Posted on 04/20/2016 12:13:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican Donald Trump’s top staffer in Iowa accused rival Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) campaign Tuesday of blatantly bribing delegates but backpedaled on the accusations when pressed for specifics.
Asked on CNN whether the Cruz campaign has proved better at “gathering” delegates so far in the race, Tana Goertz, Iowa co-chair for the Trump campaign, responded they haven’t been ethically collecting delegates at all.
“Oh, no, no, no, not gathering delegates, stealing, lying, and bribing people to become delegates. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear,” Goertz, a former contest on “The Apprentice,” responded with a smile.
But when CNN hosts John Berman and Kate Bolduan followed up, Goertz was thin on the details but claimed she’d “seen it in action” working on the ground.
“Oh just, you know, bribing people to become a delegate for him and what and what he'll promise them I do not know because I actually didn't have a recording device to hear the bribes,” she said.
Bolduan pressed on about what exactly Goertz had seen, saying it was the first time they’d heard from a Trump staffer who reported seeing bribery of delegates in action.
Goertz said she’s witnessed the “corruptness” of the “rigged system” that Trump talks about on the campaign trail.
The CNN hosts didn’t let her off the hook.
“But Tana, you stated several things,” Berman began. “First of all, you have seen corruptness. I'm curious exactly what corruptness looks like. But you said you've seen the bribes in action but you said you don't have specifics about what was being offered. Doesn't a bribe require something specific being offered? What was offered? If you're accusing them of bribing, you should be able to back that up.”
Goertz said she would be happy to provide specifics after she spoke with Trump himself.
“Well, once I talk to Mr. Trump about it and he says I'm at liberty to say these things, I will be more than happy to come back on your show and explain to you about what I saw,” she said.
Bolduan tried again: “But you have definitely seen a bribe occur?”
“I have seen shady behavior. Let's just call it that,” Goertz answered. “But until I speak to Mr. Trump, I'm not at liberty to discuss this.”
Later on the show, Cruz's delegate adviser Ken Cuccinelli called the allegations "BS" and another of the Trump campaign's "Gestapo tactics."
Watch the exchange, captured by TPM:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
How about paying for a delegates entire trip to the convention, room, meals, perhaps a laptop to stay informed with, etc. which all total could cost minimum $6,000.? Could that be considered buying or bribing?
““Lyin’ Trump” is just as inaccurate as “Lyin’ Cruz”.”
Lyin’ Ted is an accurate description of Ted Cruz, because Canadian born and Canadian citizen Ted Cruz lied when he claimed to be a natural born citizen of the United States in violation of the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court statement: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” Consequently, “A person” such as Ted Cruz “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
This is the case you quoted, and in context it does not seem to say what you think. That would mean that Cruz is not lying. I'm not saying that you are lying either, just mistaken. Several courts have ruled on whether Cruz is eligible, some finding in his favor on procedural grounds, but at least some finding in his favor on substance if I remember correctly. Thus, his statement is at worst a question in dispute, rather than a lie.
If you really love Hillary, keep up the divisive comments. I'd like to think that conservatives won't take offense even when a candidate they love is slammed dozens of times a day by supporters of a candidate they only like. I'm sure you'd like to think that too, but are you willing to bet our country's survival on it? Trump has a lot of votes, a third more than Cruz, but Cruz also has far too many votes to dismiss. Offending Cruz voters is not the best strategy for putting Trump in the White House. Please reconsider the systematic attacks on a candidate whose supporters Trump will need in November.
That must be God’s right hand.
Her boss makes up far more believable lies, and rarely gets challenged on them.
The head of the Trump campaign lied and slandered Cruz.
She felt like Trump she could level baseless allegations.
Cuccinelli admitted to using that accusation on Sunday. Said that the Trump campaign was literally threatening violence against delegates.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- you've used a similar kind of rhetoric. You've actually accused the Trump campaign of Gestapo tactics.ABC This Week - April 17, 2016Name one.
CUCCINELLI: Yes, absolutely. How about calling for riots in the street?
How about threats: we're going to go to the hotel rooms of delegates; death threats to the Colorado Republican chairman?
I can give you answers to those questions, George, but they can't. And they keep using the rhetoric. This is a banana republic approach from the Trump team because they're getting beat on the ground.
Your memory is correct. However, if you know the relevant precedents, and you look at the decisions favorable to Cruz, your impression would be different. The decisions favorable to Cruz do not apply the relevant precedents to the question.
I won't disagree with the contention that there is a current dispute as to the law, but 50 years ago there would be no dispute, and if the stakes weren't so prominent in the public eye (i.e., if this was an immigration case that affected only Ted Cruz, and not an election), the court would not evade the inevitable outcome.
Of course it’s bribery. IIRC, the candidate can do anything and everything to get a delegate’s votes except hand over actual money. How is that not bribery — footing the bill for “entertainment”, airfare, hotel rooms, lavish meals?
Are you kidding me right now?
erm, head’s up that should be a lower case ‘g’ teeman8r, as it’s the globalist establishment hand... ;)
i guess it is all how one spins it.
hehehe
good luck to your guy.
Go TED!
Tana is a nice gal, just over her head in this.
You are implying that the Cruz campaign is dining Iowa delegates to garner their vote. Who? I want to know. I might just k ow these folks.
We know Ted is doing stuff to turn delegates after a first vote, but I doubt anyone has the time to find records and video of what is done in the dark.
Also who is going to name directly source on air.
Better we clean how things are done up.
No, I’m not kidding. If she has proof, she should produce it. Why would she need anyone’s permission to do that if a crime is being committed?
“This is the case you quoted, and in context it does not seem to say what you think.”
No, that is just you waving your hands in the general direction of the U.S. Supreme Court decision and falsely denying the plain written words of the accurate statement in that case. The statement is an accurate statement of the actual practice of the U.S. Government and the findings in prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which any child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents and without the protection of diplomatic immunity were denied any form of U.S. citizenship until and unless a U.S. Naturalization Act specifically naturalized the child as a naturalized U.S. citizen. If a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents and without the protection of diplomatic immunity was in actual natural born citizen, they could not have been and would not have been denied U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court did in fact deny such children born abroad any form of U.S. citizenship in the years between the Naturalization Act of 1802 to the later acts of Congress in 1855, 1866, and later. So, history proves beyond any reasonable doubt and beyond any shadow of a doubt that a child born abroad did not historically and cannot today acquire U.S. citizenship by any means whatsoever other than naturalization as a naturalized citizen.
“That would mean that Cruz is not lying.”
History demonstrates beyond any possible question that Ted Cruz can only be a naturalized U.S. citizen or else no U.S. citizen at all of any lawful kind. Ted Cruz appears to have known he was not a natural born citizen of the U.S. when he ordered his Senate campaign workers to remove the biographical posters mentioning his birth in Canada and/or his Canadian citizenship. This means busTED Cruz cannot escape history and the fact the Lyin’ Ted moniker is accurate enough to ring true with the vast majority of the electorate.
“I’m not saying that you are lying either, just mistaken. Several courts have ruled on whether Cruz is eligible, some finding in his favor on procedural grounds, but at least some finding in his favor on substance if I remember correctly. Thus, his statement is at worst a question in dispute, rather than a lie.”
A crowd of 1,001 fallen angels singing the praises of busted Cruz in the stormy heavens cannot change the historical reality that a child such as Ted Cruz born abroad cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States, not even when the fallen angels include those in formal robes such as Sotomayor or Roberts. Any jurist who tries to do so will only be corrupting the court and the judiciary even more than we have already witnessed in so many other recent cases handled by the recent U.S. Supreme Courts and their inferior courts.
“If you really love Hillary, keep up the divisive comments.”
That comment reflects the reason why the voters are rejecting Ted Cruz as a dishonest candidate and his supporters for aiding and abetting the dishonesty of Ted Cruz. The opposition to such candidates has been in place long before Ted Cruz was born as a Canadian citizen in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Time and again the Republicans and the Democrats have tried to pass and ratify an Amendment to the Constitution that would remove the natural born citizen clause, because they knew any candidate born abroad or born domestically without two U.S. citizen parents was not a natural born citizen. After many of these attempts to adopt such an amendment failed, they changed tactics and chose to use the three branches of government, control of the two major political parties, and control of the media to simply deny the historical meaning and legal precedents of natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship to nullify the natural born citizen clause. They are relying upon people like Barack Hussein Obama, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Nikki Haley, and supporters like yourself to accomplish their objectives.
You folks have had fair warning for many many years, Nonetheless, you folks have disregarded all such warnings that have been around since before Ted Cruz was born that pushing forward such a candidate who actually is an unlawful candidate or who is at least reasonably suspected of being an unlawful candidate can only divide the Republican Party and the U.S. electorate when it came time for the General Election. If you folks did not want to risk a divided political party, you should have heeded these warnings that have been around since before Charles Hughes was defeated by the Democrats.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, and here you are still trying to divide the Republican Party with a candidate who has already lost the popular vote, lost most of the bound delegates, and remains subject to disqualification as a lawful Presidential candidate or an unlawful President Elect. You are in no position to be falsely accusing people, who are defending the Constitution and the rule of law in accordance with the plain written words of the law and the historical record of such children born abroad being denied U.S. citizenship, of dividing the Republican Party in this election. If you do not want to risk a divided Republican Party in this election, you can do so by prevailing upon busTED Cruz to end his illegal campaign and support the candidate with the most votes against the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.
You are so naïve. This is politics we are talking about. Maybe her proof is only eyewitnessing, which would turn into a "he said, she said."
She owes it to her employer, a candidate whose every move is splashed across the media in lurid and contentious language, not to embroil herself into a potentially no-win situation without his being able to consult his lawyers. Look at the false accusation agains Lewandowski, that even a black woman official had to dismiss based on the evidence -- AFTER Lewandowski and Trump were pillioried in the press during a campaign. And how about the prostitute allegations against Cruz? Everything in a campaign gets the tabloid treatment. So a prudent person checks with her boss before making an accusation.
My point is not that we should all vote for Cruz in November of this year. It is that a reasonable person could read Cruz as a citizen at birth under common law, and common law governs the meaning of undefined terms in the Constitution. Keeping in mind that I want a first-ballot decision at the Convention and will be voting for Trump on Tuesday . . .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The case you referenced is about: “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”
This is the opposite situation to the issue of Ted Cruz, who was a child of a US citizen born in Canada. Since the common law determination of Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship overturned by SCOTUS was that the baby born to a Chinese citizen mother in the United States was Chinese, that would imply a reasonable common law interpretation that baby Ted Cruz born to a US citizen mother in Canada was American. Canada also granted baby Ted citizenship at birth, but the US does not recognize foreign law as taking precedence over US law or over common law (see, for example, US citizens visiting Iran or Cuba and claimed as Iranian/Cuban citizens when they are foolish enough to visit the country their parents came from).
The SCOTUS decision then goes on:
“And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that ‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.’ The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/114/417/ ; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/616/ ; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/124/465/ . The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/91/270/case.html . [p655]
I edited the above slightly to include the links that are on the law.Cornell webpage.
Moore says in the relevant passage: “Where Congress has not provided, and no special reasons demand, a different rule, the rules of evidence, as found in the common law, ought to govern the action of the Court of Claims.”
Smith says in the relevant passage: “There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which, therefore, is gradually formed by the judgments of this court, in the application of the constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject, and constitutes a common law resting on national authority. Moore v. U. S., 91 U. S. 270.”
In Boyd: “No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of the common law. If no such excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.”
The legal point in each case is that Common Law is to be used to decide the definitions of words in the Constitution, constitutionality, and legality when no explicit definition is provided.
The case you cited, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, argued that Wong Kim Ark was under common law not a US citizen because his parents were Chinese and subject to the Emperor regardless of their location and thus he was Chinese: “Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China. Because the said Wong Kim Ark has been at all times, by reason of his race, language, color and dress, a Chinese person, and now is, and for some time last past has been, a laborer by occupation.”
This seems to me to imply that under common law, since until this ruling the child of a Chinese citizen gained what US law recognized as common law Chinese citizenship at birth and not US citizenship, the child of a US citizen analogously gained US citizenship under common law at birth, even if born overseas. If, as I consider reasonable, you read the Constitution as Scalia did, under the meanings current when adopted, then common law citizenship would derive from the citizenship of the parents in the case of Wong Kim Ark and thus, since that was the originalist interpretation, in the case of Ted Cruz. Wong Kim Ark was not the first case where legal citizenship was assumed to match that of the parents, just the first case where the Supreme Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment to override that common law determination of citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark seems to imply that citizenship was inherited from parents, if the parents remained subject to their head of state, regardless of where a child was born.
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.