Rand Paul is stepping up and demanding that Susan Rice testify under oath in front of Congress on her unmasking of Trump’s associates and her leaks concerning incidental surveillance they were caught up in. She brazenly lied to NPR last month that she had not done this and now it has been exposed that she did indeed do all of what she is being accused of. In her position as National Security Adviser, asking to unmask certain individuals as a matter of national security is not a crime. However, widely disseminating that information is a felony. It is obvious that Rice did this for political reasons and I suspect, at the direction of Barack Obama and/or Valerie Jarrett.
Paul stated that the reports that Rice made dozens of requests to learn more about the identities of anonymous people thought to be close to the Trump transition team, inadvertently caught on tape during investigations into foreign persons of intelligence interest, was “enormous news.” Yes, it is. The implications are far more criminal and bigger than the Watergate scandal. When this all started, I said that is where this would lead and that is exactly what is occurring here. Rand Paul is asking the same questions I am, “She needs to be asked, ‘did President Obama ask her to do this?’ I think she ought to testify under oath on this.”
As fingers point to President Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice as the individual who requested the ‘unmasking’ of Trumpworld names on raw intelligence reports, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., today demanded that she testify before Congress.
‘I believe Susan Rice abused this system and she did it for political purposes,’ Paul said today on Morning Joe. ‘She needs to be brought in and questioned under oath.’
Bloomberg View columnist Eli Lake wrote that from her position as chief of the National Security Council, Rice asked government agencies to identify names that had been withheld from raw intelligence reports linked with Trump campaign and transition figures.
Monday evening, the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group piggybacked on this reporting, writing that Rice had asked U.S. spy agencies for ‘detailed spreadsheets,’ of legal phone calls involving Trump and his aides during the presidential campaign, U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova told the news site.
‘What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,’ diGenova said.
Paul also tied Monday’s revelations about Rice to the slew of leaks on the topic around the time of the handover of the White House. “I think she should be asked under oath, did she reveal it to the Washington Post?” he asked. Again, he’s correct. Trump and his team were under surveillance for a year before his inauguration. We want to know why and what transpired. Heads are going to roll over this one. It’s beyond explosive.
“I don’t think you should be allowed to listen to Americans’ conversations without a warrant,” Paul said. “They are targeting a foreigner, and because they are targeting a foreigner they are gathering all of this information on Americans. A million Americans are apparently caught up in these incidental conversations,” Paul continued. “Everybody in the Trump Administration transition, they could basically look at those conversations.”
Those ‘detailed spreadsheets’ that were passed around are of great concern and need to be reviewed as well. “This is a big deal,” Paul reiterated. “If the outgoing administration was actually, literally sifting through things and part of the administration already said we were going to scatter, we were going to get as much information, we were going to scatter it out there publicly to try and harm the Trump administration. This was a witch hunt that began with the Obama administration,” Paul charged. “Sour grapes on the way out the door. They were going to use the intelligence apparatus to attack Trump and I think they did,” the senator added. I believe that Rand Paul and Mark Levin are right here… this is a smoking gun and their crimes are just beginning to come out. Buckle up… this is way bigger than any of us thought.
Mark Levin is on a tear and it is a wonder to behold. I just watched him provide solid proof on Fox News on how all these police tactics against President Trump did indeed occur. The media provided most of the proof themselves that the two FISA requests were sought by Obama… the first one in June of last year, which mentioned Trump directly and was denied, and a second that occurred in October last year and was narrowed in scope, then was approved. It looks like it may have been targeting a server in the White House that was emailing Russian banks supposedly. No wrongdoing was found, unless of course you count what Obama did.
Levin has laid out exactly how this should be investigated and he has the full attention of the White House. His findings and recommendations have been circulated to several White House staffers, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. The FISA orders and transcripts should now be made public and hearings should begin over all this. The media is still insisting there is no proof, when they provided said proof. This is insane.
From Conservative Review:
Mark Levin, Conservative Review’s editor-in-chief, recommends the Trump administration open an investigation into Barack Obama. Levin states the former president’s team used police-state tactics against then-candidate Trump during the 2016 election.
“The gravity of this is unparalleled. It appears that during the course of a presidential election, the Obama administration used both intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate the Republican nominee’s campaign and certain surrogates,” Levin tells Conservative Review.
Levin – who served as chief of staff for President Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese – explained the potential scandal on his Thursday evening radio show:
“We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who are supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party. Who were using the … intelligence activities to surveil members of the Trump campaign, and to put that information out in the public.”
“The question is: Was Obama surveilling top Trump campaign officials during the election?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.”
Mark Levin is calling this a silent coup. And he is correct. I’ve looked right at this evidence for months and I never connected the dots. I’m so glad Levin did. It is obvious to me that Barack Obama did know about all this and had Lynch at the DOJ once again do his dirty work. There was and is an orchestrated plan to sabotage the Trump presidency and not only stop him from getting his appointees approved, but stop him from accomplishing anything of merit or that would hurt the Obama legacy.
A myriad of things now look very connected. The protests and riots, Valerie Jarrett moving into Obama’s mansion, Jarrett’s daughter being hired by CNN to cover the DOJ and Jeff Sessions when she’s not even a journalist, the attack on Jeff Sessions himself, and on and on and on. When do we wake up and realize we are at war within? And that Obama and his activists must be stopped and held accountable. You’ve got Loretta Lynch literally calling for blood and death in our streets: “…They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again…” – Loretta Lynch, February 28 2017 This is who we are fighting and we must now see this through and show the left that we will not stand for police state tactics against Americans like this and especially against an elected President.
My sources were whispering this to me even before it broke on Twitter and Fox News this morning. According to President Trump, Obama wiretapped Trump Towers. It is being reported that Obama back in late summer went to the FISA court and requested a wiretap on Trump and he was denied. Then in September, he requested it again and apparently was approved and Trump Tower was bugged. The excuse of collusion with the Russians was supposedly used, but the taps found no evidence whatsoever to support this. This, my friends, does not pass the legal ‘sniff test’.
What I would like to know is if those ‘taps’ are still in place. It would explain a great deal about the leaks in the White House. This is brazen sabotage on the part of Barack Obama. The FISA court should not have granted that request and there is an excellent case here to prosecute Obama on all this. The article was based off a segment by radio host Mark Levin. That whole scandal over Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his reported meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in 2016 was arranged by the Obama administration by the way. It was a trap. Obama’s Watergate may be unfolding right before our eyes here.
From Fox News:
President Trump made a startling claim Saturday that former President Barack Obama had Trump Tower phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.
In early Saturday morning tweets that began at 6:35 a.m., the president said the alleged wiretapping was “McCarthyism” and “Nixon/Watergate.”
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism,” Trump wrote.
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration’s alleged wiretapping.
However, he could be referencing to a Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the Obama administration made two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server in Trump Tower focusing on possible links with Russian banks. No evidence was found.
The mainstream media is saying that Trump has no evidence of this. I’m willing to bet, coming from this many sources, that there is indeed evidence and a lot of it. Mark Levin does not make baseless accusations. Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation. I absolutely agree.
1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
2. July: Russia joke. WikiLeaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.
3. October: Podesta emails. In October, WikiLeaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.
4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.
5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier.Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.
6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.
7. January: Times report. The New York Timesreports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the existence of “a multi-agency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.
8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.
9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Timescites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.
10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Postreports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.
Obama went after Trump to get dirt on him before he was inaugurated by eavesdropping on him. The taps stayed in place even after no evidence was found and may still be in place. Obama also relaxed NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government just before he left office. This left a gaping hole for leaks. Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated. In addition, Levin ripped Republicans in Congress a new one for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama. Levin is exactly right here and this is going to blow up on the Democrats big time.
The first meeting Jeff Sessions had with the Russian Amb was set up by the Obama Administration under education program for 100 Ambs……
LAS VEGAS (October 24, 2016) – Media company CRTV® has announced the formation of a new digital network uniquely rich with honest and informative conservative content seen nowhere else in any medium anywhere. CRTV brings together top thought-provoking personalities Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin and Mark Steyn who will share their knowledge, insightful and powerful ideas, stories and entertainment that cannot be found anywhere on television.
“We have partnered with the best thinkers and storytellers out there and given each the resources to design their own show in their own voice on their own custom set reflective of each of their personalities” according to Chris Crane, Chief Content Officer. “When CRTV officially launches in December 2016, subscribers will be able to access new and original shows in development from Michelle Malkin and Mark Steyn, joining Mark Levin’s highly successful Levin TV®.”
“With the huge success of LevinTV launched earlier this year, we decided to accelerate plans. We know people have rejected liberal media bias and there is an enormous demand for straight, bold, conservative talk and they will get it here from a wide variety of talent. This is much bigger than any of us. It is about our beloved audience.” said Mark Levin. “This is a movement with millions of liberty lovers who know cable TV content doesn’t square with their world-view. Proudly conservative in content, CRTV will allow popular personalities, presenting scholarly thought, culture to comedy, the liberty to be themselves. And, viewers will have the freedom to consume straightforward, candid, unfiltered, commercial-free, content whenever and wherever they want.”
Best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and social media pioneer, Michelle Malkin, will bring CRTV subscribers a groundbreaking investigative program: Michelle Malkin Investigates. Michelle’s exclusive, on-the-ground investigative reporting of stories ignored by the “mainstream media” will only be on CRTV. “I’m excited to join CRTV—soon to be a leader in the digital media world. We plan to deliver news-breaking, substantive content to an underserved audience” said Michelle Malkin. “After years of digging deep for the truth and uncovering hidden scandals, I look forward to my over 2 million social media followers being able to watch my original show direct and unfiltered.”
Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a Top Five jazz recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. He is also a popular guest host of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Mark’s writing on politics, arts and culture has been published in almost every major newspaper around the English-speaking world and he has entertained sold-out crowds from the American Midwest to the Australian Outback. The Mark Steyn Show harks back to when television was worth watching with real content, real guests, and real intellectual debate. Steyn said, “In this day and age of news lacking substance and entertainment lacking style, I’m honored to join two of my favorite writers Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin at CRTV where the content always come first.”
How to Watch
CRTV launches in December and can be accessed on any digital or mobile device. Enjoy an entire year of CRTV for $99, available directly to you, commercial free, to watch when and what you want, where and when you want it. Save $10 by subscribing before December launch, with a yearly subscription of $89. Monthly subscriptions are $12. Current LevinTV subscribers will receive a free upgrade to a CRTV subscription until their next renewal date.
CRTV is your source for the most thought-provoking personalities and conservative ideas that are not available from traditional media outlets. CRTV has developed a new style in producing compelling content with stunning production quality and unique broadcast sets built to capture the individual personality and passion of each program. CRTV is developing the best programming – advocating freedom and liberty – that is delivered directly to viewers – when and where they want it. For more information, visit www.CRTV.com.
“The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.” – Thomas Jefferson
In early March of 2015, I published an article on my blog detailing explosive revelations shared between journalist and radio host, Susan Payne, and conservative media titan, Mark Levin. Even at the time, the story seemed like one that should have gone national. It did not. However, many developments have brought critical aspects into focus that were unclear a year ago.
According to Ms. Payne, she had been privy to listening-in on multiple conference calls between Barack Obama and 16 members of his cabinet. What she uncovered was shocking and disturbing – even by the new ‘ObamAmerica’ standards to which we’ve become accustomed.
The administration’s weaponization of illegal aliens and refugees may be far more sinister than even the most ardent opponents have yet imagined.
On one of these such calls, Obama conducted a meeting with his new ‘Task Force On New Americans,’ chaired by Cecilia Munoz, former vice president of the radical, Hispanic race-supremacy group La Raza (‘The Race’).
“Remember when he (Obama) went to Las Vegas? The media said he was signing an executive order for five million illegal aliens to become deferred. In reality, what he did was sign a memorandum that created the ‘Task Force On New Americans,’ which was going to implement his ‘amnesty mill’ for the five million illegals – which I believe is going to be more than that… On these conference calls, it became clear that he’s looking at 13 to 15 million to give protection and move them on to citizenship.” – Payne
These initial “new Americans” are to be used as “seedlings” in the construction of a “country within a country,” which would help complete a full ‘fundamental transformation’ of the United States.
Specific cities are being designated as “receiving communities” (sanctuary cities) to which illegals are being bused and flown at the expense of American taxpayers. These communities are being used as incubators for an entirely new population that assist in bringing ‘people in the shadows’ into the light – to essentially conquer proper citizens and push them into the underclasses over time.
Cabinet members discussed the importance of designating upon these illegals ‘refugee status,’ and to then make them aware of their ‘rights’ as they pertain to massive income tax credits (to the tune of $35,000 in some cases), free medical care, free in-state tuition, 0% personal loans, credit cards, and other forms of ‘free cash’ – all at taxpayer expense.
Additionally, there was emphasis placed on the importance of waves of older illegal immigrants“aging successfully” by being immediately slip-streamed into the Social Security program that the Congressional Budget Office has already warned will be completely exhausted by 2030. This is, of course, despite the fact that they would be illegally and undeservedly sucking dry the mandatory lifetime contributions of American workers.
It was also made clear that this ‘protected class’ of illegal aliens from South and Central America, Mexico, Haiti, Syria, Africa, and the Middle East would not be interested in – nor expected to be – integrating, but to instead “navigate” their way through our society and culture until theirs’ dominate.
Since the time of this interview, Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal Mexican with a lengthy rap sheet – who had been deported five times. Savvy Americans then became aware of ‘sanctuary cities’ run by criminal mayors – of which there are currently over 300in the United States, San Francisco included. The Steinle killing resulted in the ousting of the city’s subversive, lawless sheriff – a story that also received almost no media coverage.
Probably more deleterious than the inundation of aliens from pseudo-Christian nations south of the U.S., is the importation of millions of Muslims from jihadist hot zones in the Middle East and Africa. Obama and his cabal are flooding American small towns and cities with some of the most anti-Western, least-integratatory people in the world. As I have chronicled, my small community in Idaho has been working fervently to beat back the infiltration – and we are just a pinprick on the map.
“The bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy,there are going to be consequences to it … If they don’t, they’ve got a problem. And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward.” – Barack Obama
What has become clear since the Payne-Levin conversation is that the plans of Obama and his cabinet far exceeded what many regarded as ‘conventional’ illegal immigration. The general public has only been aware of ‘Syrian refugees’ for a short time, but the Muslim-In-Chief has been seeding communities of his ilk within our borders at dizzying speed. The economic and cultural ramifications are beyond comprehension, but the security compromises are wholly unforgivable.
If Ms. Payne’s revelations are accurate, this may be the most incendiary revelation of Obama’s treasonous machinations to implode the United States. It is clear that this plan has been in the works since he took office, and it is now rapidly coming to a head, as his foot soldiers work around the clock to prepare paperwork and pave the way for execution of the gory details. The writing is on the wall: this is a pivotal moment for the nation and will determine our future and that of our children.
There is no question in the minds of sane Americans – not only should impeachment proceedings be brought against Obama, but he should be arrested, along with all of his co-conspirators. That is what would have happened prior to the advent of the post-constitutional United States.
While this author would think that a self-proclaimed group of “Conservative Misfits” would go after establishment types or perhaps the socialists who have taken over the Democrat party, “sundance” at the Last Refuge prefers to target Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz, while lauding Donald Trump almost as loudly as Breitbart has been of late.
With friends like this, conservatives don’t need enemies.
Consider the latest smear piece by “sundance.” It cites a “report” which is actually a series of tweets claiming that a man named “Don Fairly” left the Cruz campaign along with seven other staffers.
Cruz smear piece cites “report” at the Last Refuge
The claims were made by @LandmanMarius, a man (presumably) whose tweets consist solely about the touting the awesomeness of Trump while relentlessly bashing Cruz:
Here is the first tweet:
BREAKING: Donald Fairly resigns from IOWA Cruz campaign. Says Ted Cruz is impossible & rude.
More news in morning! pic.twitter.com/mhQbnkqYS4
The fake photo of “Don Fairly” is actually of Dushaun Fairley, a real estate advisor who lives in San Diego according to his LinkedIn page. As far as @LandmanMarius, his photo is evidently fake as well (see here and here). Donald Trump gave him a shout out here:
Donald Trump had a literal meltdown and attacked Ted Cruz on Twitter. Not good. I guess the honeymoon is over. Too bad, they would have gone well together. Ted Cruz mocked him for it. His retort was epic:
So, the gloves have come off and now Trump is slinging mud as fast as he can. He’s claiming Cruz is not a US citizen which is just ludicrous. He’s claiming that Cruz took loans he has not declared, which is also not true. Trump says that Cruz is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs. Why? Because his wife used to work there? Also bull crap. I used to work for Lionel, Sawyer and Collins and Harry Reid doesn’t own me. Ted is living rent free in Trump’s head and it is driving him nuts. Everyone knows what Cruz meant on New York values… he was referring to commies like de Blasio and Bloomberg. Get a grip man before you implode.
Mark Levin has staunchly defended Ted Cruz, pointing out the obvious, that he is indeed a US citizen. Now, he’s coming to his defense again on this New York nonsense. Levin said that you have to be out of your mind to believe that Ted Cruz was trashing the police, firefighters or any emergency personnel in New York. There is no one out there that respects New Yorkers and what happened on 9/11 more than Ted Cruz does. As I just said, he’s referring to the values of New York liberal Progressives that run the state.
When Trump brought up 9/11 in response to Cruz’s explanation on this, Levin said he actually started to cringe. Levin asked what the World Trade Center has to do with anything? It’s something he’d expect a liberal to say because it has nothing to do with Ted Cruz’s point.
Evidently, Trump thinks the birther angle got him some traction and he is doubling and tripling down against Cruz because the poll numbers in Iowa favor Ted. He was roundly booed in South Carolina when he started taking cheap shots at Cruz. I’ve never seen a crowd turn on Trump for attacking another candidate, but they sure as heck did in South Carolina. The rally was held in Myrtle Beach, SC. Donald Trump attempted to attack Ted Cruz using a New York Times hit piece and was booed by the crowd. Watch and see for yourself:
Among conservatives, Donald Trump can typically do no wrong — until he attacks Ted Cruz.
On Saturday, Trump drew boos from a grassroots conservative crowd during remarks at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention for his attack on Cruz’s previously undisclosed loans.
“You give a campaign contribution to Ted Cruz, you get whatever the hell you want,” he said, before boos erupted from the crowd.
Trump went on as the boos grew louder: “Say whatever you want, it’s okay, he didn’t report his bank loans. He’s got bank loans from Goldman Sachs, he’s got bank loans from Citibank, folks, and then he acts like Robin Hood?”
Trump was less than popular at that gathering. It looks like he hit a brick wall there. The strategy to go after Cruz this way was badly considered. He calls Cruz a nice guy over and over as he campaigns, but that just changed as well. On ABC this morning, Trump said Cruz is a ‘nasty’ guy that nobody likes. That’s stepping over the line even for me. You won’t find a nicer or more Godly man than Ted Cruz. By all accounts, he is a kind and genuinely good man. He’s not liked because he won’t compromise his principles and he believes in the Constitution. Going on ABC that way is hitting below the belt and is not the mark of a leader with character.
‘Look, the truth is, he’s a nasty guy. He was so nice to me. I mean, I knew it. I was watching. I kept saying, “Come on Ted. Let’s go, okay.” But he’s a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him.
‘Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him. He’s a very – he’s got an edge that’s not good. You can’t make deals with people like that and it’s not a good thing. It’s not a good thing for the country. Very nasty guy.’
He added: ‘He’s a total hypocrite.
I’m trying very hard here not to get really ticked off. Funny how Trump thought Ted was a friend and a great guy until he rose in the polls and looked like he would take Iowa. Even after his ‘New York’ comment, he won the New York Straw Poll:
Cruz declined to comment on the Times report when asked by a CNN reporter during an appearance in Columbia, South Carolina on Friday. But speaking to reporters at a church not far from Charlotte on Saturday, Cruz, who once declined to attack Trump, shed any caution he may have had about laying into his top rival.
“I would note that Donald’s record does not match what he says as a candidate,” Cruz said, gamely tackling questions he routinely swatted away for seven months.
Cruz also aggressively ridiculed Trump’s obsession with the latest opinion surveys, saying that Trump’s attacks on Twitter come because he is “dismayed” about a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing a competitive race.
“I imagine it pulled him out of bed this morning and send him tweeting and tweeting and tweeting,” he said. “I think in terms of a commander in chief, we ought to have someone who isn’t springing out of bed to tweet in a frantic response to the latest poll.
Cruz referred repeatedly to an interview Trump did with NBC News’ Tim Russert 17 years ago, in which he defines his “New York values” as distinct from “Iowa values.” Cruz said those values — pro-abortion rights, including supporting partial birth abortion and pro-gay marriage — explained Trump’s world view. And he dredged up the former Democrat’s donation history to some of the state’s leading politicians, including Hillary Clinton.
“Given the fact that for much of his life, Donald was financially supporting those politicians — writing checks to Hillary Clinton, writing checks to Andrew Cuomo — it is a fair inference that he supports their policies,” Cruz said.
The Texas senator, then asked for some differences on national security between him and Trump, offered that was unaware of what Trump’s foreign policy is.
“To be honest, I don’t know what Donald’s position is,” Cruz said.
Everyone needs to take a breath here. This is exactly what the leftists and the RINOs want guys. For you to be at each other’s throats. Trump is floating Scott Brown as a VP now. Seriously? Brown is a Progressive and a stone cold stupid pick for VP. We are getting close to the Iowa caucus and I still expect Ted Cruz to win it. Trump needs to consider his attacks, words and choices out there very carefully now. Run on the issues, not each other and lay off the Twitter attacks. I’ll leave you with what Mark Levin had to say – he nailed it:
Either cut the crap – your accusations this morning that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by big banks etc. – or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives. Save the liberal New York City bully tactics for the New York City liberals. Put down your computer keyboard for a few hours, think before you tweet, and collect yourself. You’re not politically invincible, regardless of the polls and media. I am already hearing more and more people getting fed up with the low road you’re taking against Cruz, which has obviously intensified this morning. You don’t need to attack his honor or attempt to smear his reputation. You can leave that to Mitch McConnell and the New York Times. Engage on real and substantive issues that matter to the country. Like I said, my friendly advice.