If someone defamed you, would you consider it pointless?
If as you say its defamatory, a person should still take legal action to send a message.
Not suing is admission against interest the story is true.
And I’m sure National Enquirer ran the expose by their own lawyers before they ran it.
That’s just it, he hasn’t been legally defamed (libeled) yet and that is my whole point. You can’t just sue because someone prints a story you don’t like. The story would need to meet specific criteria to even consider filing suit. Those criteria simply don’t exist here.
We have a 1st Amendment that protects the press, particularly where politicians are involved. In the case of any public figure, there is a very high burden of proof. A public figure has to be able to prove “actual malice” on the part of the National Enquirer. I’ve read dozens of cases that delve into the fine detail of what constitutes “actual malice” but that discussion is beyond a comment box. Suffice it to say that is a very high legal standard that would be nearly impossible to meet, so much so that it would be reckless for Ted Cruz to file suit. He’s not a liberal, so I would hope he respects the legal system too much for such nonsense.
I agree with you, but what does "admission against interest" mean? Is that legal terminology?