Game Change: Trump Consults with Sen Jeff Sessions on Immigration Strategy

Breitbart ^ | 08/14/2015 | Julia Hahn

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In what may be the most important development in the 2016 Presidential race to date, Donald Trump has announced, and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) office has confirmed, that the GOP front-runner is consulting with the Alabama Senator in crafting his immigration plan for the future of America.

The real estate mogul’s announcement will send shock waves through Washington D.C. and all across primary states.

Trump, whose campaign has focused primarily on issues of immigration and trade, has seen a meteoric rise since entering the race, with throngs of supporters across the country rocketing him to the top of every single poll, despite an extraordinary effort of establishment Republicans to take him down. Republican pundits have lobbed every imaginable accusation at Trump. Yet these same pundits, while seemingly furious at the man, have demonstrated no similar concern, angst, or passion about the dissolution of our southern border, the rampant exploitation of guest-worker programs, the collapse of middle class wages, and the growing illegal immigrant crime wave.

[papertyger]

How about defining a meaning from the quoted portion?

Believe it or not, "divining" was not a typo ;)

I'm not troubled by his lack of a clear articulation for his insurance plan, because I'm fully confident in his having actually provided insurance.

The man simply does not speak in "contract language," and I think it is rather parochial to believe he should.

[Paul R.]

Well, that's a pretty twisted article:

First, candidates go back to previous subjects all the time, in debates and interviews. To accuse Trump of being loopy when he resurrected the earlier topic of Iraq's destabilization before going back to Health Care (after a question about Health Care), is... loopy. Or disingenuous. Or both.

That doesn't mean I agree with Trump (or you, I'm afraid) regarding Iraq. IMO Trump is correct about "leaving a vacuum" (in effect), but there's no reason we should have done that after having positioned ourselves so well. (This is actually a much deeper discussion than I have time or room for here, so I'll just go Trump-like and state broadly that after knocking out Saddam H., the U.S., and ESPECIALLY Obama, really screwed up an excellent opportunity.)

Anyway, back to our article, the writer basically argues that Trump manages to be both pro choice (free enterprise health care with maximized competition) and pro no-choice (single payer gov't health care) in a few sentences, and that this is contradictory. I partially agree with the writer, but the writer misses the point: WHY, Mr. Trump, do you think single payer could have worked in the US 15 years ago, and not now? I don't see it myself, but I also don't see anyone asking Trump to explain. (Maybe it's in one of his earlier books - I haven't read them all, and it's been a while.) OTOH, there is no contradiction in saying that single payer can work well in some situations / countries (I believe Scotland was the prime example) whereas for the US, the free market would be better.

As an aside, and I'll probably get flamed for this: As much as I oppose single payer gov't run health care for OUR country, I'm not so sure it would not be better than ObamaCare. With ObamaCare you basically have a near-Fascist if not Fascist system in which Big Gov't and Big Health Business collude to drain the middle class dry, and no one can be held responsible. With single payer, at least the average "customer" knows who's responsible for the mess.

At any rate, personally, I would be happier if Trump simply said "I've studied this in more depth, over the past few years, and I was wrong about single payer in the US." But what candidate is going to say something like that?

Then, the writer attacks Trump for not explaining his (Trump's) "different system" for those who can't pay for their health care. For one thing, Trump was out of time, and in addition was rudely interrupted by Rand Paul, which blew up further discussion on Trump's last words. What is Trump supposed to do, explain his idea in detail in 5 seconds?

The writer doesn't provide this background - more disingenuity on his part, IMO. (Half the truth...)

Sure, I want Trump to explain in more detail. I'm just that kind of person. But, again I would stress at this point in the campaign: If Trump is not asked, why should he go into details? The bigger need is to establish an environment in which enough voters have faith that the GOPe can be blown up, that it can actually happen.

I'd also point out that MOST of these candidates say some really goofy "stuff". I really like Sen. Cruz, for example, but in the debate he said this:

"There’s 7 billion people across the face of the globe, many of whom want to come to this country. If they come legally, great."

Now, I'm sure if called on it, Sen. Cruz would "clarify" that "legally" includes "in limited numbers that we determine". The astute might assume that such is implied. But, the average voter? Are you kidding? Especially with Cruz favoring increased legal immigration...

[Gene Eric]

>> Obama, really screwed up an excellent opportunity.

Yup, and for the entirety of the World.

[nathanbedford]

I understand we are embarking on a discussion about crony capitalism, how it applies to Mrs. Cruz, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. I hope this will be conducted on the merits. In that spirit, I have undertaken to set forth the state of my understanding about these matters and some background to let you know where I am coming from in the hope that you will conclude that it is from a respectable motive rather than ego. I also presume to set forth at the end my reasons why Cruz is more attractive on this issue than Trump. Of course it's lengthy, that comes with the territory with Nathan Bedford.

I share your concern about crony capitalism, I think you can believe me when I say that I have lengthy posts decrying the dangers of crony capitalism. Indeed, my last post was about Walker's basketball Stadium in which it was noted, "celebrity capitalism is no better than crony capitalism."

In particular, I share your concern about Goldman Sachs. I am fully aware of its penetration of the American government in Democrat and Republican administrations alike. It is clear that Goldman Sachs has its tentacles in Washington and in the Fed. It may be that the most powerful organization in America is not the government but Goldman Sachs-or so many Germans believe.

I am aware that Goldman Sachs profited immensely, indeed was probably saved from bankruptcy, by the intervention of the government in guaranteeing loans and in saving AIG from bankruptcy which would have meant the end of Goldman Sachs. I am aware that Goldman Sachs, prior to the crash, had been writing derivatives betting against products that they were selling to their clients to whom they owe a fiduciary responsibility but to whom they failed to tell that they were betting against their own advice. When AIG was going under even those derivatives could not save Goldman Sachs from their own cupidity.

I am aware, or at least I believe, that Goldman Sachs exploited its relationship with the government to save itself. It is not clear to me whether the initial $700 billion was necessary to save the whole economy as well as just Goldman Sachs and a few players, I am inclined to think it was but I don't know. It is clear to me, or least I believe, that the follow-on $1 trillion done by Obama was sheer crony capitalism (for lack of a better description) and a payoff to his party and a way of financing leftism for a generation but was a sham and a fraud from the beginning as phony as "shovel ready jobs."

It does not appear that Mrs. Cruz had anything to do with any of those decisions, she was in Texas after being in the Bush administration and these decisions were obviously made above her pay grade, but I stand to be informed. It is not clear that she would or would not have approved of those decisions, although it stretches credulity to think that she would not. In this context, the public statements of the candidate himself become instructive:

"Like any institution, there's some of both," Cruz responded, adding, "Goldman is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism. They give favors to Wall Street and big business and that's why I've been an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism, taking on leaders in both parties. I think big business, if they're building a better mousetrap, great, but it shouldn't be government favoring, and let me give you an example: Dodd-Frank. Sold to the American people as stopping 'too-big-to-fail.' What happened? The big banks have gotten bigger. Goldman has gotten bigger..."

Halperin pressed Cruz as to what he saw as the negative aspects of the investment giant were.

"Because, like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government," Cruz responded. "I think they're entitled to practice their business, but without subsidies or special benefits." ( http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-24/ted-cruz-knocks-goldman-sachs-employer-of-his-wife ).

For a decidedly left-wing perception I refer you to Ted Cruz’s Crony-Capitalism Problemwww.Ted Cruz’s Crony-Capitalism Problem which alleges some pretty small potatoes crony capitalism connections in Jamaica which evidently Cruz and his wife divested themselves of before entering federal government service. I do this to make full disclosures of facts as I find them and to refute any charge that I am selective in presenting facts.

Sometimes one gets a new perspective on his own country when he lives out of it as an ex-pat which, as you know, I have been doing here in Germany. I cannot tell you about the unsettling proportion of my neighbors who are convinced that America is the font of most of the problems in the world and that the American people are fine but "the bankers," especially Goldman Sachs, are running the world and bringing us to the verge of war and ruin. There is a real element of anti-Semitism in this.

There is a difference, however, between the conspiracy theories right here in Germany (I think more than 30% of Germans believe the CIA blew up the World Trade Center) believing that the likes of Goldman Sachs are manipulating the world and our perception that crony capitalism with people like Goldman Sachs is distorting the American economy, producing distortions in income and wealth and stunting growth. This, of course, is quite different from the complaint from the conspiracy theorists here in Germany who think Goldman Sachs is starting wars for oil over all over the world.

So we are talking about Goldman Sachs operating at the very highest level in America and having influence around the world, much of which is undeniably pernicious. I have heard, although I cannot find a citation to the effect, that Wendy Cruz's involvement with Goldman Sachs was limited to Texas and did not operate at the stratospheric levels we are talking about. Again, I stand to be informed. What exactly was her level of involvement?

Incidentally, it appears that Cruz declined to reveal the amount of his wife's income from Goldman Sachs in a disclosure form, an option which was perfectly permissible.

When we choose a candidate as conservatives we are not free to mold a perfect figure as was Michelangelo in sculpting the David. We must pick one from the field. I do not have any real evidence of Cruz engaging in serious crony capitalism. I cannot accurately assess the involvement of his wife but her employment appears to be collateral and in a satellite office of Goldman Sachs. I have Ted Cruz' unequivocal statements against crony capitalism and his particularized complaints against Goldman Sachs. Against that we have Donald Trump's admitted and cynical exploitation of the system to personally profit from crony capitalism.

We hear that in rejecting Ted Cruz and selecting Donald Trump from this field we can safely discount Donald Trump's history of actually "corrupt" playing at the game of crony capitalism. We are reassured that Donald Trump is incorruptible because he doesn't need anyone's money. This even though he admits he paid money to politicians to corrupt them, that is to get favors and cooperation.

Now we are expected to believe that when Donald Trump changes sides in this equation and becomes a politician he would not be corrupt even though he was corrupt on the other side of the same equation.

Granted, Trump does not need anyone's money but he has needed favors and cooperation and he has demonstrated that he was willing to go to corrupt lengths to get it. Should he gain the highest office in the land he will, just like every other president, need favors and cooperation from Congressman, bureaucrats, governors, judges, media personalities, and foreign players.

Should we believe this admittedly corrupt player in the crony capitalist game will no longer be corrupt when he becomes a politician? Are we to believe that Trump will change his stripes when he changes sides in the equation?

The Art of the Deal is about more than money, it is about power, it is about manipulation. Politicians are not corrupt only when they are venal, they are corrupt because they are God players. They seek political power because they seek power over people and events and government offers the greatest scope for that ambition. It is an ego trip. The obvious example is Hillary Clinton but Hillary Clinton's ego is no bigger than Donald Trump's; both are classic narcissists. To believe that Donald Trump will put aside corrupt practices when he is playing for power instead of for money is naïve in the extreme. It certainly courts a risk which we must evaluate when comparing his candidacy to the field, especially to the candidacy of Ted Cruz.

It's easy to look the other way when Trump promises things we like to get elected but what happens when the man is elected and starts doing things his ego persuades him to do that are utterly repugnant to conservative constitutional values? Do we call that corruption? Crony capitalism? Do we call that tyranny?

[nathanbedford]

The problem for conservatives who oppose a single-payer system with Donald Trump does not come from the interpretation by the author in the article, it comes from Trump's own words.

The reality is the Donald Trump was for single-payer system (even more statist than Obama care) before he was against it-except that he's not against it in Canada or Scotland, only here, only now.

The author of the article did not make this up, the moderator at the debate did not make this up, Rand Paul did not make this up, Donald Trump himself is the author of his own words and responsible for them.

This is not a question of semantics this is a question of fundamental conservative values. It is fundamental to conservatives that we do not have a single-payer system. Donald Trump likes the system-at least in a neighboring country and in Scotland.

Will Donald Trump like it again tomorrow?

How can you be sure?

[nathanbedford]

Believe it or not, "divining" was not a typo ;)

I actually read it right as "divining" and dictated it right but Dragon thought that we didn't mean what we were saying and wrote "defining." I did not catch it on the proofread. My apologies.

There are two downsides at least to using voice recognition software: 1) the temptation is to go on and on and I plead guilty; 2) odd mistakes sometimes appear and the brain plays tricks on proofread thinking that it is reading what you intended instead of what actually appears. I have had correspondence with a FReeper who is an editor who explains this phenomenon rather well.

[Seattle Conservative]

It is a beautiful thing :-) I was just reading that Dr. Carson wasn’t taking lobbyist money either.

I watched a Trump video yesterday where he was at the Iowa State Fair in front of his helicopter getting ready to give rides to kids. He said he had a lobbyist call him recently and offered to give $5 million to his campaign. He thanked him for the offer and said no. The lobbyist wanted to know why he wouldn’t accept it. He said because if I accept it now, you’ll call me in 2 years and want a favor from me; and then said something like: I’ll have to tell you no, or I don’t want to owe anyone.

[CatherineofAragon]

"That sounds exactly like someone who has amassed a great fortune /s"

Seriously?

Of course Trump does what's necessary when his interests are at stake. Otherwise, not so much. It astounds me that people haven't pegged him for the BS artist he is.

BTW, where's all that "blockbuster" information he was going to release about Obama's birth certificate...?

[CatherineofAragon]

"New Yorker magazine - an elitist liberal rag."

Yes, it is, just like elitist liberal Trump. The interview was done over a period of several days, and Trump never disputed a word of it after it was printed.

" But I digress ... The man is not worth TEN BILLION DOLLARS by way of failing to get things done."

Like I just posted, of course he makes good if it serves his interest. Otherwise he's a gasbag. You haven't been able to discern it from the first time you saw the man?

Still waiting for him to release the results of his Obama BC investigation, aren't we? That was only a few years ago...you know, when FR correctly regarded Trump as a joke.

[qaz123]

What documented? The activities of members of the State Dept?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/state-dept-inspector-general-us-ambassador-belgium-solicited-prostitutes-including-minors_735057.html

I used to work with quite a few guys that were MSGs. They said that some of what these people did was disgusting. Of course, they’re probably no different than anyone else these days. But, they get to do it all on the taxpayer dime and get everything swept under the rug, because not doing so would embarrass the country even more.

All someone has to do is get those assassins over at Judicial Watch on this. They way they operate, people will be running out of Foggy Bottom like the place was on fire.

[Hardens Hollow]

“Of course Trump does what’s necessary when his interests are at stake. Otherwise, not so much”

Straw man argument alert. You have no idea if he’s done anything kind to benefit others but are trying to force me to argue that he never has. you have no facts, either way apparently.

[CatherineofAragon]

I didn't say he hasn't done anything to benefit others. Keep it honest, now.

I have plenty of facts about Trump because I've researched him in a way his lovesick fans apparently never have.

Heck, just a couple of weeks ago, he admitted on "Morning Joe" that he's a Democrat on many issues. That fact alone should be enough for conservatives to drop him like a hot potato.

Yet you still defend him.

[Paul R.]

If it works for them and the Scots or the Canadians like their single payer systems, I can recognize their approval and still be opposed to single payer in / for the US. Our country is (supposed to be) based on liberty and personal responsibility. Others, not so much, perhaps, but I am not so arrogant as to close my mind to "different strokes working for different folks." ("Different strokes" should be within the bounds of: freedom of a people to choose their own system of governance, decency, and God's Word, of course.)

If someone would ask Trump why he changed his mind on health care in the US, from what he said 15 years ago, and he has a reasonable answer, then I would accept it. If he doesn't, I won't. Without further information, it's a question, but not a disqualifier. I hardly think that Trump got where he is today in the business world by reneging on what he says he will do.

Now, if you have CLEAR evidence Trump has double crossed people, hang it out here. Otherwise, Good Lord, here is an apparent example of a very successful and influential person coming over to our side of the health care argument, as regards THIS country, and you want to damn him for it?

Further, I'm not saying someone "made up" Trumps opinion of 15 years ago, or his opinion of what he thinks works elsewhere but would not work in the US. The writer's disingenuity comes elsewhere, as I specified. HERE the writer makes a weak attack, thinks in a straightjacket, and fails to ask the right question - that last in company with the mods and Sen. Paul.

Let me put it another way: I am at least as worried about what Ted Cruz says he will do to increase legal immigration as I am about what Trump might do as President contrary to what he (Trump) has been saying in recent years about health care in the US. No one candidate has sold me yet, to the exclusion of all others, and I think I'm a long way from being so "sold", outside of candidates like Jebbie, who I've pretty much ruled out.*

*We can agree on rejecting Jeb Bush, eh? :-)

I'll have to leave this at that, for now, as I'll be terribly busy for a few, perhaps several, days. Thanks for the civil discourse!

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

He picked the right guy on this one. It’s a promising sign.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Yet these same pundits, while seemingly furious at the man, have demonstrated no similar concern, angst, or passion about the dissolution of our southern border, the rampant exploitation of guest-worker programs, the collapse of middle class wages, and the growing illegal immigrant crime wave.

Nonsense. There is no lack of serious discussion of those issues from conservative writers who are not on board with Trump. Including some who are viciously reviled right here on FR. I will curb my fury and just say this author is mistaken.

[Paul R.]

Yes, that’s an example. Another (not in the State Dept., but truly revolting — at least this perv. got sentenced):

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-acting-hhs-cyber-security-director-sentenced-25-years-prison-engaging-child

Getting Judicial Watch involved would be good (how to make that happen?) but I’d like to see candidates make hay of it, too. Brought up to a sufficient level of attention, the MSM would almost have to cover it, due to the salacious nature of the offenses, and desire for viewership...)

[qaz123]

Just one thread has to be pulled and their whole world collapses as they rat each other out and run for cover. Of course, a good portion of them will be making your latte at Starbucks as most don’t have any real skills. Others will become professors at the big liberal schools and the Ivy League

[Hardens Hollow]

“Of course Trump does what’s necessary when his interests are at stake. Otherwise, not so much. “

If you want to talk about honesty, look at what you said and care trying to wiggle out of.

What you are not getting is that nobody is saying Trump is a Reagan conservative. Or even a real conservative. I haven’t seen that here at all. But he is more conservative than 90% of the other candidates, sadly. And I’m enjoying him taking on the GOPe and MSM. No other candidate since Reagan even attempted this.

But you’d rather assume things about me, fling insults, and be arrogant that you are so much smarter.

Really no difference between talking to you and my liberal neighbor. So I’d rather not - with either of you.

[CatherineofAragon]

No, actually Trump is a Democrat. He told us that in an interview in July, just two or three weeks ago.

On the other hand, Cruz has been a solid Constitutional conservative since the age of 14, when he began to study our founding documents and memorize them. By the time he graduated high school, he had traveled over Texas and given eighty speeches on them.

What does Trump know about the Constitution? Has he ever mentioned it?

I understand why this conversation bothers you. But recognize the lunacy of implying I'm like a liberal, even though you're the one who supports the Democrat.

[WTFOVR]

I agree with you on almost all points of your argument. However, I call attention to your quote:

“Granted, Trump does not need anyone’s money but he has needed favors and cooperation and he has demonstrated that he was willing to go to corrupt lengths to get it. Should he gain the highest office in the land he will, just like every other president, need favors and cooperation from Congressman, bureaucrats, governors, judges, media personalities, and foreign players.”

Now, in all honesty, how is Ted Cruz not “just like every other president” in his need for favors? The fact that his wife is high up in an organization that is notorious in its political influence and corrupt manipulation gives me great pause. I must suspend rational thought to believe that Ted Cruz is somehow inoculated and immune from the influence of GS, particularly when considering his wife’s resume ...

Mrs. Cruz was previously connected with the Federal government:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/heidi-cruz/4/811/777

The fact remains that Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs Executive ... A position to which she ascended immediately after coming out of the Bush-Cheney White House, specifically a seat on the National Security Council. The same Goldman Sachs that is carrying over $53.5 TRILLION (as of 2013)in derivatives exposure against an asset base of $89 Billion – levered up by a factor of over 500X.

Heidi Cruz VOLUNTARILY associates herself with this.

But, I am sure you are correct, Nathan ... I’m sure that Ted Cruz is cut from a different cloth. I am sure that the fact his wife is a Goldman Sachs executive has no bearing on anything political, and that Ted is as pure as the wind-driven snow. (Eye roll)

OK, so Trump is no boy scout. That is certainly understood by any honest observer of the facts. But, while I was born at night (seriously) I was not born last night!

Banksters and Marxist politicians routinely swap jobs. For example: Jon Corzine went from Goldman Sachs to the U.S. Senate and the New Jersey statehouse back out into MF Global. Hank Paulsen went from Goldman Sachs to heading the U.S. Treasury Department, and so on. It is a damn revolving door. It is the way of Washington ... But I am supposed to believe that Ted Cruz will have absolute impartiality in all his decisions - particularly those to do with the finance industry - when his wife is a high up in one of the world’s most leveraged and corrupt banking cartels. THE bank that has its tentacles reaching into every branch of the federal government.

***

Some background;

“I Am Putting Everything In Goldman Sachs Because These Guys Can Do Whatever The Hell They Want”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-28/i-am-putting-everything-goldman-sachs-because-these-guys-can-do-whatever-hell-they-w

***

http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2013/09/promises-promises-detroit-pensions-bondholders-and-super-priority-derivatives/

Here, go about 3/4 down the page and begin reading at

“Banks and Derivative Super-Priority

Both pensioners and general obligation bond holders argue that they should have priority in claiming from the city’s inadequate assets in bankruptcy. However, a different class of creditor has legally senior status. Holders of financial derivatives enjoy super-priority in bankruptcy. Thanks to changes to bankruptcy law in 2005, they are not subject to the ‘automatic stay’ provision intended to prevent a disorderly grab for collateral by competing creditors. As such, they are able to press their claim immediately, prior to bankruptcy proceedings and therefore before claims by competing creditors are considered. This may potentially leave nothing for other creditors to divide during subsequent proceedings: ...”

***

And this series of videos by Ann Barnhardt:

The Economy Is Going To Implode (8 part video series)

http://sgtreport.com/2012/11/shes-baaaack-ann-barnhardt-the-economy-is-going-to-implode-pt-1-of-8/t:

the important points ...

Derivatives exposure of the top 4 banks in the former U.S.

JP Morgan: $78 TRILLION in derivatives / $1.8 Trillion in assets

Citibank: $56 TRILLION in derivatives / $1.2 Trillion in assets

Bank of America: $53 TRILLION in derivatives / $1.5 Trillion in assets

Goldman Sachs (aka US Government): $48 TRILLION in derivatives / $89 BILLION in assets

Got that? GS has the highest leverage ratio of the four top US Banks.

Here are some updated numbers through December 31, 2013 for derivatives exposure for the top 25 banks in the U.S.

http://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq413.pdf

(That table is about 3/4 of the way down the document, on pg 30, Table 1)

The top 25 banks in the U.S. now hold $304 TRILLION in notional derivatives value. The top 5 banks are as follows:

JP Morgan: $70.4 TRILLION
Citigroup: $63.5 TRILLION
Bank of America: $55.7 TRILLION
Goldman Sachs: $53.5 TRILLION
Morgan Stanley: $46.7 TRILLION

TOTAL Derivatives Exposure for Top 5 Banks in the U.S.: $290 TRILLION

Read and weep: Negative Nominal Interest Rates: Highway to a Cashless, Statist Hell

http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/06/26/negative-nominal-interest-rates-highway-to-a-cashless-statist-hell/

“Who are the main counterparties on almost all sovereign debt derivatives? J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Deutschebank. And where do ALL of the people come from who populate the Central Banks, both in the U.S. and in Europe? J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Deutschebank.”

***

My point in this tortured expose is that Ted Cruz is in no way insulated from corruption, despite his “credentials” and rhetoric - particularly because of his wife’s association with a firm that is the top dog in what can only be called the most corrupt global financial system of human history.

Not to say that he is a better or worse man, but only to note that Donald Trump is “small potatoes” in comparison.