Posted on 03/29/2016 4:41:08 PM PDT by Signalman
Of course anyone can sue for anything. But to win you have to prove knew it was false and published it with malicious intent. They don’t have to prove anything. How would you prove they made it up? Infuriating as it may be it would stifle honest reporting otherwise. You could never print any allegations unless the source was willing to go public and testify in court.
Ah yes, the haughty insult tool ... you’re such a good example of Freerepublic. NOT
_____________________________________________________
As opposed to the person who was ignorant/lying, yeah got it.
Don't know but I bet I know who you could ask. Sarah Palin, she was accused of having an affair by the N.E.
Did she sue or is she a adulterer? Just using Trump Republic logic here. Explain why she didn't sue? If she isn't a adulterer and didn't sue use that same explanation for Cruz or the women not sueing.
Trump Republic Smear Merchant #10234. You know it's a lie, we know it's a lie and yet you continue to spam the lie on most all threads you post to. Why? Are you a liar by nature or are you a Troll looking to cause coax here?
State the specific allegation, sentence and page that it was printed on.
Fact is you can't because they didn't. It was an intentional Smear Job by Donald Trump's personal Friend who owns the N.E. Mr. David Pecker.
The only person keeping this story alive... Is Cruz.
You have no evidence at all Trump did anything with the Cuban Mistress Crisis. On the otherhand, we have evidence the entire “Trump is a PoopyHead” strategy was pre-planned to deflect and confuse the Cuban Mistress Crisis story.
Go back to your NAFTA creating Ivy League DC Insider Lawyer for more smear information. The more people know how slimy the Cruz camp is here with the blame game the worse it will be for the Establishment.
Well, Carol Burnett obviously did, because didn't she win megabucks many years ago? So, it can be done. And as poster scruzawa mentioned earlier:
It wouldn’t cost him anything to mention a lawsuit against the NE.
The fact that he's not even mentioning one says so much. But of course, even without that little detail, it seems so obvious that he's lying.
Do you think Judge Judy would buy any of his "excuses"? I don't. I believe she'd call him guilty right away, in the same way that she said she knew that Clinton was lying about Lewinsky.
Note: calling something "garbage" is not the same as calling something untrue.
Has Cruz made a simple and unequivocated statement "I have never been unfaithful to my wife"? I may have missed it.
Burnett won because it was shown that they went well beyond what their sources said in exaggerating the story. Their “source” flatly denied telling them what they alleged. I doubt the Inquirer made that mistake here.
**********************************************************
“In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn’t amused and ‘accidentally’ spilled a glass of water over Carol’s dress.”
During the trial, it became apparent that the Enquirer had published the story on the basis of the account of a paid informant, Couri Hays. Hays had told the Enquirer that Burnett had taken her souffle around the restaurant in a boisterous manner, but that she was emphatically not drunk. He had not said anything about Kissinger. An Enquirer reporter had attempted to verify the story but had discovered nothing other than that Burnett had shared her souffle and had conversed with Kissinger. Despite this, it had published the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.
Smear? No. A question, yes. Time will tell.
But that’s my whole point. Either Cruz is guilty, or the NE did the exact same thing with him as they did with Burnett. The odds that 5 separate women would falsely accuse him are basically nil, especially since there’s absolutely no evidence that anyone put them up to it.
A third possibility is the sources are wrong or lying. They don't claim the women are the sources. In fact it's unlikely in some cases.
Supposedly Heidi is soon to show up with Fiorina.
After canceling events all week
No biggie
Was out having a peddy...
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.