When you read the story, you see that they do not actually accuse Cruz of anything.
The eyes are blacked out on the photos and they carefully place the words “alleged” and “rumored” etc... Throughout the article.
If they came right out and said “Cruz slept with Pierson”. Both can sue.
They say instead”Cruz was rumored to have slept with this blurry picture of someone who may have been Pierson” they cannot be sued.
They do not have the goods, or they would say so.
You don’t play much poker do you. You never expose the strength of your hand, you entice your opponent to engage you to build the pot. After you have them hooked and committed to the game, you then expose them and take them for what ever you can. Poker and politics, not much different.
The National Enquirer magazine articles on the John Edwards scandal, almost won a Pulitzer Prize for their investigative work on that story which took John Edwards down.
They have helped to “take down” quite a few “big” name folks and were proven right.
When you almost win a Pulitzer for your work, you have a little bit of “cred”.
OBTW....I believe the author of the Cruz article is the SAME ONE that did the John Edwards investigation.....
I think it is legit, for several reasons (no denial, odder than usual fake outrage of Cruz in last day or so, confirmation from Wash Times columnist, Breitbart writer, Cruz emails in Ashley Madison dump from last year, Nat Enq running with it knowing that Cruz is a brilliant lawyer...)
Even with the wording if false Cruz will would have grounds to sue for the negative effect on his character.