Of those two things, both arguably "wrongs," one is detrimenting Trump, and that is what he characterizes as misrepresenting his position. For example, Cruz says Trump is anti-RKBA, for single payer health care, and pro-choice.
I'm pretty sure Cruz is at least annoyed by the lawsuits popping up that challenge his eligibility, and that he would not welcome a onslaught of them from an opponent on the ballot. So, Trump is using the "stick" part of "carrot and stick" persuasion, in an attempt to get Cruz to temper his allegations about Trump's policy positions.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Cruz is ineligible, what does the fact that he is running anyway, say about him?
Ultimately, the author is taking a one-sided view of the issue, and has produced what is essentially an advocacy piece. He's entitled to, of course. But the author is not objective, and fails to make his argument using logic and reason.
Cruz knows a heck of a lot more about the law and about the Constitution than I do and than you do and certainly more than Trump does.
Cruz believes he is eligible, based on his legal knowledge, or he would not be running.
Nobody but God is perfectly objective. I find it better for peace of mind not to pretend.
As for your “assuming Cruz is ineligible” what does it say that he’s running anyway, what that tells me is he sincerely believes he has a legally sound, good faith argument that he really is eligible. Reading more into it than that goes to mind-reading. You can’t prove nefarious intent without at least some scintilla of evidence. Without evidence, all I can see in your suggestion is defamation by innuendo.
Peace,
SR