Ah yes, the haughty insult tool ... you’re such a good example of Freerepublic. NOT
It wasn't very nice, but do you know why he said what he did about libel law?
A public figure must prove "actual malice" to win a libel suit, and that suit can take years and many millions of dollars to win.
Actual malice means that the publisher was more than just wrong; the publisher must either have KNOWN the story was false or, at least, have actually harbored a serious doubt about it. This rule effectively shields a publisher from liability of some (often well-bribed) liars come forward and lie. (And even if the libeled public figure wins, like I said, victory can come years later at the cost of millions.)
So the "Cruz didn't sue, so it must be true" reasoning is faulty at best.
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.