhetoric, I think, went way too far over the line. I think it was both reckless and irresponsible because he said repeatedly—and he said over and over again—he won by a landslide; there was massive fraud; it was all stolen everywhere. That evidence, the campaign did not prove that in any court, and to make a determination about an election it has to be based on the evidence, and so simply saying the result you want, that’s not responsible and you’ve never heard me use language like that. What I’ve said is voter fraud is real, and we need to examine the evidence, and look at the actual facts; and in particular, what is the evidence of how much voter fraud occurred, and did it occur in sufficient quantities and in sufficient states to alter the outcome of the election. That would have been the mandate of the election commission; to assess.”
And later around the 25-minute mark, he refers to the events of January 6th, 2021 as “a terrorist attack on the United States Capital.”
Republicans better wake up! They either act now or the GOP will be the minority party in the United States moving forward.
I admit my up close knowledge of this is limited, I assume that you are referring to the children of a terrorist killed in a drone strike some years back?
He was a naturalized “American” because he was born on American soil?
I think you and I are correct in thinking that the “Jus Soli” concept is abhorrent, and that the USA is one of the few sucker countries in the world that still somehow recognizes this...I don’t know why. You and I are in total agreement is is stupidity beyond the pale to allow this. Very few other countries do...I think a handful, probably less than five worldwide if my memory serves me correctly.
If the law states that being born on American soil is all that is required for someone to be a naturally born American and eligible for the Presidency (and that is apparently the interpretation however crappy) then we need to change the law and explicitly fix it. But if the law allows that, I can hardly fault Levin for making the statement that his kids had American citizenship since the residency requirement (of having to live in the USA for some time period to be legally a natural born citizen) was removed some decades ago, I think.
It is all meaningless now anyway. The Left has never had, and has no intention of adhering to law, and Republicans are only interested in maintaining a seat on the gravy train, and law and elections are now officially farces. They will allow whoever they wish to do whatever they want, and we are, at this time, powerless to do anything.
What are we going to do? Vote them out of office? Like that is going to happen...
Liar Ted. He keeps earning that nickname.
Natural born citizen means one is naturally a citizen according to Natural Law, if one can be something else at the time of birth because of parentage or location, they are not naturally a citizen.
No made made laws are necessary for the citizenship of a natural born citizen because they could not be anything else.
No laws can change natural born citizen, either, not even that phony resolution that they passed for McCain who was born in Panama, the country, not the Canal Zone.
McCain was specifically chosen as the Designated Loser because of his ineligibility and his sympathetic story being born to parents serving abroad to cover for the Kenyanesian Usurper.
Both parties have wanted the natural born citizen clause neutered for quite some time.
George Romney was one of the first attempts to breach it.
What has that to do with the question in view, or the incident addressed?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To show that statements need to be taken in context.
Ted Cruz hits his wife is a fact. Sounds pretty bad. Until it’s followed with the fact that he elbowed his wife accidentally. Most rational people would agree that it would not be fair to state that Ted Cruz hits his wife without stating the other fact that he hit her accidentally. If Ted Cruz is going to throw out verbal bombs at Trump then he needs to state ALL of the facts behind Trumps comments. Given everything we have witnessed over the last four years, on election night, and then in the weeks following the election, Trump has plenty of cause to make the statements he did.
For Cruz to attempt to make it seem like Trump is nuts for making the statements he made with zero cause is just grossly unfair and points to a political weasel reading tea leaves and instead of his wife, this time elbowing Trump.
No, I meant exactly what I said. For the first time since Reagan, people on the right didn’t have to grudgingly vote for the lesser of two evils.
You are welcome to disagree, but your insults won’t change my mind.
I was very impressed with Cruz’s speech when he announced his candidacy, even sent him money. I came to regret that donation as his fundraising operation was the most annoying and aggressive that I have ever encountered.
The events around the Iowa caucus turned me off, as when the Cruz campaign spread lies about Ben Carson. His use of the slimy Jeff Roe as campaign manager was troubling, as were his connections to Goldman-Sachs and his unreported loans.
I remember how the atmosphere here at FR grew toxic as the campaign progressed. There was a cadre of never-Trumper Cruz supporters who formed into a virtual lynch mob that went from thread to thread viciously attacking anyone who supported Trump.
Remember Libby Lu’s opus?
If Cruz’s Bible waving was so attractive to the Evangelicals, where were they in the primaries? Maybe they sensed he was a phony.
Sorry, but I soured quickly on Cruz, and I don’t doubt that many others did as well.
For all his faults, Trump had what it took to attract what had been called “Reagan Democrats” into his camp with his America First stance.
He came across as genuine, and people reacted to his positive message and overlooked his occasional crudeness. Yes, 2016 was close. But if there had been no fraud, Trump would have won in 2020 by an absolute landslide. In those intervening four years, many who had doubts became ardent supporters.
On the other hand, Cruz only comes across as a slick snake oil salesman.
After what we have seen since in the aftermath of the 2020 “election”, do you really think the GOP would have stood up to Hillary in Congress if she had beaten Trump? No, they would have caved in to their “friends across the aisle” as they always do.
Trump did something that none of the other 2016 Republican hopefuls could have done.
He gave us a chance to vote FOR someone, and I was proud to do so.
I voted FOR Trump, you voted AGAINST Hillary.
There really is a difference.
Ted is all talk and no action just like Linda Graham. Useless to our cause.
Thanks for those links...its obvious that the the many GOPe on this thread did not follow each state’s litigation or hearings on the election steal.
Nor did Cruz. it appears.
I have heard the same complaint. Rudy is one of the top litigators in the country. The fact remains not one judge was willing to look at anything.
Didn’t expect anything else from the eGOP idiot who said at the RNC Convention in 2016 for us to “vote our conscience”, meaning to vote for Hillary and against Trump.
He folded like a cheap camera under media and democrat pressure. Trump is everything Cruz isn’t. A fighter til the end. America first. We’ll just have to “Liz Cheney” him. So fat the only ones who impress me for 2024 are Matt Gaetz, Rick DeSantis, Vernon Jones and Christy Nome.
I remember that!
That's not what I "heard" when I listened to him in the interview that was under scrutiny, not what I saw when I read and reread the verbatim text of exactly what he said.
My impression is that Cruz very much wanted Trump to win the election, that he had watched the process of exposing the false vote counts, and explained the fact that Trump's team had so badly mismanaged the presentation of evidence in the courts that the various judges up to and including the Supreme Court could not even permit themselves to review the data, and had to let the testimony of the election officials in the critical states prevail.
Brlieve me, I wanted Trump to win the election, but leading up to it I read "rigged" in Kamala Harris's smirk of utter confidence when she appeared publicly. I put what money I could on Donald and Mike, not just my mouth. I simply could not believe that anyone in his right mind would ever consider Joe Biden for dogcatcher, let alone the Presidency. I firmly believe that the balloting was rigged and the election so skewed that it had to be an outright dishonestly conducted process that awarded Biden such an unbelievable surplus of votes from an irresponsive public.
Nevertheless, overall, Trump's team did not submit court-acceptable documentation--apart from the content--to PROVE that unlawful activity of a significant amount went on, despite all the public wailing. You have to know how the legal system works, meet the process requirements, and follow the format before the court can review the substance. The object is to avoid a judge's decision being itself reviewed and found lacking, which no judge want to happen. Either the Trump team did not know how to do this, or they did not want to follow instructions. Giulani was inexperienced and inept, should never have been allowed near the litigation, or at least should have been replaced early on, to get the material (substantial part) in proper shape (pro forma) and submitted to the correct court branch (point of access) to even get the materia accepted, let alone reviewed.
That's what I understand, and it has nothing to do with Cruz' character or likeability.
That's all Cruz was saying, the truth. He did not say that fraud did not exist, nor did he say that the proof was not there, nor that the dishonesty could not be proven. What he did say was that it wasn't, according to the standards and process of the law that we live under. You can't honorably hold saying it against him.
What do you mean by Natural Born Citizen according to Natural Law?
I understand the concept of Natural Law as it relates to rights that are inalienable to all human beings that come from God, and not granted by any government.
How does citizenship relate to that? Are you saying that both parents must be citizens, and that the child must be born to them on American soil or in a US territory?
Not being a wise guy, just trying to understand your definition.
The girl was being a brat.
And Cruz was wrong to make that statement regarding President Trump.
Izzat so? The internet says otherwise, Louis:
Was Rudy Giuliani ever a good lawyer? (click here)
Excerpts (my bolding added for emphasis on certain points):
Giuliani had shortcomings, Shechtman acknowledged, like tending to “surround himself with people who confirmed his judgment. But he was a good lawyer and a good U.S. attorney, and that office thrived under his leadership.”=============
But a former opponent said Giuliani’s prosecutorial work may have been less impressive than it appeared to the public. Part of the reason Giuliani looked good at the Southern District is that it’s always been the best-staffed and most prestigious U.S. attorney’s office in the country. Veteran defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt said it’s easy to shine when backed by an office stacked with some of the best and brightest prosecutors, along with the full arsenal of federal law enforcement agencies. The Southern District of New York U.S. attorney’s office “makes all the big cases in the country, no matter who heads it,” he said.
Lefcourt repeatedly squared off with Giuliani and was not impressed. One case was the Friedman corruption trial, where Lefcourt represented co-defendant Marvin Kaplan, a businessman. The trial unfolded in New Haven, using Hartford-area jurors. The venue change was needed because Giuliani kept leaking, biasing the pool of potential jurors in New York’s media market, Lefcourt said.
When Giuliani personally cross-examined Friedman, Lefcourt said he and the other defense attorneys successfully objected again and again. Lefcourt said the defense “absolutely destroyed” the prosecution’s key cooperator, Geoffrey Lindenauer, a man who once used a bogus psychotherapy institute as a way to bed patients.
The crash and burn was so complete, Lefcourt said, prosecutors needed a brief break to bring in more witnesses, each with prosecutorial immunity.
Friedman, Kaplan and others were convicted, and the verdicts were largely upheld on appeal. But Lefcourt linked the results to the other trial prosecutors and extra witnesses. “Whatever Rudy did was totally ineffectual,” he said.
George Arzt, now a public relations consultant, closely followed Giuliani and the Friedman case as the New York Post’s City Hall bureau chief. “Boy, did that office leak,” said Arzt, who’d later become Mayor Ed Koch’s press secretary and a Democratic consultant.
Arzt said that these days, Giuliani is “sort of a high-priced PR person,” doing his advocacy in the court of public opinion, not a court of law. “I don’t know the last time he was in the courtroom. But as for muddying the waters, he’s done a great job,” said Arzt. “He loved the headlines then, but now he’s much more in love with the limelight and his national status.”
That pull to stay a bold-faced name may lead Giuliani to spout off provocative or overstated comments in media interviews, said the same former colleague who did not want to be identified. “The problem with the press is it’s really a narcotic. … It’s hard when the music stops, and it stopped for him.”
If there’s one common thread in Giuliani’s recent gaffes, it’s a lack of caution. “What Rudy doesn’t talk about, in our world, it is not uncommon for clients to mislead and/or lie, or color the facts when speaking to their lawyer,” said Ira Lee Sorkin, a prominent white-collar defense attorney who was a young prosecutor with Giuliani in the 1970s. Though working in different sections of the office, Sorkin said Giuliani had a good reputation.
But Giuliani was now overlooking some key things, Sorkin said.
“I’m not hearing really good lawyers say, ‘He didn’t rob the bank.’ They are saying, ‘My client denies robbing the bank,’” Sorkin said. And Giuliani hasn’t been making those critical caveats here.
For Lefcourt, that illuminated a key point about how Giuliani’s lawyering has changed: “I don’t think he shot as much from the hip as he does now.”
(2) The fact remains not one judge was willing to look at anything.
Louis, what you said there is simply wrong, and wrong in several instances for several judges. Here's the detailed account regarding the Pennsylvania case where the judge gave Giuliani several chances to be heard. You should read it through before you speak again on this issue. The following is a link that describes in detail the progress of Trump's team on the case against The Pennsylvania voting outcome. Though its source is WaPo, it seems rather even-handed in how the progress is presented. You need to read it through to see Giuliani's inept personal conduct:
I do not think you ought to describe Giuliani as a great litigator. When you do a StartPage (Google-based) search on the subject "Rudy Giuliani rating as litigator" the number of complimentary articles coming up are rather sparse. That should be a sign to anyone who wishes to defend Rudy's value as a litigator, eh?
No personal offense intended, Louis. I long to have had the genuine evidence effectively presented to overturn the Electors' decision.
I feel cheated, and doubly so when commenters make statements that "no voter fraud existed" or that "Trump's claims were baseless" or that "Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol." All these are big fat lies. So is the one that "Trump's lawyer Giuliani's case was not heard, just thrown out."
I voted FOR Trump, you voted AGAINST Hillary.
There really is a difference.
Yes, there certainly is, both in underplaying the damaging effect of Donald's characteristic unfeeling ungentlemanly rudeness both before, during, and after the 2016 primaries and campaign, and your overstatement of Cruz's perceived lack of forthrightness.
My reluctance to support Trump in the 2016 campaign was based on his very obvious shooting from the hip without concern of who else might be hurt in the process, coupled with the idea that a day later all will be forgotten. You voted for him in spite of this known behavior, and so did I, knowing that Hillary's overall politics was socialistic and freedom-destroying; while Trump's was at least selfshly capitalistic with personal liberty at the core, which he in his lifestyle had explored to the limits, including divorces and extramarital peccadillos. It looks like you voted FOR him, including these characteristics, knowing that they also would affect his politics.
However, in the succeeding four years, I felt that we benefitted from his leadership in several areas, and was convinced to support him and his cohorts in the past campaign.
At this point, I feel robbed by political criminals who made my support in both good will and in cash of no effect, stolen from me by hijacking the elective process.
I don't know what you make of that, but you're a hard marker on one of the few legislators who have continued to back the Trumpists even after the January 6th episode, where he was scheduled as one of the speakers, though in the same day he had to be present in the Senate part of the Capitol to pass on the submission of the Electors' votes.
Cruz said that President Trump’s repeated statements regarding voter fraud were reckless and irresponsible. Trump got very little from the judicial system in the way of a brake either with the voter fraud argument or the constitutional/state legislatures argument. There was nothing wrong with Giuliani, et al, it’s just that the judicial system, for the most part, failed 75+ million voters, and failed the Constitution.
I don’t know what’s currently driving Ted Cruz, but it appears to be the case that he’s arrived at the end of the line on the loyalty train. Kuddos to Rand Paul, who knows how to conduct himself in a principled manner.
Don't get it wrong, I'm all for Trump and Constitutional liberty (which implies a cost to the hard-nosed citizen).
You need to deal with facts, not unsatisfied wishes.
You need to be a little less condescending.
Cruz put the shiv in Trump’s back. Actually, he put the shiv into MAGA’s back. I’ve always been a big Cruz supporter, but this is over the line. I read the quote, and I saw the video. I even backed it up a bit to make sure I had the full context.
There is no love lost between me and Rudy Giuliani, but I saw videos of him at state hearings and press conferences, and thought he did well. I would have to investigate the sources you quoted critical of him to find out their political leanings and any prejudices before I would accept them as being trustworthy. Considering WaPo as a reliable source is just plain laughable.
The Republican party can go straight to f*king hell for all I care.
As it stands right now, I’ll never vote again. Never.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.