WRONG! Trump said "if from what I hear". That means he is just repeating the rumors spread about on the internet. I already told you I know for 1000% certainty that no one from the Cruz campaign obtained the rights for the picture/shoot from Wright Media. 1000% certainty! This is just Trump lying, when he could damn well verify that himself.
and yet you have still not offered up a single shred of evidence to support that claim
I already told you I know for 1000% certainty that no one from the Cruz campaign obtained the rights for the picture/shoot from Wright Media. 1000% certainty!
.................................................
Prove it!
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gq-editor-recalls-donald-trump-878336
Mr.Dem,
Do you not think that Trump has Verglas’s telephone number in his roledex? Considering that Trump arranged for the shoot, lent his plane and reviewed the photos? While I have no proof that Trump has called Verglas, it is not out of the possibility that Trump called him in the last few days and asked “What’s Up?”
You have been AWOL without posting for over 4 years and you come back yesterday and today saying you have 1000% certainty. Just who the hell are you that you think your credibility means anything around here.
Share your data for a FR peer review if you got it. Otherwise, I could just as easily say I know that Jeff Roe is slime. His dirty tactics led to a candidate in MO committing suicide. It has been said that Jeff Roe paid for the pictures. So, show the evidence and prove me wrong.
Just as an aside, by doing nothing, the damage to Cruz runs on and on unabated, until Cruz does the investigation. Note that Cruz never apologized about his campaign people posting the nude picture. Where is your outrage?
The only way you could know that is to know how the rights were obtained.
Tell the rest of us, please.
“I know for 1000% certainty that no one from the Cruz campaign obtained the rights for the picture/shoot from Wright Media. 1000% certainty! This is just Trump lying, when he could damn well verify that himself.”
How do you know that? If Trump could verify it, can you? Why should he? He said he was only saying what he heard, like Cruz the day after the Utah primary.
But isn’t someone on Cruz’s team, somewhere in the chain-of-custody, on the horns of a dilemma here?
They either played a dirty trick or they may have broken a law.
If it was Cruz, through `Make America Awesome Again’ through Carly’s PAC—and, as you say no one obtained the rights—didn’t someone violate copyright law or some photog’s contractual rights?
These are political dirty tricks, both the photo and the rumors of Cruz’s affairs. If substantiated, our favorite Inspector Javert: Ted Cruz, his extracurricular activities certainly may be more serious than Trump talking with his pal Mr. Pecker of the NE, Trump: “Yeah, the nerve of that SOB! My wife! .... Uh, what? He did what?! And I heard that ... “ And then he hung up the phone. `Hate speech’?
But the real political significance is that while Americans may be titillated by such things many social conservatives are offended by the prurient nature of such things, while the rest of us of a more temporal nature are thinking, `How appropriate is all of us to serious matters, like whether my daughter is going to be able to get a full-time job? How long will the ghoulish paractices continue in Planned Parenthood? Are those crazy Iranians going to blow us all up? Are we going to have financial meltdown, unable to re-finance our US Treasury credit card for the umpteenth time. And so forth and so on. You know, the issues.
So now the pol trolls are trying to trip one another up with “Who shot John?”= who lied about pulling dirty tricks? trying to influence those of us who are sincerely appalled over this stuff while the rest of us shake our heads over the farcical Cage aux Folle goings on.
One last thing to keep in mind, as you Cruz supporters have reminded us every day. Trump has never held himself out as a saint. So what has Trump done, besides object to his wife of five years, mother of his child, being portrayed in a sixteen year old GQ cover shoot on Facebook on the eve of a primary?
Oh yeah? Prove it. He said he had nothing to do with the National Enquirer running this story. That’s journalism, not politics.
You're Donald Trump. You know all the details, you've got access to actual documents. You pick up the phone and make some calls, or one of your lawyers does. Her contract is with the photographer. He says, I sold limited rights. Somebody is in trouble.
The only people talking now are those who know they did nothing wrong. So far that's only the photographer. Everyone else is in CYA mode. But again, it does give the press and the pundits (and the public) a new chew toy to occupy their time.