How I Know The National Enquirer Cruz Affair Story Is Bull [crap]

PDFs of the National Enquirer article about Ted Cruz having five affairs were sent to me by a friend on Wednesday evening. When he sent it, my buddy reminded me that the National Enquirer has been right about this kind of stuff before, like in the case of former Senator Edwards.

I read the article about the Cruz affairs, but for many reasons including the fact that Roger Stone, Trump friend and "hit man" was quoted in the story paid it no heed (although it did make me wonder if Stone is the one who planted the story).

My friend was correct when he said the supermarket tabloid has been proven right at times, but the National Enquirer has been wrong more than it's been right.

Consider stories such as Hillary Clinton has brain cancer (it may seem that way but her only mental disease is extreme liberalism), Angelina Jolie was down to 83 pounds and near death (there was a recent picture of her in the latest Vanity Fair and she looks pretty hot for a dead lady), and of course Michelle Obama’s planned divorce because the president has been with 12 different women (with all the time he is taking to ruin the country he has little time to sleep around). Face it this is the magazine that has said Faith Hill and Tim McGraw were getting divorced so many times that I am sure the still happily married couple must be beginning to doubt themselves.

But on Friday the Cruz story erupted, and things I should have noticed when I first read the story on Wednesday came to light.

For example, three of the five women have been identified, one of the women Amanda Carpenter I know personally. Not that we are good friends but she is more of a friend to some of my good friends. And from everything I know about Amanda, everything I’ve read about her, and from posts on her Facebook page about her family, I feel comfortable betting big money on the fact that Amanda has never cheated on her husband with Ted Cruz, or any one else.

Amanda vehemently denied the story on CNN today (see the video below). Another of the five women who have been identified is Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson who has denied the accusations and a third who has been identified is former Carly Fiorina staffer Sarah Isgur Flores who hasn't denied it yet, but I am sure it's coming.

The Enquirer piece neglected to mention that National Enquirer owner David Pecker is a close friend of Trump's and this is not the first time the magazine tried to destroy a Trump rival.

This past October 7th issue, on the same cover that announced Ben Afflack and Jennifer Lopez were once again an item (no one told them), the

National Enquirer promoted a story about how Ben Carson butchered a child’s brain. Inside they published a story about Dr. Ben Carson (who just so happened to be catching up to Donald Trump in the polls) called "Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain!" (which btw sounds like the title of a great horror film). Per the article, Carson "brandished a scalpel like a meat cleaver!" (meat cleaver? Who knew he did circumcisions). The article said he botched surgeries leaving patients disfigured and in pain. According to the author of the piece "Judging by White House wannabe Ben Carson's track record as a neurosurgeon, his presidential campaign should be declared dead on arrival!"

When Carly Fiorina had an excellent debate in September and began to rise in the polls the Enquirer ran an article called, "Homewrecker Carly Fiorina Lied About Druggie Daughter"

That story however, didn’t make the cover because of more important stories such as "Joan Rivers Death Cover Up," "Dolly Parton's 6-year Affair" and of course, "Tom Selleck's $25 Million Divorce Shocker."

Why would the Enquirer run a hit pieces on Donald Trump’s opponents when they just so happened to be creeping up in the polls on “The Donald?” According to an October 2015 issue of New York Magazine:

My favorite story coming out of this bogus scandal is that Breitbart.com had the story but former editor Ben Shapiro killed it. Think about that one for a second. They are talking about the guy who recently quit his position at Brietbart because he couldn't get management to support reporter Michelle Fields who was attacked by Trump's campaign manager. If Ben Shapiro had that kind of power at Breitbart wouldn't he have gotten them to treat Michelle Fields better so he wouldn't have felt he had to resign?

It is very difficult to prove a negative, especially when the story is about five affairs that never happened. But for all the reasons stated above I believe this National Enquirer tale is nothing more than a political smear.

I don't know it was placed by Trump operatives or whether, there were simply no aliens from a different planet working at a Kosher ice cream shoppe in Secaucus N.J. for the Enquirer to write about this week, causing David Pecker to order his staff to come up with a false rumor about Trump's only real remaining opponent to fill the magazine's pages.

In the end this is a familiar story; strong conservative women are having their reputation and dignity impugned (which coincidently is the type of attack the Trump team likes best, just ask Megyn Kelly, Cheri Jacobus, or Carly Fiorina just to name a few).

Who the photographer sues will be decided by the lawyers. He states he has already contacted them. The list of defendants is usual not available until the papers are filed with the court.

Often the initial list is long from ham to sammich as dad often said. It enables the plaintiff to plea bargain for testimony. “you agree to testify to xyz and we will drop you as a defendant!” Kind of wheeling and dealing.

Depending on his contract with GQ he may also sue them for releasing the picture without his approval. ( he may end up owning the publisher) that said:

The real issue in a suit is not the punitive damages but naming and embarrassing individuals who don’t play by rules. And using them as an example for others To use an artist’s work without approval is a no NO in western society. In Asia it’s quite different

But you clearly stated that she is a “Cruz Operative”, implying that she works for Cruz. She does not. You issued a statement that was untrue in an attempt to deceive others. Most people call that lying.

And you are so besotted with an insidious creep that you REFUSE to watch a 6 minute video that proves what an assholes Cruz and his supporters are. That puts you in the category of “Disappointing”.

First of all, I did watch the interview. Second of all, I am not the one here who is lying. You are. And that is what I call disappointing.

To me there is big difference. I am a supporter of Trump. I do not go on to TV shows doing what Andrea McWilliam does. She goes forth setting up future attacks and the video is proof thereof. That is an operative.

As far as I am concerned Andrea McWilliams is an operative setting up attacks on Cruz opposition. Now in you mind this Cruz "Supporter" is Saintly. Well in my mind she is an operative doing Cruz's dirty work.

Now you make a big deal about me using “Operative” once. I use supporter everywhere else.

Sorry, but I didn't run with the faked Enquirer to the extent It was. I read a second, different opinion that said there were three other babes. Also heard a CIA analyst (former) state that based on the little there was in Cruz’ statement, that his initial failure to deny but to shift blame to Trump was a diversion and never stated, at that point that he did not have the liaisons.

I know there was a subsequent TV interview demanding Cruz’ state a denial or admission. So, what do you think he would say at that point? Also what would cause his wife to have a breakdown AND now cancel a rally she was to address?

My heart goes out to his wife. I WAS open minded towards Cruz, then saw what he did to Carson, I heard Cruz accuse Trump of saying something Trump did not say, as I watched the Trump presentation. To me that is a lie. I also have a deep distrust on those who are always bringing up God, as it is an out. Say your preferences for God a few times and then stop pandering to those who go by “faith” as opposed to an analysis.

BTW thank you for the come back.

Hi Tuketu, I didn't, and still do not disagree with anything you've written.

I only CC'ed you, along with everyone else on the thread to alert people to the faked report of the "three babes", 
so that it would hopefully not be quoted any more and make FR look like fools.

Your points are on track...
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Cruz has cheated and that Heidi knows it. 

I even read a story (I think it was in Time?) where they seemed to presume his cheating was true, and it started to cover for him, 
explaining how Ted and Heidi were separated for years sometimes by 1500 miles, or sometimes by 200 miles, 
and that story sounded like it was making excuses for Ted. 

     (Why would they do that unless they KNEW the sex story had some truth?)

It seems most likely that more and more of the "Cuban Missile Crisis in his pants" story will get told, 
and Ted will eventually falter in the eyes of ultra-conservatives

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.